21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/1

—

having regard to the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Mid-term review/revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020, An EU budget focused on results (COM(2016) 603 final) (1) and its accompanying document,

—

having regard to its opinion on the mid-term revision of the MFF (2),

1.

takes note of the detailed proposal of the mid-term review of the MFF presented by the European Commission on 14 September 2016;

2.

supports linking negotiations on the mid-term review to the budgetary procedure for the EU Budget for 2017; this timeline will allow for a timely adoption of the mid-term review and leave room for discussions on the next MFF post-2020;

3.

regrets the lack of ambition of the European Commission in presenting only a review of the MFF, which has already reached its limits, instead of a full-scale revision allowing the European Union to address current challenges with which it is confronted and to ensure that the EU’s budget concentrates on areas that lead to sustainable growth and job creation, with a strong European added value; expects the next MFF to make a significant step towards modernising its budget and enabling it to address future challenges as well as tackle new priorities which have emerged;

4.

notes that this mid-term review reflects the European Commission’s approach ‘an EU budget focused on results’, but is concerned that the absorption rate of EU programmes has apparently been the main criterion for proposed changes in appropriations; and reiterates its offer to the European Institutions to play an active role in the process of assessing the efficiency and the effectiveness of all EU programmes;

5.

strongly rejects the impression given in the MFF communication that shared management programmes are not working, and stresses the fact that, despite the delays in adopting the new ESIF regulations and the very complex programming procedure, more than 200 000 projects have started and EUR 46 billion of ESIF funds have already been committed to co-finance projects worth EUR 68 billion;

6.

in this regard, warns that the possible suspension of the European Structural and Investment Funds for Spain and Portugal — or any other Member State — is detrimental to programme implementation. It points out that (a) the CoR is opposed to macroeconomic conditionality as it penalises cities and regions; (b) it would run counter to the cancellations of sanctions that have already taken place under the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area; and (c) it violates the principle of proportionality set out in Article 5 TEU and its Protocol No 2. Therefore calls for any suspension that may be imposed to be set at zero, taking account of the economic and social circumstances, unemployment and the impact of suspension on their economies, as stipulated in Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (Common Provisions Regulation);

7.

is indeed concerned about a tendency of ‘centralisation’ of the EU budget, which would clearly run against finding tailor made solutions to local and regional challenges, the reduction in the shared management of programmes would negatively affect the EU Treaty obligation of economic, social and territorial cohesion, and the principles of subsidiarity, partnership and multi-level governance;

8.

regrets that the adjustments of cohesion policy envelopes are included in the mid-term review of the MFF and whilst they are obligatory according to Article 7 of the MFF Regulation, these adjustments should not be further negotiated;

9.

welcomes in principle the proposal for an extension and reinforcement of the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) which will be the subject of a separate CoR opinion; expects further improvements in the areas of additionality, geographical and sectorial coverage, as well as transparency, reiterates the request for a proper assessment of the EFSI results, in particular its synergies with ESIF funds and their contribution to territorial cohesion so far, and looks forwards to a close cooperation with the European Parliament in scrutinising EFSI implementation, in the hope that the regions will be more closely involved in governance with a view to ensuring effective integration with cohesion policy;

10.

welcomes the increase in financial appropriations for Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) programmes, but underlines that these increases do not compensate for the initial budgetary cuts to Horizon 2020 and CEF when creating the EFSI;

11.

takes note of the European Commission proposal for a review of the financial regulation and its intension to simplify rules to address problems linked to administrative complexity and errors in Cohesion Policy, particularly with regard to implementing programmes under shared management and reinforced synergies between grants and financial instruments; will address the review in detail in a separate opinion;

12.

welcomes the increase in budget appropriations for the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) and for the Erasmus+ programme, but is disappointed by the lack of initiatives to tackle long-term unemployment;

13.

takes note of the flexibility measures proposed by the European Commission — in particular the creation of a European Union Crisis Reserve to reuse de-committed appropriations, the removal of annual caps for Global Margins for Payments, and the targeted use of the technical adjustment of Cohesion policy envelopes; acknowledges these as good steps forward in addressing current crises with a more flexible EU Budget;

14.

regrets that no additional measures have been suggested by the European Commission in the mid-term review to address the various crises in the EU related to the Common Agricultural Policy, among which concentration of production, increased global competition, reduction of workforce and growing rural decline, which European farmers, consumers and local and regional authorities will be confronted with up until the end of the current programming period;

15.

in light of the ambitious global climate agreement reached in Paris in 2015, recalls the target of 20 % of EU spending on climate-related projects and policies but underlines that this share represents a minimum and further efforts are probably necessary to ensure that it can be sustained until 2020;

16.

welcomes a detailed medium-term payments forecast, addressing concerns over the payments backlog in the current MFF; is worried nevertheless about future payments, given persistent delays in the implementation of programs under shared management; highlights the responsibility of Member States and in the Council to make sufficient payment appropriations available in the annual budgets so that the EU has the means to address current challenges;

17.

is concerned that, despite increases under Headings 3 and 4 to deal with the refugee and migration crisis, the creation of the European Union Crisis Reserve and a ‘flexibility cushion’, the resources available in the current MFF are insufficient to address the growing demands on the EU budget in terms of the reception, distribution and integration of refugees and migrants or their protection in their areas of origin; recalls in this context that local and regional authorities have key responsibilities in receiving and integrating migrants and that therefore direct access by them to relevant EU funding opportunities would greatly help them to face these challenges; warns that more flexibility is not the solution to insufficient financial resources;

18.

takes note of the proposal for the creation of a European Fund for Sustainable Development, and will address this in more detail in a separate opinion;

19.

takes note that the potential withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union could have an effect on the current Multiannual Financial Framework; is concerned about the consequences on the ongoing implementation of many EU programmes and suggests an early involvement of the CoR in further discussions on revising the current MFF;

20.

welcomes the chapter ‘Towards the next Multiannual Financial Framework’ as an initial contribution to a wider debate on the future of the EU budget; invites the EU institutions to an early dialogue with Europe’s cities and regions on the scope, structure and instruments of the next MFF and will prepare in due course its proposals on the matter;

21.

instructs the President to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the President of the European Council.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/4

—

having regard to the main documents of the 2016 European Semester, namely the Annual Growth Survey, the Country Reports, the National Reform Programmes and the Country-specific Recommendations;

—

having regard to the European Parliament’s draft report on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2016 priorities (2016/2101 (INI));

1.

recalls that public and private investment dropped by around 15 % in the EU with respect to 2007, and in some Member States even by 50 %, due to the economic crisis and to fiscal consolidation measures; highlights that several cumulative years of such under-investment (the ‘investment gap’) represent a major constraint to Europe’s competitiveness and cohesion, hence to its ability to ensure sustainable growth and job creation;

2.

stresses that 40 % of the Country-specific Recommendations for 2016 address obstacles to investment which the local and regional authorities can help to remove (1), including: poor quality of the public administration and lack of coordination; mismatch between functions and financial resources of local and regional governments; burdensome regulatory environment for private investment; corruption; lack of skilled labour-force and of appropriate transport infrastructure; announces that these issues will be also addressed in the CoR’s forthcoming Opinion on Bridging the investment gap: How to tackle the challenges;

3.

recalls the Declaration about ‘Invest and Connect’ (2) adopted on 9 July 2016 in Bratislava at the 7th European Summit of Regions and Cities, which focused on the importance of removing obstacles hindering the vast untapped investment potential of cities, regions and rural areas in Europe, and the role of the local and regional authorities in providing innovative infrastructure and services to boost investment and improve the quality of life of EU citizens;

4.

is concerned that around 60 % of respondents in a recent CoR survey of EU local and regional authorities (3) perceived a downward or flat trend in both public and private investment in the past 12 months, which, if confirmed, would suggest that the under-investment trend which started with the economic crisis continues;

5.

underlines that, according to the same CoR survey, funding public investment remains a challenge for around two thirds of the local and regional authorities, in part due to their insufficient capacity to properly design public investments, to use financial instruments, to submit projects to the EIB and to engage in public-private partnerships;

6.

welcomes the first positive results of the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) relating mainly to its ‘SME window’; at the same time calls for improving the additionality of EFSI’s ‘infrastructure and innovation window’ as well as EFSI’s geographical balance, also by encouraging the development of regional investment strategies and the use of investment platforms to ensure all regions, especially the less developed ones, could benefit from it;

7.

welcomes in principle the proposal for an extension and reinforcement of the EFSI which will be the subject of a separate CoR opinion; expects further improvements in the areas of additionality, geographical and sectorial coverage, as well as transparency, reiterates the request for a proper assessment of the EFSI results, in particular its synergies with ESIF funds and their contribution to territorial cohesion so far, and looks forwards to a close cooperation with the European Parliament in scrutinising EFSI implementation;

8.

underlines that three quarters of respondents to the CoR survey on obstacles to investment were not aware of the opportunity provided by EFSI and its investment platforms, which should be better communicated to them and to other relevant stakeholders;

9.

notes that smaller regions and municipalities, together with regions that suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island and mountain regions, can often not make use of EFSI due to the high thresholds for the minimum value of the supported investment and expects the threshold to be lowered when EFSI is revised;

10.

stresses that the technical capacity of potential project promoters at the local and regional levels should be enhanced with the help of the European Investment Advisory Hub, in particular in relation to the design and establishment of investment platforms;

11.

stresses that regional investment strategies should build on the awareness that economic and technological change are rapidly transforming our societies and territories; in this context, underlines the need to promote investment in the low-carbon and circular economy and to support the sharing and collaborative economy, thereby lowering the cost of developing innovative activities, boosting the provision of public and private services to citizens and making the public sector more efficient;

12.

highlights the importance of stimulating local and regional authorities to use smart specialisation strategies and European partnerships for joint strategic development priorities;

13.

stresses that Cohesion Policy remain the EU’s main investment tool, in particular for its less developed countries and regions; and would like to see more complementarity with EFSI;

14.

recalls its opinion on the Mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which states that a lack of payment appropriations under the MFF 2014-2020 could induce a risk that the Commission will not be able to meet its obligations, thus creating a payment backlog with negative effects on the implementation of the operational programmes under the ESIF;

15.

considers that as part of the review of funding under the Structural Funds, national governments could be permitted to set aside a certain amount of EU funding for projects in areas subject to landslides and also for intervention in the event of major natural disasters;

16.

underlines that more than half of the 2016 Country-specific Recommendations, addressed to 26 countries, are territory-related, i.e. linked to challenges that concern some regions or cities more than others, and/or their implementation relies on sub-national levels of government;

17.

it should be borne in mind that in its opinion on ‘The EU response to the demographic challenge’, the CoR emphasised the link that must exist between demographic change and the European Semester, and stressed the fact that the latter must have a territorial dimension. Local and regional authorities should be active participants in measures taken under the European Semester to tackle demographic challenges, and recommendations made to Member States to address these challenges should take local and regional authorities into account;

18.

stresses that the CoR has consistently opposed the macroeconomic conditionality in the implementation of Cohesion Policy, stipulated in Article 23 of CPR, as this would penalise cities and regions as a result of the Member State’s failure to comply with their obligations under the Stability and Growth Pact; in this respect, fears that the suspension of ESIF funding for Spain and Portugal would have negative effects on the implementation of operational programmes, already considerably delayed. It would also be contradictory to cancel sanctions under the excessive budgetary deficit procedure (Regulation 1173/2011 on the effective implementation of budgetary supervision) but to consider sanctions under Article 23 of the CPR. At the same time highlights the need for more sound economic management at national level, which is a pre-requisite for the efficient use of ESIF funds;

19.

reiterates its call that investment made by local and regional authorities in the context of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion fund be excluded from the EU countries’ budget deficit and debt calculations;

20.

stresses that almost 40 % of the 2016 CSRs, involving 20 Member States, addressed issues of administrative capacity, in particular at the sub-national level, related to structural reforms and the removal of obstacles to investment; recognises that administrative capacity is to be freed up mainly by the creation of efficient administrative structures; recalls its proposal in relation to the proposed Structural Reform Support Programme of a single strategic document setting priorities and criteria to coordinate all EU-funded capacity-building measures;

21.

stresses that the Commission should consider proposing a fiscal capacity for the Eurozone to implement anti-cyclical policies and accelerate the recovery, and announces that it will adopt in the coming months an opinion on this issue;

22.

acknowledges the importance of addressing social and labour market challenges; supports the inclusion by the Commission of social indicators in the macroeconomic imbalances procedure (MIP);

23.

notes the low implementation rate of the Country-specific Recommendations and that all levels of government should be involved in a more intense effort to improve it; notes that some challenges require long-lasting efforts, as shown by the fact that about three quarters of the 2016 territory-related recommendations had already been issued in 2015, and two thirds of those issued last year had already been issued in 2014;

24.

stresses that, as confirmed this year by both the National Reform Programmes and the Country-specific Recommendations, the involvement of the local and regional authorities in the Semester is mostly confined to the implementation phase of policies, when they should become partners also in designing policies; underlines that their involvement at an early stage would increase significantly the rate of implementation of the recommendations, help to address widening regional disparities, favour increased ownership on the ground and strengthen trust within and between Member States;

25.

intends to propose a Code of Conduct for the involvement of the local and regional authorities in the European Semester, respectful of national differences and careful to avoid unnecessary administrative burden, thus contributing to the Better Governance approach. This is assuming that the Code reflects the diversity and constitutional arrangements of the Member States;

26.

calls the 2017 AGS to focus specifically on demographic challenges; these challenges also point to the need for economic and financial policies designed to ensure successful, balanced integration of migrants within the EU;

27.

stresses that the European Semester needs to refer to a long-term multi-level policy framework, currently the Europe 2020 Strategy; welcomes the European Commission’s announcement of a forthcoming mapping of the EU’s sustainable development policies and highlights the need to align the EU’s future growth strategy with an updated territorial vision;

28.

instructs the President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, the President of the European Council and the Slovak Presidency of the Council of the EU.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/7

—

having regard to the proposal from the European Commission for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (1),

1.

welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to designate the year 2018 as the ‘European Year of Cultural Heritage’ and agrees with the Year’s stated overall and specific objectives;

2.

considers that a European Year devoted to cultural heritage constitutes a valuable opportunity to raise awareness at grassroots level about the need to protect cultural heritage, to bring knowledge of it to a wider audience and to contribute to the attainment of shared goals in the pan-European context (2); moreover, the European Year should promote the exchange of best practices in the development of effective management systems, helping to mitigate risks related to urban development and landscape transformation and in the fight against illicit excavations and the illegal trafficking of cultural goods;

3.

calls for a comprehensive and visionary approach in making 2018 the European Year of Cultural Heritage, seen also as an opportunity to reaffirm our motto ‘United in diversity’. The CoR reiterates its intention to support the 2018 European Year of Cultural Heritage. To this effect, it expresses its readiness to also contribute to the work of the European steering group that the European Commission proposes to establish within the framework of the European Year 2018;

4.

acknowledges that the celebration and commemoration of cultural heritage helps Europeans build understanding, inspires creativity and fosters active citizenship. Promoting culture and cultural heritage is therefore essential in order to strengthen identity and democratic values in Europe and to contribute to social and economic cohesion. In this regard, protected natural areas should be seen as forming part of cultural heritage;

5.

welcomes the recognition given to culture as a tool for local and regional development and the value of innovative models of multilevel governance and management of cultural heritage; stresses, however, that the appointment of coordinators at Member State level must fully reflect the governance structures of each Member State, including federal structures and/or regions/cities with legislative powers;

6.

reaffirms the significance of landscapes as a basic component of the natural and cultural heritage, having a deep impact on the cultural identity of the citizens of Europe; believes therefore that in line with the European Landscape Convention and the European Agenda for Culture, the overall objectives for the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 could be enriched by including a strong component for territorial development, in the form of regional and local cultural strategies involving the promotion of sustainable cultural tourism;

7.

expects that the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 will create a momentum to increase the funding available in the COSME programme for small and medium-sized enterprises related to cultural tourism;

8.

expects tourism, especially cultural and heritage tourism, to play an important role in 2018, given the fact that it is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in Europe that drives global growth and development, creates millions of jobs, spurs exports and investment and transforms peoples’ lives;

9.

underlines the importance of culture as one of the pivotal factors attracting tourists and emphasises the need to promote Europe’s cultural and natural heritage in our regions, cities and rural areas which provide a showcase for our diversity, and to assure better accessibility to those areas, which are difficult to reach such as rural, mountains or islands regions;

10.

recalls the aim of the new EU Urban Agendas to improve the quality of life in towns and cities and to develop new ‘urban’ governance and underlines that partnerships should also be set up on other issues requiring integrated policy approaches, for example, taking into account the cultural and tourism dimension in urban development, new inclusive forms of participation, innovation and Smart Cities (3);

11.

highlights the close ties between cultural heritage and rural development and calls on the rural areas to pay more attention to cultural heritage in their development strategies as it contributes to safeguarding and creating jobs, supporting agricultural businesses, protecting cultural landscapes, supporting rural arts and handicrafts;

12.

reiterates the possible advantage of using the European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) for multi-level governance projects enabling all the relevant actors to be involved in the governance of a cross-border or Euro-regional territory (4) and to stimulate cooperation in the field of culture, including tangible and intangible cultural heritage, with positive spill-over to other sectors, such as tourism and industry;

13.

reiterates its support for the European Capitals of Culture (ECOC) and the European Heritage Label (EHL) initiatives, as well as for the European Heritage Days and the European Union Prize for Cultural Heritage, and underlines the need for strong synergies with the activities undertaken within the framework of the European Year 2018;

14.

notes that, although co-financing at the European level of activities in support of European Years is within the existing possibilities for priority setting on an annual or multiannual basis and in relation to existing programmes, the choice of the policy focus of each Year determines to a great extent the size of the available budgetary envelope. This leads to considerable funding fluctuations from one Year to the next, which may jeopardise the attainment of a Year’s goals;

15.

reiterates that in a globalising world culture can also determine the attractiveness of a place and its competitiveness for business, investors and creative and enterprising individuals;

16.

considers the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 as an important milestone for fostering the EU strategy for international cultural relations (5);

17.

welcomes the focus on the Middle East when considering the role of heritage in the area of external relations, as this region is hardly hit by the deliberate destruction of cultural treasures in certain conflict zones. Agrees that cultural cooperation must be sought also with European Neighbourhood Policy and Eastern Partnership countries;

18.

stresses that it is fundamental that young people acknowledge, understand and appreciate their heritage and feel it as part of their identity. In this regard calls for a more proactive approach to promoting European cultural heritage and its diversity among young people and children; recommends therefore to include in school curriculum elements of European art, music, theatre and film education to improve knowledge of tangible and intangible cultural heritage of the continent;

19.

reaffirms the importance of acquiring cultural and creative skills from an early age, both within the education system and in leisure time, which empowers the young generations to fully benefit from the new forms of access to culture (6);

20.

considers accessibility to be fundamental in making the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 a success; improvement of accessibility represents a crucial starting point in order to also increase participation rates (7);

21.

confirms its willingness to be involved in the design of a comprehensive communication strategy, as well as the organisation of relevant conferences, events and initiatives and its readiness to facilitate engagement with citizens and stakeholders;

22.

wishes to see more active EU media, audio-visual and IT policy which seeks to promote the cultural and linguistic heritage of Europe;

23.

considers also that there is a need to create a European Network of World Heritage Cities, as these cities are the Common Heritage of all European citizens, and to adopt specific measures to preserve them and raise awareness about their existence;

24.

instructs the President to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, the President of the European Council and the Slovak Presidency.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/12

1.

stresses that ESIF is one of the few EU instruments to have a direct, concrete and tangible impact on citizens’ quality of life through hundreds of thousands of projects implemented all over Europe and so be capable of improving their overall opinion of the EU at a time when its popularity is declining. Therefore, this instrument should be further maintained and developed in accordance with its key objectives and principles. On the contrary, ESIF — and cohesion policy in particular — should undergo a process of analysis and improvement to increase its effectiveness and added value, with the aim both of achieving the EU’s targets and the Europe 2020 strategy, and also benefiting other areas that are important to the lives of citizens, and thus improving their perception of the EU. One good and important way of achieving this is by simplifying the overall ESIF implementation system and increasing its flexibility;

2.

warns that the procedure for using ESIF is getting more complicated not just with every programming period, but virtually every year. The Committee therefore very much welcomes the initiative of the current regional development commissioner, which underpinned the European Commission’s efforts to seriously address simplification by not only setting up a high level group, but also inviting other partners to debate the issue. The CoR also points out that not only ESIF, but all financial programmes and EU policies, should be examined with a view to simplification;

3.

welcomes the close cooperation with the Dutch and Slovak Council Presidencies in jointly discussing practical steps for simplifying ESIF implementation and suggests continuing this exercise with the upcoming Council Presidencies and in view of the debate on the future of cohesion policy;

4.

notes that part of the simplification process has to be to focus on making the fundamental idea and spirit of cohesion policy a reality — and this is regional policy. It observes that cohesion policy in its current form is gradually moving away from regional policy and increasingly dealing with issues at national level. This is apparent, for example, from the fact that individual partnership agreements are based on the National Reform Programmes. Moreover, cohesion policy is subject to a large number of conditionalities at national level, which cannot be influenced by local and regional authorities and other beneficiaries. Cohesion policy is becoming increasingly complex and complicated, mostly due to the lack of trust among different political and administrative levels. This complexity, in turn, contributes to growing disparities in regions’ development;

5.

points out that the CoR represents local and regional authorities, which can act at various stages in the chain in the management of ESIF’s implementation procedure and in particular, as final beneficiaries, managing authorities or stakeholders. It is clear from this role played by local and regional authorities that their insights and suggestions should be prioritised as part of the simplification process;

6.

emphasises that for simplification to really work, it needs the active involvement not just of all the Directorates-General of the European Commission that are involved in planning and monitoring ESIF, including DG REGIO and DG EMPL, DG AGRI, DG MARE and DG COMP, but other institutions and EU bodies as well (such as audit authorities). The system must be simplified for both, the beneficiaries as well as administrative authorities;

7.

recommends that the simplification process focus on reducing the red tape that is a burden to implementing bodies and on making the audit, reporting and certification of expenditure process less complex. The regulatory framework should be adjusted proportionately to the scale of the project and the effectiveness of the implementation system;

8.

recommends that simplification should be approached systematically, and therefore feels that it would make sense to come up with a methodology for it, along with indicators to measure implementation and success. A distinction needs to be made, therefore, between two kinds of results: those where the insights and proposed solutions can be implemented immediately, and those that will be used in the next programming period. For the current programming period, given the ongoing implementation of operational programmes, far-reaching legislative changes are not realistic in the interest of legal certainty. Nevertheless, immediate actions should be envisaged through changes in implementation practices and non-legal requirements, better cooperation and more effective guidance as well as minor adjustments to the legislative framework of cohesion policy and related legislation. The simplification process should also be structured — according to fields (transport, environment, etc.), funds and the target areas within them (ERDF, ESF, etc.), level (national, regional, urban, local and borough), and the stakeholders involved (public, private, NGOs, etc.). As part of this process, it is necessary to identify the links and impacts both within this structure and outside it and to focus on the simplification of interinstitutional relations between the different levels involved in implementation;

9.

suggests improvement of coordination between individual Funds and programmes at national level. This should be attained also through strategic management and planning during the programming period with the emphasis on general strategic work;

10.

emphasises that it is important for the success of the whole simplification process to answer these basic questions:

11.

does not consider as simplification:

12.

does consider as simplification:

13.

emphasises that simplification is a continuous process that should not be limited to implementing a few measures or drawing up a report or an opinion;

14.

warns that many beneficiaries feel that using ESIF at the present time is a ‘risky business’, since they have no guarantee they will not fall victim to a ‘force majeure’ — that is to say, that funding for their project will not be scrapped or held up because of some dispute between their country and the Commission, perhaps about not meeting conditionality requirements, for example, or errors in the implementation system. And even when the beneficiaries’ project has achieved its aim and effect, support could still be reduced or postponed for a variety of minor errors or because there have been objective grounds for changing the project in the course of implementation. They also face the danger, among a raft of other risks, that the findings of the audit authority on some other project will also be applied retrospectively to them. These elements all influence their willingness to use ESIF funds effectively. The project and its promoter must once again be made the focal point of cohesion policy, by creating conditions favourable to beneficiaries — particularly by cutting back on red tape and limiting reporting by project promoters to data on project delivery, by making the use of simplified costs standard practice and ring-fencing the decision not to question them during audits, and by informing promoters which obligatory documents must be stored in hard copy for a set period of time;

15.

believes that it would be a major simplification if all EU funds applied the same eligibility rules. However, it is essential that responsibility for determining eligible costs remains at national level, and this should be harmonised across the EU Member States;

16.

suggests that some already-existing institution or body could be entrusted with the authority and role of an ombudsman for ESIF, which beneficiaries could turn to as a last resort; due to the complex nature of the system, many beneficiaries, despite making an effort to deliver projects so they have the greatest possible impact, find themselves, paradoxically, in difficult situations that are not only devastating for them in economical and non-material terms, but also do much to foster the dim view the public has of ESIF and of the EU as such. This institution should not be geared solely to communications with DG REGIO, but particularly on addressing ESIF matters across the whole of the European Commission and other EU bodies. Such an institution is missing at EU level, although a raft of other DGs and other bodies get involved in the ESIF issue. It would also make sense for similar institutions to be established in Member States which do not already have them;

17.

stresses once more that it is essential to avoid retroactive findings. Current rulings and changes to procedures or guidelines should not be applied retroactively to other projects, even incomplete projects that are at an advanced stage of implementation. The prevention of retroactivity is a measure that can be applied quickly and that will reinforce legal security for beneficiaries;

18.

advises that the simplification process include reforms to facilitate greater flexibility because the growing complexity of the processes is mostly caused by decisions that are specific to certain projects being incorporated into the general guidelines and directives. To this end, the CoR advises that a working group should be set up made up of specialists in the practical implementation of ESIF to put forward proposals on changes and discuss them with the European Commission and other bodies;

19.

warns of frequent cases of discrepancies between the EU’s legal framework for ESIF and national legislation in apparently unrelated areas, such as laws on financial control or public procurement, which causes fragmentation and different approaches in various Member States; recommends therefore that EU legislation and guidelines concerning ESIF should take precedence over conflicting national or EU legislation because ESIF uses EU and not national funds, even though co-financing is provided from national or sub-national resources, in order to prevent gold-plating;

20.

proposes that examples of good practice be transferred from countries and programmes that in the past had negligible or low error rates. At the same time, care needs to be taken that the conditions are the same for all countries (even though national legislations differ). At present, different territorial units often have diametrically opposing approaches. Situations arise, in fact, where what is considered a correct and routine approach in one country is seen in another as seriously flawed. This does not change the fact, of course, that administrative burdens should take into account the size of projects, the amount of aid and the quality of the implementation system;

21.

points out that if the simplification process is to succeed, the task we face is to reconcile measures combating corruption and reducing error, on the one hand, and cutting the administrative burden of ESIF on the other. We must review the implementing and management provisions that put fraud and unintentional errors on an equal footing, leading to a climate of mistrust between stakeholders and a disproportionate administrative burden for the project promoter. Individual measures that are introduced over time to guarantee transparency and fight against corruption and fraud significantly complicate the entire system. We need to verify a posteriori which of these measures really work and which merely complicate the system and criminalise honest beneficiaries for trivial errors. The fight against corruption should not mean that we treat every beneficiary a priori with mistrust. It should be based on trust, cooperation and clear accountability. This fight should be underpinned by basic moral principles and accountability for achieving what the beneficiary has undertaken, and not on using errors detected to design an inflexible template that — on the contrary and often ineffectively — will bind other beneficiaries. Concentrating just on meeting formal requirements and schedules could in fact itself lead in some cases to funding being taken up expediently or improperly — and with impunity;

22.

following discussions held internally and with other partners, identifies these key elements of the issue that need to be resolved.

23.

As was demonstrated in the workshop on simplification, even though procurement works without any problems in some Member States, representatives of a number of countries currently consider procurement to be one of the most fundamental problems of implementation. We therefore consider that there should be clear EU-wide rules for public procurement under ESIF which would take precedence over national legislation in this area. These are mostly EU and not national resources and therefore calls for tender should be governed by EU-wide and not national rules. In addition to this, the procedures for public tenders should help to deliver the most effective end product and, to achieve this, provide the various types of tender with an element of flexibility, instead of hamstringing the contracting authority and the applicant in a purely formal way in various binding, standardised procedures and processes. Among other things, the value threshold for publication on the public procurement portal and in the Official Journal of the EU should be raised.

24.

As was demonstrated in the workshop on simplification, even though procurement works without any problems in some Member States, representatives of a number of countries warn that the current system is so complicated and risky that smaller contracting authorities are not in a position to draft public tenders themselves and have to use the services of external specialist companies, though this does not exonerate them from responsibility for possible errors. This has created a whole new industry. The paradox is that in some instances selecting a company to draft the call for tenders itself requires a call for tender.

25.

As was demonstrated in the workshop on simplification, even though procurement works without any problems in some Member States, representatives of a number of countries warn that most errors in public procurement are genuine mistakes resulting from complex rules. As a result project promoters are frustrated by ex post audits, which often arrive at a late stage in proceedings, when fixing mistakes is no longer possible and when they do not even have the possibility to ask for a provisional binding ruling. The CoR therefore suggests that audit opinions and other control procedures for public procurement should be performed primarily ex ante in order to anticipate errors, which are very frequent in this area in particular, and thus reduce the number of financial corrections.

26.

It should also be noted that the legislation for the process of assigning contracts focuses on the contracting authority, who is also sanctioned and persecuted for the slightest error, whereas many harmful interference in the results of public procurement takes place on the basis of agreements between tenderers. In areas and segments in which the market is overwhelmingly monopolised, the current public procurement system often does not fulfil its purpose and can even be counter-productive. This is why it would be wise to reflect on the system as a whole and consider completely reassessing the philosophy of the entire system. This is especially the case in smaller countries where the monopolisation of the market is much more pronounced.

27.

It is important that the recently released Guidance for Procurement for ESIF (Guide on public procurement) is urgently reviewed as it refers to the old directives and not to the new Procurement Directives that were approved in 2014 and which entered into force earlier this year. In that respect it is essential that input into the new Guidelines is subject to a proper Territorial Impact Assessment that enables direct input from local and regional experts. This is provided for in the Better Regulation Package, which recognises the role of the CoR as a key partner in better scoping the local and regional impacts of EU proposals.

28.

The question of State aid has become much more complicated over the years and, despite a partial improvement in some programmes recently, the situation remains very complicated for beneficiaries and managing authorities. As we speak, there is no clear, comprehensible interpretation of State aid, with judgements everywhere being based solely on applications and findings. The national authorities tasked with interpretation often have diametrically opposed views and are usually unwilling to issue clear-cut and binding opinions. In a number of countries these authorities are not part of the ESIF implementation system and no clear accountability attaches to their opinions. It would therefore be advisable to incorporate national authorities into implementation structures (in cases where they are not yet incorporated) and oblige them to issue unambiguous statements. Moreover, in some cases, paradoxically, operators in the private sector tend to be in a better position than those in the public sector, with a number of guidelines, regulations and measures they are not required to follow. Although it is much rarer for public bodies to act as competitive economic players and their activities are not carried out with the aim of making a profit, they must undergo the same processes as private bodies.

29.

There is also another important inconsistency in the application of State aid rules. While programmes managed centrally by the European Commission (such as Horizon 2020, CEF and the European Fund for Strategic Investment) are exempt from State aid procedures, funding under the EU’s cohesion policy is not exempt. In terms of State aid, then, projects are not in practice judged on their merits but according to whether it is the Commission or the Member State that grants the funds and the source of their funding.

30.

In this context, the CoR wishes to point out that the basic purpose of cohesion policy is to ensure equal conditions for less developed regions — by providing more funding and a higher rate of co-financing from the EU. It is therefore possible to view cohesion policy as deliberate market distortion. This is why the CoR believes that the procedures that apply to State aid should not in any way apply to ESIF.

31.

Particular attention should be paid to the application of State aid under European Territorial Cooperation programmes. Generally speaking, the effort needed to comply with State aid rules is disproportionate to the risk of distortion of competition. Moreover, State aid is often subject to different interpretations in different Member States and it is therefore not possible to apply these rules with adequate legal certainty, which often makes it quite impossible to carry out high-quality projects. One measure that could be implemented quickly in order to simplify ESIF would be to remove European Territorial Cooperation from the area of application of State aid rules, as is the case for the Horizon 2020 programme, for example.

32.

There is also an issue of clarity and proportionality. Given the small scale of some projects, particularly at local level, it is important that the framework of exemptions from State aid rules is made clearer. At the moment there is often confusion over when and how the de Minimis, Service of General Interest, General Block Exemption and Regional State Aid Guidelines operate. The European Committee of the Regions calls for a better, user-friendly consolidated guidance to be developed already during this programming period and calls for the forthcoming revision of the State aid rules to improve and simplify the existing framework.

33.

Given the revised approach to defining an enterprise, supporting jobs, innovation and business in the regions also requires raising the aid ceiling in line with the de minimis rule.

34.

Lack of consistency in audit methodologies at national and European level is perhaps the biggest challenge for the ESIF implementation process. Managing authorities and different European and national audit authorities frequently arrive at different interpretations of the same rules, while at the same time they are not in any way liable for the audits that are carried out. ESIF projects should be subject to a single audit system (a one-stop shop) at Member State and EU level that will issue a binding opinion — including on public procurement and be accountable for it. The final beneficiary himself should also have the right to request audits so that he can be sure that implementation has been carried out properly and no danger looms in the future — or so that he can make corrections. This also requires a more flexible approach to data sharing and integrated IT solutions such as electronic forms and databases as a precondition to developing a one-stop shop that reduces the form filling burden for beneficiaries and managing authorities. Making a ‘user-friendly’ electronic system standard practice will minimise the documents to be scanned and downloaded. Priority should therefore be given to IT applications that enable the beneficiary’s administrative records to be retrieved directly from the source (such as employees, turnover, fulfilment of tax and social obligations). However, this requires a prior risk assessment on what and which data can be shared and also requires the involvement of the Commission, national and regional audit bodies as well as the European Court of Auditors from the outset, perhaps developing a common Audit Vademecum, to avoid audit issues further down the line. As things stand, auditing is seen as a punitive enforcement measure. As a rule, audits only address the administration of the project and compliance with the procedures laid down and any deviation is severely punished, even if carried out to improve the effectiveness of the project, due to unforeseeable circumstances, or to save money. The CoR therefore proposes that auditors focus on the real cost efficiency and take into consideration the financial seriousness of the mistake and the particular situation (more proportionality in audits). Proportionality should be added to the inspections and compliance rules by enabling higher tolerance levels to minor infractions. We should move towards a more proportionate (with less on-the-spot checks for better performing programmes or delivery bodies) and an outcome-based approach to inspections (so that more than one type of inspection can be carried out on a single visit, something which is particularly important for multi-fund programmes and operations), as well as a more proportionate audit focusing less on penalties and more on improvement and in ensuring the broader outcomes of Cohesion Policy. The auditor should be looked upon as a partner in solving problems and searching for the most effective way to identify and rectify mistakes. This requires a very different attitude from auditors.

35.

Administrative and audit authorities should work hand in hand from the programming phase until the conclusion of programmes, as this is the only way to prevent different interpretations of the same rules. A common control system or a common understanding of the control system we should be aiming at should prevent the same operation being audited several times, since different audit authorities should, as a rule, build on and complement each other’s opinions. In this context, the CoR proposes extending the scope of the proportional control mechanism described in Article 148 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, by applying it not only to the audit authority and the Commission, but also to all types of audit, including those carried out by the managing and certification authorities and the European Court of Auditors. More generally, greater emphasis should be placed on subsidiarity in the audit. The Community audit should be confined to compliance with ESIF rules. The Member State and its managing authorities should assume responsibility for checking compliance with national legislation (including laws derived from European legislation). This subsidiarity in audit activities should be conditional upon the establishment of a contract of confidence between the Commission and each Member State.

36.

Also suggests raising by 50 % the thresholds below which an operation shall not be subject to more than one audit prior to the submission of final expenditure.

37.

Where projects involve several partners, it is unacceptable that, because of irregularities discovered in connection with one of the partners, the whole partnership or, in an extreme case, the whole programme should be penalised with a financial correction.

38.

Although there are some states in which appeal systems work without serious problems, in certain other states these systems, even though they were established on the basis of Article 74(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, differ widely and do not always fulfil their role from the point of view of the beneficiary. A single, understandable and rapid appeal system should thus be put in place both at Member State level (where this does not exist) and at EU level. This system should apply not only to audit findings, but to decisions at all levels and in all areas (such as State aid).

39.

The practice whereby Member States go beyond the minimum requirements when transposing EU legislation into national law is supposedly a problem of the Member States and not the European Commission. Nevertheless, the reason it happens is because the Commission’s regulations and implementation guidelines allow for it. If the intention is to reduce the practice to a minimum, the Commission must be given a stronger role in this area. It must clearly stipulate in its regulations and implementing guidelines clear absolute requirements that can be neither tightened nor loosened. This applies to public procurement and auditing, among other fields. ESIF resources are EU funds, so the rules should be set by the EU and not the Member States.

40.

Additional regulatory burdens also occur because in many cases the implementation guidelines are not drafted at European Commission level until the programmes are being carried out. Member States and managing authorities are therefore forced to develop their own guidelines, which are different from those that the Commission publishes ex post. As a result, regulations regarding ESIF must be drafted at the same time as the guidelines, and not afterwards as a means of clarifying and interpreting the way that each of the different articles of the regulation should be interpreted. This approach often results in a delay of more than a year in taking up operational programmes and in additional revisions that again adversely affect the level of ESIF take-up. The number and scope of guidelines and methods must be significantly reduced. At the same time the focus should be on clarity and effectiveness rather than scope, so that the system does not become more complex and ineffective. They should be unambiguous and should not be changed in the course of implementation. On no account should guidelines be retroactive.

41.

It would be expedient to examine to what level programming and thematic concentration should be carried out. Currently, programming impacts on every level of implementation right down to the grass roots. For this reason general goals should be set, as part of a thematic focus, together with the main indicator for how well each of them is being met. Managing authorities should be given leeway as to what activities will enable them to achieve this goal in this or that region, in order to better take into account the needs of the regions with regard to their specific features and the challenges they face. If the goal is to create more jobs, some degree of latitude should be made possible regarding what resources are used to meet it. In some regions, depending on their level, work in areas such as research can help meet the goal; in others it might be tourism. Support for cross-border cooperation, in particular, which aims to integrate regions across borders, should take into account the specific needs of the cross-border region in question and so enable support for important activities beyond the thematic objectives of the EU2020 strategy. An example here could be the Small Projects Funds that support people-to-people projects, tourism and missing transport links. It would generally be worthwhile considering whether all EISF conditions should apply to European territorial cooperation. It should be ensured that there is no decrease in financial allocations.

42.

Programmes should be made more flexible so that they can react flexibly to new situations and to rapid technological development. This flexibility should be genuine, however. In other words, it should be possible to limit and simplify the whole process for amending a programme. The need, for example, to carry out a new SEA assessment should not be considered as genuine programme flexibility. In the above-mentioned case, for example, it should only be necessary to consider carrying out an SEA assessment in cases in which reprogramming entails specific objectives with a significant environmental impact that has already been identified.

43.

Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 has introduced two instruments that would provide an integrated territorial approach, i.e. Integrated Territorial Investments and JAPs (joint action plans), which would make integrated development of a particular area or region possible. However, the Member States have received very little encouragement from the Commission to use the instruments, not least in that they were defined by the Commission in its delegated and implementing acts in a somewhat vague and complex way. Greater implementation of the two instruments would result in:

44.

In the case of integrated territorial investments (ITI), management systems are required that are totally out of proportion to the amount of financial resources this instrument dispenses. Equally, as highlighted by the Committee opinion on Community Led Local Development (CLLD), the number of separate rules that are required to comply for each fund, which are also often run by separate Managing Authorities, act as a disincentive to develop a CLLD beyond EAFRD. This results that these very innovative integrated local development tools have seen so far a limited deployment on the ground. The need to create these systems not only makes managing the instrument disproportionately more expensive and weighs heavily on those involved, it also significantly complicates and delays the implementation of the projects.

45.

notes that the fact that cohesion policy rules are changed on a 7-year basis or even more frequently has not helped to simplify cohesion policy but rather had the opposite effect. However, a legal framework covering more than one programming period would require prior radical simplification. Smaller, beneficial changes in the cohesion policy implementation system are always possible and desirable, but more substantial changes should be introduced less frequently and prepared well in advance. The impact of these changes should be analysed in advance and, respecting the partnership principle, be discussed in advance with the relevant partners, who are not just the Member States, but also the local and regional bodies represented by the Committee of the Regions.

46.

Sees the use of financial instruments as an important element to increase the leverage effect of ESIF programmes and to combine ESIF and EFSI funding. There is however an urgent need for simplifying the set-up, the reporting requirements and the audit rules for financial instruments under ESIF as it was recently stated at the joint workshop with the Slovak Presidency of the Council (1) on the matter.

47.

Recommends that the European Commission examines why the off-the shelf instruments for financial instruments so far are not being used in most Member States;

48.

Takes note of the findings of the recently published report of the European Court of Auditors Implementing the EU budget through financial instruments — lessons to be learnt from the 2007-2013 programme period and invites the Court to also assess the implementation of financial instruments in the current funding period.

49.

takes note of the recently published Omnibus Regulation (2) which also includes changes to the ESIF regulations particularly with regard to simplifying the use of financial instruments and simplified cost options in ESIF programmes.

50.

proposes that for the purposes of simplification, the EC shall collect and monitor ‘bad practice’ projects. This would serve to illustrate the need to simplify and adapt the approach and would complement the exchange of best practice regarding the implementation of ESIF. Given the practical experience of CoR members, the CoR should play a key role in the process;

51.

The basic documents for the individual funds in the 2014-2020 programming period were published by the Commission so late that it was impossible to begin implementation at the start of the programming period. There were long waiting times and difficulties in coordinating the individual OPs. In future, the documents should be published all together and in good time.

52.

Reiterates that practical tools exist which could help ensure that the simplification of the management of ESIF is effective. The standardisation of procedures, the widespread use of IT tools and e-governance are among the basic elements that are widely applicable to these funds. In addition, progress should continue to be made, among other things, in the use of standard costs, which eliminate administrative burdens, and in the simplification of reports and monitoring, which may avoid additional bureaucratic burdens for beneficiaries and the various authorities involved in managing these resources.

53.

notes that pursuing the principle of partnership with local and regional authorities more readily in the design and throughout the implementation of ESIF would enable the European Commission to obtain feedback that would contribute in a decisive way to simplifying and increasing the effectiveness of the implementation process.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/22

1.

refers in this own-initiative opinion to the following Commission initiatives: (1) the Commission notice on the notion of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU (1); (2) the consultation procedure on drawing up a proposal to extend the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) (2), under which certain investment aid for ports and airports is to be exempted from prior State aid assessment by the Commission; (3) the Commission’s intended review of the Almunia package and revision of the regulation on de minimis aid for SGEIs, which is due to expire;

2.

notes that EU State aid rules for services of general economic interest (SGEIs) should not be limited in their application to competition principles, but must be fully consistent with the broad discretion granted by the Treaties to the Member States in determining what represents an SGEI, as well as the principles of local and regional self-government, economic, social and territorial cohesion, and neutrality as regards ownership in the Member States (Article 3 TEU, and Articles 14, 106 and 345, and Protocol 26, TFEU). SGEIs must reflect the differences in needs, user preferences and public procurement systems that can result from variations in geographical location, social and cultural situations, and democratic processes in the Member States. It should be noted that State aid scrutiny may only be carried out if national, regional or local regulation or financing of an SGEI has cross-border effects or implications for the internal market;

3.

would highlight the prominent role played by SGEIs in growth and employment, and the fact that they are often the condition for further public and private investment. They must therefore also be seen from the perspective of the EU investment agenda. The Commission’s Annual Growth Survey 2016 is relevant here, as it states: ‘… it is essential that Member States promote social investment more broadly, including in healthcare, childcare, housing support and rehabilitation services to strengthen people’s current and future capacities to engage in the labour market and adapt. […] Social investment offers economic and social returns over time, notably in terms of employment prospects, labour incomes and productivity, prevention of poverty and strengthening of social cohesion’;

4.

therefore calls for more consideration of how to support SGEIs using EU aid within the State aid rules, for instance looking at whether the application of the State aid rules should be further simplified, perhaps through the introduction of a presumption — linked to simple criteria such as consistency with adopted operational programmes — that ESIF funding is compatible with State aid. This is because the unequal treatment of directly managed EU funds such as EFSI, Horizon 2020 and the ESIF in the field of State aid is unjustified, increases administration and impedes synergies between the funds, which the European Commission itself is also pursuing;

5.

laments the Commission’s continuing refusal to take Article 14 TFEU as the legal basis for State aid rules for SGEIs, as doing so would provide for a proper legislative procedure and consequently more legal certainty and democratic legitimacy;

6.

observes that EU law governing State aid in relation to SGEIs has become too detailed and too abstruse because of its complex content, competing definitions of concepts, and adjustments over many years. Red tape must be reduced for the public authorities granting aid and for companies, and Commission resources should be targeted at applying State aid provisions in cases which have the most impact on the internal market. The complexity of the rules can also mean that they are insufficiently familiar and that the special conditions available for SGEIs are therefore not taken advantage of. The Commission is therefore urged to tighten up the multiplicity of secondary legislation and ‘soft law’ texts relating to aid (regulations, communications, guidelines, etc.) and, where appropriate, collate these;

7.

reiterates its fundamental opposition to the European Commission’s inclusion of additional quality and efficiency considerations in the compatibility test for financing of SGEIs. The Commission’s remit as defined in the competition chapter of TFEU does not include setting quality and efficiency criteria which further restrict the discretion of local and regional aid providers. Decisions on quality and efficiency must be left to local and regional authorities (3);

8.

points out that EU trade agreements do not prejudice the right of the EU, its Member States and their local authorities to themselves regulate, provide or support services, and would expect the guarantees given by the European Commission in the negotiations on the TTIP agreement to also obtain for all other negotiations on trade agreements, i.e. that there should be no encroachment on countries’ powers to introduce or retain provisions to protect the high quality of services and important objectives of general interest, such as health protection, public safety or environmental protection, that no privatisation of services should be provided for, that the public sector should be able to expand its existing range of public services, and that it should be possible to offer public services that were previously delivered by private providers (4);

9.

reiterates its concern, in view of the interplay between SGEIs and public investment, that no distinction is made between public expenditure and public investment in the accounting standards of the new European System of National and Regional Accounts (ESA 2010) from Eurostat, which has been in effect since September 2014. Moreover, in certain Member States these standards are being transposed into national law in a way that results in local and regional authorities being obliged to apply public investment ceilings per year and per inhabitant. These upper limits also hamstring those local and regional authorities that have reserves which they could use to launch extensive SGEI investment projects. The European Commission is therefore urged to present a report on the implementation of ESA 2010 (5);

10.

points out that the authority to decide that an activity constitutes a service of general economic interest lies with the Member States based on their established cultural and political systems and the need for these activities to develop continuously, and that local and regional authorities have full autonomy to decide which services they regard as of general economic interest;

11.

welcomes the publication on 19 May 2016, 2 years after the consultation procedure during the first half of 2014, of the Commission’s notice on the notion of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, which sets out the scope of application of EU State aid rules. The European Committee of the Regions recognises that the Commission’s intention is to focus its resources on ensuring State aid rules are applied in cases that have the greatest impact on the internal market, but would also point out that the notice does no more than provide an interpretation of the concept of State aid in those areas where the Court of Justice has already delivered a ruling, and therefore wonders whether this approach is perhaps too restrictive and fails to reflect various dynamics in the sphere of public investment, e.g. in relation to tax issues and the development of new social services;

12.

welcomes the confirmation in the notice that the concept of negative effects on intra-EU trade is limited. In fact, based on seven rulings on individual cases of 29 April 2015 (7) and in line with the recommendation in the original CoR draft opinion, aid for local infrastructure or local services that would have very little impact in other Member States and that has only marginal effects on cross-border investment is henceforward considered not to fall within the scope of EU State aid rules (8);

13.

takes note of the Commission’s position that public investment for building or modernising infrastructure does not constitute State aid if the infrastructure in question is not in direct competition with other infrastructure of the same type, while disagreeing with the Commission’s simplistic view that this is generally the case for road and rail infrastructure, inland waterways and water supply and sewage networks, but not in areas such as energy, broadband, airports or ports;

14.

welcomes the clarification that State aid rules do not apply to public support for certain cultural activities of a non-commercial nature that are made available to the public cost-free or for a charge that covers up to 50 % of costs; this will substantially reduce the high audit burden for local and regional authorities — although an audit remains necessary in individual cases — and lead to greater legal certainty in dealing with public support for culture;

15.

would therefore like the European Commission to spell out that a local service does not pose a threat to trade and also that the burden of proof is on the complainant and/or the European Commission to demonstrate that a real or potential threat exists to intra-Community trade;

16.

would like there to be legal certainty in future for local and regional authorities when deciding which activities they can support without breaching State aid rules;

17.

with reference to the action plan Towards a single EU VAT area presented in April 2016, on which the Committee of the Regions is drawing up a separate opinion, is not in favour of limiting the scope of VAT exemption for SGEI activities;

18.

emphasises the usefulness of the FAQ guide to the current GBER (9), which summarises the questions of national authorities and answers from the European Commission, although it notes that sometimes these answers do not entirely resolve the doubts over interpretation in the Member States;

19.

welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to conduct a preliminary consultation, which will be open until 30 May 2016, on a further revision of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) (10) with the aim of exempting State aid for port and airport infrastructure from the notification requirement, since the red tape for public authorities and final beneficiaries is being reduced in line with the increase in the GBER’s scope;

20.

notes, however, that in the case of ports there is no prior legal basis for compatibility criteria for investment aid which could have enabled the Commission to draw up a list on grounds of greater legal certainty, and therefore calls on the Commission to further explore the issue of whether or not State aid has been provided with reference to types of investment and size of ports, and to take account of the specific ways that ports are organised in the individual Member States, also bearing in mind their public role;

21.

notes that various measures taken by the Member States with regard to inland ports may not constitute State aid because the beneficiary is not carrying out an economic activity or because the measures do not have an impact on trade between Member States. In some circumstances, this could be the case for aid for purely local inland port infrastructure or aid for infrastructure in inland ports which are landlocked and do not allow for trade or communication with other Member States by means of waterways and thus do not distort competition;

22.

calls for the GBER to include an exemption for State aid for ports or at least for specific categories of ports, in tandem with the call regarding certain airports (see point (28));

23.

is concerned that, once the case of port infrastructure is incorporated into the GBER, any public support which comes under the definition of State aid and cannot be exempted becomes subject to an extremely complex assessment with an uncertain outcome, with a view to possible direct approval on the basis of the Treaty, and therefore urges the Commission to propose the adoption of specific guidelines for this aid where it is above the exemption threshold;

24.

explicitly supports the European Commission’s approach to investment aid for regional airports, whereby: ‘It is not appropriate to establish a notification threshold in terms of the amount of aid since the competitive impact of an aid measure depends mainly on the size of the airport and not on the size of the investment.’

25.

trusts that the European Commission will ensure alignment with existing EU law in relation to the ‘Definitions for aid for regional airports’;

26.

reaffirms the view it has previously expressed that the Commission should focus on large airports and that State aid measures for small airports with average traffic of less than 300 000 passengers per year should not fall within the scope of State aid, given that these airports can have no notable impact on trade between Member States, that they are unable for structural reasons to cover their capital and operating costs (11) and that public support is intended for the development of a safe and economically viable air traffic infrastructure in regions with poor transport connections (12); this should, of course, go hand in hand with a significant increase in the exemption threshold for aid to airports providing SGEIs (currently set at 200 000 passengers per year), restoring the threshold of 1 million passengers per year which was in place before the Almunia package on SGEIs was adopted. The prerequisite for such action must nevertheless be that a reasonable level of connectivity cannot be achieved by any other means;

27.

is doubtful that small airports are capable of covering a minimum 25 % of investment costs from their own resources, and asks the Commission to ensure that this aid is as a rule not targeted at increasing capacity but used mainly for infrastructure needs;

28.

calls for the GBER to also include an exemption for State aid to airports, since the European Commission guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines (2014 guidelines, paragraph 112 ff.) contain clear requirements, for instance with regard to calculating the initial funding gap, which can also be complied with in the context of an exemption;

29.

considers that the current provisions for ports and airports need to be adapted to the situation in the outermost regions, with regard to both investment aid and operating aid, given the poor access in these regions and their complete dependence on the maritime and aviation sectors, which represent the sole viable transport alternative in these isolated areas;

30.

would be in favour of increasing the notification thresholds for investment and State aid for culture and heritage conservation by 100 % instead of only 50 % as proposed for a revised GBER (the Commission proposes increases of EUR 100 to 150 million per project for culture and EUR 50 to 75 million for heritage conservation per undertaking per year) and calls for greater alignment of GBER standards and provisions with the Communication on the notion of State aid: the communication has clarified a number of key points, a move welcomed by the Member States, but these clarifications do not have the same binding effect as a directly applicable regulation such as the GBER;

31.

in line with the increase in the threshold requested in the previous point, as regards investment and State aid for culture and heritage conservation, calls for a EUR 1 to 2 million increase in the threshold below which the method for calculating aid described in Article 53(8) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 may be applied, with State aid set at 80 % of the project’s eligible costs (as an alternative to the method described in Article 53(6) and (7) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014);

32.

also asks the Commission to clarify the status of State aid for infrastructure measures in a revised GBER. Based on the Propapier/Eisenhüttenstadt decision of 1 October 2014 (13), it should always be considered in the case of general infrastructure measures whether the positive effects of the State aid for regional development do not outweigh the negative impact on competition;

33.

looks forward to sports infrastructure and multifunctional recreational infrastructure being put on an equal footing in the revised GBER so that operating aid for the latter infrastructure is also exempted up to the level of EUR 2 million per infrastructure per year;

34.

advocates actively widening the concept of SGEI: new social services, such as social services in connection with the initial reception and integration of refugees and migrants, or digital infrastructure in regions where a market failure is apparent, such as regions facing the challenges of demographic change, could qualify as services of general interest owing to the need for a comprehensive service to citizens. New developments in the future should also be subject to appropriate regular appraisals and it should likewise be possible at Member State level to regard them as SGEIs if necessary;

35.

takes issue with the Commission’s attempt in the current communication on SGEIs to widen its room for manoeuvre with regard to what can be classified as an SGEI by referring to ‘normal market conditions’ (14). This not only conflicts with the principles of local and regional self-government but is also a condition that is almost impossible for public authorities to prove they are compliant with in practice;

36.

points out that the fourth criterion set out in the Altmark judgment only created an incentive for the Member States to use the provisions to put services out to tender rather than encouraging them to adopt an SGEI-based approach. In fact, local and regional authorities face the problem that no benchmark is available for the second alternative of the fourth Altmark criterion — i.e. a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means — in cases where there are no private companies operating in the sector concerned. The Commission is therefore asked to draw up detailed guidelines, with a view to meeting the fourth Altmark criterion, as to what a typical, well-run and adequately resourced undertaking is, drawing on market studies which will make it possible to identify certain standard costs, so as to make it easier for public authorities and thus exempt an SGEI activity from State aid assessment;

37.

considers it essential for the definition of reasonable profit of an SGEI to be revised, in particular so as to reflect the fact that, through incentives or an increase in the percentage of recognisable reasonable profit, such profit is often reinvested in SGEIs;

38.

repeats its call for the de minimis thresholds to be increased in the case of State aid for SGEIs. The thresholds for assessing the admissibility of aid for SGEIs should be set at EUR 1 million per case per 3 tax years. Below this threshold it would be assumed that the aid does not meet all the criteria for State aid given that, in view of the often local context of SGEIs, there can be no cross-border distortion of trade or competition that would harm the internal market;

39.

believes that the threshold for exemption from the notification obligation under Article 108(3) TFEU of State aid in the form of a public service compensation for companies entrusted with delivering SGEIs should be increased from no more than EUR 15 million per year to the threshold in effect before 2011, which was EUR 30 million per year;

40.

is in favour of an extension of the normal duration of entrustment acts to more than 10 years so as to better allow for the cost of entrustment and recouping of investment by entities entrusted with SGEI provision;

41.

also advocates widening the definition of social housing contained in the Commission Decision of 20 December 2011: to give the Member States more discretion in planning, delivering, financing and organising the construction of social housing and guarantee the democratic right to choose, the restriction of social housing to ‘disadvantaged citizens or socially less advantaged groups’ should be removed. The right to adequate and affordable accommodation should be given more priority, because the inability of the housing market to meet everybody’s accommodation needs affects not just people who have no access to housing at all, but also the occupants of housing that is hazardous to health, inadequate or overcrowded, as well as people who are paying most of their income on rent or their monthly mortgage payments;

42.

calls for capacity-building between the European Commission and the Member States to improve understanding of State aid as it affects SGEIs. There must also be direct dialogue between the European Commission and local and regional authorities, and assistance should be provided;

43.

urges all the Member States to work with the European Commission to introduce appropriate communication and coordination procedures and develop guidelines making the complex assessments of State aid in relation to SGEIs easier for local and regional authorities. The Member States should also involve local and regional authorities and their associations when drawing up their national reports on implementation of the Almunia package, so as to ensure a realistic assessment of actual difficulties and challenges relating to SGEIs;

44.

calls for legal certainty to be established for local and regional authorities by setting a limitation period of 5 years for appeals from the start of the compensation payment or investment, since the current deadline for the Commission to open proceedings leading to a recovery decision (10 years from the day on which unlawful aid was granted to the recipient), which is also the de facto limitation period for State aid appeals, is too long. Local and regional authorities, as well as the companies receiving aid, need more legal certainty. A 10-year period, plus the time needed for the procedures, resulting in aid having to be recovered which was provided as much as 20 or 25 years before, is disproportionate and prevents a fundamental need of local and regional authorities and their undertakings, which are often unable to afford legal advice, from being met. It also thwarts one of the purposes of recovering State aid, i.e. restoring the pre-existing competition situation;

45.

considers it necessary to provide that appeals may only be lodged by parties who may be directly financially affected. The range of interested parties to date, i.e. ‘any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations’, under Article 20 in conjunction with Article 1(h) of the procedural regulation, is still too broad.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/28

1.

welcomes the communication from the European Commission on Digitising European Industry: Reaping the full benefits of a Digital Single Market and the package of enabling measures it proposes towards unlocking the opportunities that arise from the Digital Single Market strategy. Europe’s future economic growth and employment prospects, but also social cohesion, increasingly depends on the ability to understand, embrace and utilise all aspects of the innovation society within its regions;

2.

underlines that the EU’s Digital Single Market is underpinned by its 500 million consumers and is the single most powerful policy instrument for the EU and its Member States and regions to stimulate innovation, growth and jobs;

3.

notes that the continuing industrial revolution, driven by new generations of digital technologies such as big data, and by new and different ways of applying digital technologies to sectoral and local problems, is taking place. The challenge ahead is for European industry to seize fully and swiftly these digital opportunities. The opportunities for companies in traditional and non-technological industries, particularly SMEs, to fully embrace digitisation as a means of enhancing and securing their competitiveness cannot be overstated;

4.

recognises that the EU ICT sector represents an important share of the economy employing more than 6 million people and accounting for about 4 % of GDP. Recent studies estimate that the digitisation of products and services has the potential, if fully embraced, to add more than EUR 110 billion of revenue for industry per year in Europe in the next five years;

5.

agrees that two particularly key success factors for reaping the full benefits of a Digital Single Market are (a) a highly competitive European digital industry; coupled with (b) the readiness of the private and public sectors to adapt accordingly by integrating the resultant digital innovations into their activities in order to ensure high-quality services for all citizens. Underlines that removing regulatory barriers, cutting red tape and modernising EU regulation is also a key factor;

6.

highlights that businesses of all sizes across all regions and sectors can build on European ICT strengths by constructing digital industrial platforms in order to develop digital technologies from components to devices and software, for consumer markets and in web and data platforms and relevant applications and services;

7.

underlines that the Digital Single Market strategy, especially the pillar on ‘maximising the growth potential of the digital economy’, contains all the major levers for improving industry digitisation with actions in areas such as the data economy, internet of things (IoT), cloud computing, skills and e-government. The convergence of a number of additional technologies is increasingly driving the digital change, notably robotics and artificial intelligence, and 3D printing;

8.

encourages continued investments in three of the cross-cutting contractual public-private partnerships under Horizon 2020 — Factories of the future (FoF), Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and Energy Efficiency (SPIRE) and Bio-Based Industries Joint Undertaking (BBIJU);

9.

recognises that most decision-makers in industry have difficulties in deciding when to invest, up to what level and in which technologies. Around 60 % of large industries and more than 90 % of SMEs feel that they are lagging behind in digital innovation;

10.

emphasises that the rapid development and widening use of digital technologies also urgently requires modernisation of the current regulatory framework in order to keep pace with an unprecedented rate of innovation;

11.

agrees that more should also be done to facilitate coordination of the large but fragmented European research, development and innovation efforts in other key digital technology fields;

12.

insists that a broader understanding of interoperability as something not only relevant to public administration but to all sectors (e.g. as a means of ensuring consumer freedom is not compromised by the restrictions imposed by individual technology businesses’ proprietary systems) is essential for the deployment of the IoT and the seamless flow of data across all regions. Availability of common formats, standards and specifications are clear requirements;

13.

considers it essential that the European Commission’s Better Regulation REFIT programme will focus on barriers to innovation and discuss how they can be removed or reduced through new regulatory approaches as set out in the Single Market Strategy. In this regard, stresses that local and regional authorities must be treated as key partners in the REFIT process and not as stakeholders, given that they enforce most of the decisions taken at the EU level;

14.

calls on the Commission to work more closely with industries and businesses of all sizes, all levels of government and stakeholders in identifying and cutting regulatory barriers to digitising European industry as well as simplifying existing regulations;

15.

argues that an effective ICT standardisation environment is crucial for digitising European industry and is key for the Digital Single Market in allowing devices and services to connect seamlessly across borders and between technologies. Efforts in this regard need to be strategically focused on five priority areas for standardisation efforts — 5G, cloud computing, IoT, data technologies and cybersecurity;

16.

underlines that priority ICT standards for the Digital Single Market should aim at ensuring a fair return on investment to incentivise global R & D and innovation, and for a sustainable standardisation process, whilst ensuring wide availability of technologies in an open and competitive market;

17.

notes that in many industrial domains, the traditional cycle of development, testing and standardisation is no longer adequate for the fast evolving and complex converged technologies;

18.

points out that work in a digitised economy will also involve ever greater emphasis on new skills and capacities including more creativity, communication and adaptability requiring a massive upskilling of the workforce at all levels;

19.

stresses that the further development of IoT and big data also pose significant trust and security challenges for any company and for public acceptance;

20.

urges that every feasible effort should be made to create strong focussed partnerships at regional, national and EU level in this field to bring about considerable private investments and achieve ground-breaking impact on competitiveness via the development of commercialised products and services. This will also allow for productive exchanges of experience, knowledge and ideas between these partners, with a view to making the most of synergies and avoiding the duplication of efforts, including through the creation of a network of partnerships;

21.

encourages further investigation of the added value of enhanced cooperation between national and regional innovation policymakers taking into account the Smart Specialisation concept and emerging bottom-up interregional initiatives;

22.

considers that investment from private and public sources including wider contribution from business and institutional players such as the European Investment Bank (EIB — including through the European Investment Plan/EFSI) — should be encouraged and the importance reaffirmed of synergies between Horizon 2020, the Startup Europe and FIWARE initiatives, the ESIFs, and regional and national policy instruments in relation to the broader EU objectives of competitiveness and cohesion;

23.

acknowledges and welcomes the European Commission’s plans to focus EUR 500 million investment from Horizon 2020 on the widespread roll-out of digital innovation hubs, although it must be ensured that the hubs are financed from resources under the second pillar of Horizon 2020 (‘Industrial leadership’) and are not taken from the budget for other parts of the Horizon 2020 programme; emphasises that local and regional authorities (LRAs) are well placed to contribute to this form of competence centre and technological one-stop-shop on behalf of industrial end-users; points out that scientific excellence is still an important criterion when selecting candidates for support and that the key role of universities in knowledge transfer and the innovation process must be adequately considered so that the impact of planned investment under Horizon 2020 can be further optimised. In this context the desired impact of activities relating to digital innovation hubs should be specified and if necessary reviewed;

24.

reiterates its call that the necessary resources for digital investments should continue to be guaranteed as a core component of a forward-looking EU cohesion policy, preferably with a significantly higher investment than the EUR 14 billion share of ESIF spending on this topic between 2007 and 2013;

25.

points out that the openness of the internet and the impressive rise in supply of and demand for content and services now represents key driving forces for competitiveness, economic growth, social development and innovation in Europe. However, due to the handicap of lingering infrastructural deficits — particularly in rural contexts considered unprofitable by private operators — many LRAs remain currently unable to take full advantage of these developments;

26.

asks the European Commission to support such LRAs in their financing activities, firstly by continuing to authorise priority deployment of the ESIF towards digital infrastructure in all European regions, and secondly by recognising technological barriers to digital development projects in rural and sparsely-populated areas, and regions facing other demographic challenges, which should be seen as services of general economic interest;

27.

continues to share the worries of the European Parliament about the ramifications of the February 2013 decision of the European Council to reduce the budget for digital infrastructure and services under the Connecting Europe Facility, from EUR 9,2 billion to only EUR 1 billion, thereby causing the European Commission to fundamentally reorient it plans;

28.

stresses that LRAs are in a position to foster innovation and competitiveness through tailored demand-and-supply-side solutions including broadband roll-out, the digital economy, e-inclusion and e-government. Moreover, they provide education and training facilities, implement EU funding initiatives and facilitate beneficial cooperation and exchange with other public authorities including across borders;

29.

welcomes the opportunities offered through the European Investment Bank, which has committed to increasing its loans for broadband infrastructure to EUR 2 billion per year and which has explicitly underlined the important role of the local and regional level in this type of growth-oriented investments. Also underlines the importance of encouraging community-led efforts, such as community enterprises;

30.

urges that new investment tools should also be supported to accelerate the roll-out of infrastructure capable of achieving the broadband speed targets of the Digital Agenda for the Europe element of the Europe 2020 strategy, and to accelerate the full deployment of 4G (in advance of newer technologies, such as 5G), while maintaining technology neutrality, as well as allowing effective competition between operators;

31.

insists that LRAs can make it a priority to provide people with the digital and entrepreneurial skills that will enable them to make full use of new technologies, understand issues of cybersecurity and the need for personal data protection, increase their employability and create new business opportunities, including through the analysis of big data;

32.

considers that e-commerce remains a missed opportunity for many smaller businesses, especially due to the prohibitive costs involved: 65 % of European internet users shop online, but this very significant demand is responded to by only 16 % of SMEs selling online — and less than half of those sell online across borders (7,5 %);

33.

calls for prioritisation of the impediments to e-commerce arising from issues such as geo-blocking and the absence of a secure online credit card payment system. These issues present unnecessary costs, complications and risks of exposure to fraud for potential online retailers, particularly those who are engaged in cross-border selling;

34.

emphasises the importance of the European Commission’s e-Government Action Plan, on modernising public services through digitisation — specifically the accessibility of public institutions for private individuals and businesses via electronic means, irrespective of the physical location — and therefore underlines its support for the development of interoperable and multilingual cross-border public services (notably exchange of information) as a functional means of overcoming perceived peripherality;

35.

points out that, when it comes to using the potential of e-government to provide societal benefits such as reducing the carbon footprint, simplifying procedures for businesses, fostering tourism or highlighting cultural heritage assets, it is often LRAs that are playing a large leadership role in identifying ICT opportunities and actors, sharing technological best practices, allocating funding to invest in ICT tools, measuring progress and communicating success;

36.

points out that, as businesses improve their digital skills and make more use of digital media, their requirements for digital solutions in their contacts with public authorities will increase. Properly functioning digitised public administration means that businesses, organisations and individuals can be provided with efficient e-services and digital processes, which improves accessibility, facilitates procedures and reduces processing times for their dealings with the public sector. Greater digitisation provides greater opportunities for public stakeholders at central, regional and local level to free up resources, so that more time can be spent on client meetings and less on administration and verification;

37.

underlines that the interoperability of e-government requires not only system compatibility but also the capacity of public administration to work in close cooperation with information systems, as well as public awareness of the possibilities that such systems offer. The CoR therefore suggests adding human capacity-building, both in terms of digital and language skills, and awareness-raising components to the ISA2 programme for interoperability solutions to support the modernisation of public administration;

38.

welcomes the proposed measures concerning the internal market for e-communications designed to promote dynamic and sustainable growth in all economic sectors and to create jobs, as well as to ensure that copyright rules are modernised in light of the digital revolution and changes in consumer behaviour;

39.

acknowledges the potential that can be derived from the Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP) cooperation between the European Committee of the Regions (CoR) and the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (DG RTD) as a means to promote new research and innovation (R&I) solutions, innovative products and best practice in response to societal challenges facing LRAs in Europe;

40.

stresses that some of the priorities of the Digital Agenda for Europe — notably addressing digital literacy and skills shortfalls as well as missed opportunities in tackling societal challenges — are fundamentals for the quality of life and social and economic activity, which can be best dealt with at local and regional level to stimulate more efficient and personalised services for the public as well as local businesses;

41.

acknowledges that with regard to ICT professionals, more than a million additional jobs have been created in Europe over the last three years. Despite this, it is expected that rapidly growing demand will lead to more than 800 000 unfilled vacancies in this sector by 2020;

42.

urges the further development of the European Commission’s Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs as a cross-European, multi-stakeholder initiative to reconcile the imbalance of these skills shortages and ICT-related job vacancies by means of offering appropriate training, apprenticeships, placements, actions to facilitate mobility and/or carrying out awareness-raising activities to encourage young people to study and pursue careers in the sector;

43.

recalls that it is at the sub-national level that the most accurate and timely information on labour markets can be sourced and where LRAs can play a significant role in identifying skills mismatches by supporting the development of appropriate vocational programmes and incentivising investment in response to local demand;

44.

calls for education providers to develop focused and more flexible training approaches in ICT. Future jobs will require an appropriate mix of basic, soft and technical skills, notably the digital and business-specific skills, that education and training systems are not yet fully addressing. Thus, the foundations need to be laid for an education and training system in which pupils/students focus on practice rather than theory;

45.

acknowledges the creation and importance of the European Commission’s New Skills Agenda for Europe and how it will provide a comprehensive framework for employability, including the need for digital and complementary key enabling skills;

46.

emphasises the enormous importance of providing digital literacy and skills necessary for citizens, workers, students and jobseekers to be part of the comprehensive implementation of digitalisation in the economy and society;

47.

reaffirming European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018), stresses the importance of developing a basic package that each Member State would guarantee to young pupils by providing access to broadband within the education system, thus providing young people with a minimum guarantee regarding digital qualifications and skills. This should be applied not only during compulsory education but also in the course of lifelong learning, through innovative programmes and further training that keeps pace with the development of technology;

48.

cautions that aside from the economic and employment perspective, the increasing influence of digital technologies, particularly amongst young people, must not be allowed to undermine fundamental human skills such as literacy and person-to-person interaction;

49.

concludes that further acknowledgement in relation to the sustainable roll-out of the Digital Agenda needs to be given to the EU’s regions. LRAs are amongst the main target audience of the agenda’s recommendations and must be seen as key drivers and partners for its implementation.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/34

1.

considers the Commission initiatives on the European Cloud and on ICT standardisation priorities to be important, in particular with a view to Europe’s position in the global digital economy and achieving the objectives of the Digital Single Market Strategy;

2.

notes that reducing obstacles to knowledge-sharing will substantially boost the competitiveness of European businesses while also benefiting local and regional authorities;

3.

judges the Commission’s phased approach to rolling out European cloud services to be sensible and is pleased to note that the framework will enable first the scientific community, and then both businesses and local and regional authorities, to use shared knowledge as well as producing it;

4.

shares the Commission’s view that competitive High Performance Computing can only be developed through joint measures;

5.

agrees with the Commission that European ICT standardisation efforts must be stepped up in order to harness the potential of digitalisation and to deliver cross-border services;

6.

notes that notwithstanding ICT standardisation, companies and the public sector must also be given scope to develop, acquire and apply innovative solutions that deviate from those standards;

7.

observes that the development and/or application of common standards is still seriously wanting in the case of many areas crucial to the digital single market, for example electronic identification, and is still very concerned that geographical differences in high-speed broadband accessibility are hindering completion of the digital single market (1). Island status is a negative geographical factor due to the need for higher-cost undersea cables;

8.

reiterates in this context its call for projects for the development of broadband to be recognised as services of general economic interest (2);

9.

affirms that European local and regional authorities are keen to develop knowledge-sharing, and also to notify the ICT standards that are required to meet their needs in respect of public service development (3);

10.

urges the Commission to ensure that relevant national players in all the Member States embark on adequate measures to promote open science cloud services as well as knowledge-sharing more generally, as otherwise there is a substantial risk that differences between the Member States will increase rapidly, a situation that would very soon become apparent in the activity of local and regional authorities;

11.

agrees with the Commission that every organisation — big or small, public or private — is expected to appropriately manage cybersecurity risks and, where necessary, be in a position to show that it does so successfully, and urges that measures be devised to help develop cybersecurity know-how at every level necessary (4);

12.

underlines overall that, in order to reap the multiple benefits of the Digital Single Market, a skilled labour force is needed to implement it; welcomes therefore the Commission’s proposals, within the framework of its recently adopted New Skills Agenda for Europe, to put the emphasis on investment in digital education and training in order to ensure that citizens are equipped with the necessary skills for the digital transition;

13.

notes that the common denominator of the two communications to which this opinion refers is the lack of interoperability in many different sectors, which results in researchers, industry, public authorities and policy-makers being unable to access the data they need;

14.

points out that the greatest obstacle to interoperability, in relation to such data sharing as cross-border digital services for example, is usually the lack of a standardised data architecture (5);

15.

recommends that, in addition to the minimum standards and simple meta-data mentioned in the communication, the possibility also be considered of defining the European master data required in cross-border services;

16.

shares the Commission’s view that the current context requires partnerships between different sectors in standardisation, and would give the example of e-health, where increasing people’s responsibility for their own health calls for a broader perspective (6);

17.

notes that the e-health, intelligent transport systems, smart energy and more environment-friendly manufacturing technology, which the Commission cites in its communication as examples of important target areas, are quite central to the activities of local and regional authorities, which will have to be actively involved if the objectives are to be achieved;

18.

agrees with the Commission that priorities should be subject to regular review, because standardisation needs can actually change very quickly, owing to the constant advent of new innovations in welfare services for instance;

19.

believes it is important in European standardisation for broad use to be made of the innovations that are part of company patents, and supports the Commission’s efforts to clarify core elements of an equitable, effective and enforceable licensing methodology around FRAND principles;

20.

notes that much open-source licensed software is already being used in European local and regional government. This is regarded as a positive development, which the Commission should further in particular by clarifying the relationship between open source and FRAND licensing terms;

21.

points out that alongside the development of EU and international official standardisation, measures are needed to underpin the ICT technical specifications developed by other standard developing organisations and widely accepted good practices which are more often used;

22.

considers it essential to develop procedures to ensure that the needs of the end-users of standards — both businesses and the public sector — are known when standardisation plans are drawn up;

23.

very much welcomes the Commission’s proposal to support broader participation of European experts in international ICT standardisation, since common global procedures are vitally important both for achieving European digitalisation objectives and for the development of the sector;

24.

observes that it is already several years since the publication of the European Interoperability Framework for European Public Services, and welcomes the Commission’s plan to update it, hoping that the potential of the internet of things will also be considered in this process (1);

25.

notes that cloud services are expanding rapidly in Europe. According to a Commission study, this could mean Europe’s cloud services market growing from EUR 9,5 billion in 2013 to EUR 44,8 billion by 2020, representing a fivefold increase (7). According to Eurostat data from the end of 2014 (8):

26.

underlines, in view of the above, the need for a clear political commitment to fund cloud research infrastructure in order to harness the huge potential of cloud computing;

27.

notes that cloud services are based on trust and that to win and keep trust considerable attention must be paid to data security and privacy;

28.

hopes that account will be taken of the potential for open science cloud services to be used in education;

29.

draws attention to the role of public-private partnerships in developing open science cloud services and reiterates its previously stated opinion that existing clouds or clouds under development at national, regional and possibly local level should be made interconnectable and interoperable with European solutions (9);

30.

notes that broad use of the data and other material provided through cloud services is conditional on resolving issues relating to copyright (10);

31.

urges the Commission to support increased sharing of European data in the framework of current legislation on protection of personal data and privacy; in this respect, calls on the Commission to provide a general overview of where relevant data can be consulted on a decentralised basis, so that the data is accessible;

32.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to put forward an EU ‘Free flow of data’ initiative to promote the free flow of data in the Union (11);

33.

emphasises that sharing of standardised data will reduce the current fragmentation between researchers, businesses and public authorities, as well as within these groups, and that it will thus further many of the objectives relating to the digital single market;

34.

shares the Commission’s understanding of the biases currently hindering data sharing and urges it to be more active in communicating the benefits of data sharing for the party doing the sharing (12);

35.

notes that sharing data also has important benefits for local and regional authorities. The owner of the data loses nothing from sharing it: on the contrary, sharing increases the value of the data. Opening up government data enhances democracy and provides new business opportunities. Data sharing also reduces the need for ad hoc and often costly data requests;

36.

points out that if citizens have broader access to their personal health data online this will mean they take more responsibility for their own health, and hopes that opportunities will increase for people to also use their data in other areas of public administration;

37.

notes that to benefit from the European Open Science Cloud, public authorities and SMEs in particular need not just the actual data but also tools for analysing it, especially in the case of Big Data;

38.

supports the Commission’s endeavour to bring the European data community together, for instance in the Big Data public-private partnership under the Horizon 2020 programme, and encourages local and regional authorities to get involved in this cooperation if they can;

39.

believes that the European Open Science Cloud, which incorporates public authority, business and research data, could using Big Data processing methods facilitate for instance the handling of municipal policy matters, which are often multidimensional and complex;

40.

points out that the European cloud also plays a key role in environmental protection by storing documents, information and data in digital form. In addition to the fact that it is much easier to store and access files, not printing them reduces paper use and so helps protect the environment;

41.

is pleased to note that the internet of things (IoT) is one of the Commission’s standardisation priorities, since in future this will have a substantial positive impact on the quality of services and productivity of activities for which local and regional authorities are responsible. According to a European Commission study (13), the market value of the IoT in the EU is expected to exceed one trillion euros by the year 2020;

42.

hopes that the Commission will take broader account of the great potential of IoT in its various programmes relating to digitisation of public administration;

43.

believes that laying down standards for the internet of things in the context of public procurement serves the needs of regions and municipalities and may give European industry a substantial edge in this sector;

44.

points out, however, that IoT is a nascent sector and that not just standards are needed, but also innovative experimentation, whose financing should be a priority for the Union;

45.

notes that various analyses have shown that a considerable number of local and regional authorities are underinformed about the benefits of IoT, especially in healthcare, energy efficiency, environmental matters, security, and real estate management, not to mention smart transport, and hopes that the Commission will take measures to ensure that knowledge is shared in this area and that there is a greater focus on documentation and the effects and benefits of IoT, smart city initiatives and open data;

46.

emphasises that all five of the priority domains identified by the Commission for standardisation are interconnected, but that there is a particularly close interdependence between IoT and future 5G networks. Unless full geographical coverage is achieved for 5G networks, it will be impossible for the internet of things to be used in the same way in all European regions.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/39

1.

welcomes the action plan which is a Commission initiative setting out the path to be followed for proposing to establish a single value added tax (VAT) area in the EU by 2017;

2.

recognises that the VAT system is an essential part of the single market and should be reformed to make it simpler, fairer, more effective and less exposed to fraud in order to improve competition conditions between enterprises, reduce discrimination among consumers and optimise revenue collection;

3.

notes the importance that the single VAT area in the Union has for local and regional authorities, due to the fact that, in some Member States, they are responsible for levying VAT and that the redistribution of VAT revenue is central to the implementation of financial equalisation schemes for the benefit of local and regional authorities; however, Member States’ systems of national redistribution of VAT revenues falls outside the EU’s sphere of responsibility;

4.

points out that VAT is also a major source of income for the EU’s own resources as it accounted for EUR 17,6 billion in 2014, or 12,3 % of the EU’s total revenue;

5.

also supports the Commission’s aim of combating fraud. The huge levels of fraud reflect the shortcomings in the current systems and lead to significant losses of revenue for Member States every year; the estimated loss for the EU is EUR 170 billion per annum. This has a negative impact on public sector budgets, including those of local and regional authorities in some Member States, and their ability to provide quality services; in this respect urges Member States to collect and circulate statistics on cross-border VAT fraud;

6.

points out that the fragmentation and complexity of the VAT system result in major compliance costs for businesses involved in cross-border trade. These costs are disproportionately high for small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the backbone of the economy and the basis for employment at regional level. Notes that the Action Plan on VAT equally needs to lead to a simplification for legitimate businesses undertaking in cross-border trade. The VAT system must not impose undue barriers on cross-border trade;

7.

draws attention to the fact that differences in the VAT rules and the rates set have a particular impact on border regions and the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in these regions. It is therefore necessary to assess the territorial impact of the proposals which offer greater flexibility in setting VAT rates;

8.

notes that the VAT directive includes provisions on VAT rates aimed at protecting the single market and preventing distortions in competition; considers that these are essential principles and that all proposals for allowing Member States greater leeway in setting rates should be carefully scrutinised in order to ascertain what effect they might have on the internal market and competition;

9.

supports the reform of the VAT system which can provide the basis for future growth, competitiveness and employment, by allowing the digital and mobile economy, new economic models and service enterprises to thrive. In this respect, welcomes the Commission’s proposal to extend the VAT one-stop-shop for electronic services to the provision of goods, on the basis of a pilot scheme aimed at improving cooperation between tax administrations and enterprises involved in trading in the electronics sector;

10.

considers that Member States’ effectiveness in the field of tax administration is very variable. There is not enough cooperation and trust between tax administrations; believes that banks should fully cooperate with tax authorities in cases of suspected VAT fraud, within the limits of the applicable data protection legislation;

11.

recommends looking at Members States’ best practices for allocating part of the VAT revenue to local and regional authorities or alternatively granting them the power to levy it;

12.

calls for representatives of local and regional authorities at national level and of the CoR at European level to be included in consultations on any changes to the VAT system, bearing in mind the direct impact of these decisions on the welfare of the population, on the competitiveness of enterprises and on the revenue of the public authorities;

13.

when examining the principle whereby VAT payments for cross-border transactions are subject to the same requirements as those for national transactions, calls for particular consideration to be given to the impact on SMEs when different VAT rates are maintained at the same time;

14.

shares the view that the new system should be based on the principle of destination and should make provision for VAT on sales to a customer established in another EU Member State to be levied in accordance with the legislation of the supplier country, and at the rate applied in the country of destination, and that the VAT revenue of the levying state be transferred to the competent authority in the state of consumption;

15.

welcomes the intention of ensuring that enterprises carrying out commercial transactions within the single market will be able to settle any VAT-related issues with the competent authority in their country of origin and that they will not be required to register for VAT, to submit returns and pay charges in all the EU Member States in which they conduct business transactions. These simplifications must not result in any compromise to VAT revenues and influence fiscal sovereignty of Member States;

16.

considers that the Commission’s action plan is ambitious and will need time to be implemented; therefore supports the principle of a gradual phasing-in;

17.

urges the Commission and the Member States to adopt measures to improve tax efficiency and combat fraud in order to reduce the amount of VAT that is uncollected by the Member States. Such measures could help significantly with efforts to build confidence in the tax administrations and establish effective cooperation, which is needed for the new system to function properly. The Committee stresses the fact that the introduction of new reporting and audit tools must not impose an undue burden on businesses, particularly SMEs;

18.

calls on Member States to adopt practical decisions on the regulations governing VAT in the European Union, especially to abolish the differences observed to date between Member States regarding the derogations from the VAT directive granted to individual countries, and to encourage all Member States to implement these derogations;

19.

notes that when making proposals for improving the efficiency of tax administration, the Commission must respect national and/or regional administrative powers;

20.

encourages more effective use of IT tools by using all the electronic information available for combating fraud, whilst ensuring that data is protected;

21.

in the light of the reverse and split VAT payment systems (1) set up in several countries, stresses the need for boosting people’s confidence in the fact that the VAT paid actually goes into the national, regional or local budgets, since individuals are among the primary real sources of VAT payments; recommends looking at the possibility of bringing in a voluntary electronic payment system for transferring the VAT on people’s purchases to the budget of the competent authority and the amount of the purchase minus VAT to the vendor’s account, as is the case at present;

22.

stresses the fact that there is insufficient proof of distortions of competition in the non-levying of VAT on certain types of public sector bodies’ activities, inter-municipal cooperation or on activities deemed to be in the public interest. The decision not to consider public bodies as taxable for VAT purposes met objective and harmonised criteria at European level and was not at the discretion of Member States;

23.

calls for the interests of local and regional authorities to be taken into account in the Commission’s impact assessment, which is due to be published in 2017; in this connection, the concepts of ‘(significant) distortions of competition’ need to be clarified, in consultation with local and regional authorities;

24.

considers it urgent that all Member States should be able to apply all derogations established in the past by any Member State;

25.

calls for the VAT rate on school buildings to be reduced to 6 %;

26.

emphasises that the current list of reduced VAT rates is particularly opaque and does not have a well-defined rationale. Is therefore disappointed that the Commission has not made an exhaustive and transparent inventory of the reduced VAT rates that have been granted; considers it necessary to review the list of reduced VAT rates, taking into account technical, economic and other developments, and the distortions created by different VAT rates for similar goods and services; this review should, to the extent possible, lead towards a harmonisation in order to avoid distortion of competition within the single market for SMEs;

27.

considers, moreover, that those bodies that carry out activities in the public interest could have a greater economic incentive to deduct VAT ex post rather than being non-taxable ex ante;

28.

believes that option 1 (extension and regular review of the list of goods and services eligible for reduced rates) is liable to entail less serious risks than option 2 (abolition of the list of goods and services eligible for reduced rates);

29.

feels that giving Member States more leeway in setting rates will inevitably lead to greater differences in rates which might distort the single market and impose burdens on businesses, particularly SMEs; points out that the Commission should make a thorough assessment in order to look at the impact its proposals might have on competition and the administrative burdens for businesses, together with their impact on the regions, and particularly on border regions;

30.

notes that the Communication also refers to other costs and shortcomings connected with the transfer of responsibilities for reducing rates to the Member States, particularly the risk associated with falling revenues and the complexity of VAT, as well as the increased costs and legal uncertainty for businesses; considers that this risk should be fully assessed;

31.

in line with its opinion on food waste (June 2016), supports the proposal to make the VAT on donated unsold food tax-deductible for large retailers;

32.

points out that complicated VAT rules that differ in each Member State are one of the main barriers to e-commerce; recognises that the VAT system must be simplified and compliance costs for SMEs be reduced, mainly by addressing the aspects that are less favourable to businesses based in the European Union than to suppliers from third countries;

33.

is in favour of an extension of the one-stop-shop mechanism covering trade in goods and the introduction or increase of VAT thresholds for start-ups and micro-enterprises;

34.

supports the proposal to remove the VAT exemption for imports of small consignments from third countries and to allow for checks via a single audit of cross-border businesses, as European SMEs are currently at a competitive disadvantage compared to third-country SMEs;

35.

points out that the economic development of local and regional authorities is based on SMEs and that the costs the latter incur to ensure compliance with the VAT rules are proportionately higher than for large businesses: SMEs are consequently obliged to operate at a disadvantage in terms of competition;

36.

draws attention to the fact that measures apparently based on improving the business environment have been adopted in several states to simplify registration for new companies, whereas they often encourage the creation of enterprises that make it possible to set up the so-called ‘carousel’ fraud systems;

37.

notes that the relevant national institutions (including tax administrations) should take the responsibility to monitor activities of enterprises, which are operating legally; this responsibility should not be delegated to counterparties, other enterprises, as the Court of Justice of the EU has stated repeatedly in the judgments regarding the VAT;

38.

advocates that the Commission provide for the appropriate simplification measures in the package for SMEs that it will put forward in 2017.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/43

1.

The Paris Agreement is a considerable achievement in that it is universal, binding and balanced. It sets out a global action plan to keep the increase in temperature this century to well below 2 degrees and to drive efforts to limit the increase even further to 1,5 degrees compared to 1990 levels. It is particularly important because the outlined path to decarbonisation provides reliable guidance for decision makers at all levels, avoid costly lock-in to high carbon investments, and provides certainty and clear direction to businesses and investors. The 22nd Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP22) will be tasked with maintaining the positive momentum from Paris and operationalising the agreement’s various mechanisms.

2.

However, even if fully implemented, the Parties’ current pledges will not be sufficient to reach the agreed goals. Enhanced action will have to come from regions and cities, which are closely connected with local communities and territories, while the Parties must table updated contributions as soon as possible — as early as in the context of the facilitative dialogue in 2018. With regard to the EU in particular, the European Committee of the Regions maintains its past position regarding the need for a 50 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 with the aim that global GHG emissions should reach their peak as soon as possible and should be phased out by 2050 or shortly after.

3.

The EU with its highly developed multi-level governance system has a particular responsibility to show united and ambitious leadership in addressing climate change; the CoR therefore welcomes the timely ratification of the Paris agreement by the European Union and calls on the Member States which have not done so yet to ratify it as soon as possible. The CoR also calls the European Commission and the Member States to update and specify the 2030 Framework and 2050 Roadmap in order to comply with the Agreement’s obligation to formulate mid-century, long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies; this process should start as soon as possible, to allow a comprehensive debate, in which the representatives from national, regional and local authorities as well as civil society and the business sector should be closely involved.

4.

The Paris Agreement recognised the importance of multi-level governance in climate policy. This principle should now be put into practice across all levels of government in order to develop connections and to close existing gaps between national, regional and local climate change policies, together with an enhanced transparency framework and the development of the necessary instruments for global stocktaking, a better understanding of differentiated impact of climate change, loss and damage and the appropriate climate finance and capacity support.

5.

The CoR therefore calls for the further development of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA) and its corresponding platform, the Non-State Actors Zone for Climate Action (NAZCA). These could be fully integrated into the UNFCCC Secretariat through the Global Climate Action Agenda launched by the newly appointed Climate Champions (1). This should in turn become the basis for fully-fledged multi-level governance on climate action, as also noted in the European Parliament’s resolution.

6.

As the biggest contributors to the LPAA and NAZCA, regions and cities have already shown the extent of their commitment to combatting climate change and their potential for increased action. Voluntary initiatives, such as the EU Covenant of Mayors and the Under 2 Degrees Memorandum of Understanding, are of particular added-value as they feed into the LPAA and NAZCA with quantified data and demonstrate greater ambition than national legislators. The contribution of these initiatives to stirring up action at all levels should be acknowledged and encouraged by subnational and national governments as well as intergovernmental organisations. Their efforts should be accounted for and included within the respective Nationally Determined Contributions, as it is already the case for Mexico for example. Other monitoring and reporting initiatives and mechanisms to measure emissions reduction and evaluate mitigation and adaptation policies should also be fostered.

7.

Better integration of regions and cities within the UNFCCC process is also necessary and would allow for feedback from the ground to be channelled back to the UN level in a timely manner. Countries would have access to the best information, enabling them to make cost-effective decisions that can be implemented by regions and cities on the ground. It is therefore necessary to establish a permanent and direct dialogue between the different levels, starting from the local and regional level.

8.

Measures to enhance this dialogue include:

9.

Following the COP21, the European Commission and the Council have been liaising increasingly with the CoR to better integrate a local approach to EU legislation — notably through the EU Urban Agenda. Moreover, the roadmap for the implementation of the Paris Agreement in the EU fully endorses the multi-level governance principle.

10.

The European Commission has also set in motion the extension and reinforcement of the EU Covenant of Mayors. It now includes an adaptation component in addition to being developed in different parts of the world.

11.

From the CoR perspective, it is of utmost importance to build on this recognition and to ensure a balanced approach that recognises the distinct contributions of both regions and cities in this context.

12.

The CoR would like to emphasise that the principle of multi-level governance is inclusive and cost-effective because it allows all levels of government to coordinate their efforts, and in doing so, to maximise their potential for action.

13.

Regions have a key role in providing the context for urban policies within a larger territory and linking them with other policies such as forestry, green and blue infrastructures, territorial cohesion and agriculture. This function of regions is especially important in the EU as the territory is made up of small and medium-sized cities, which often have limited resources and capacity for action. Regions help to avoid costly duplication of efforts and to ensure broad cohesion between urban and non-urban areas.

14.

The EU Covenant of Mayors, for example, includes many regions as regional coordinators. These can empower several cities simultaneously to become part of the Covenant.

15.

The CoR therefore notes the pivotal role of regions in Member States in driving this kind of vertical coordination between all levels of government.

16.

In Italy, for example, regions have established an interregional board on climate adaptation. The board brings together the national government and all regions. It ensures that the Italian strategy on adaptation, which was developed on the basis of the European Strategy on adaptation to climate change, will be implemented at regional level.

Regions in turn are also responsible for helping cities and towns within their territories to build local adaptation plans accordingly.

17.

Based on this example, the CoR calls on the EU regions to show leadership in applying EU and national climate strategies, and in driving change at local level. It also calls on the European Commission and Member States to incorporate this role into their definition of inclusive governance on climate and energy, as well as within their strategy for implementing the Paris Agreement. This would include the need to take due account of the role of ‘regional coordinators’ in the context of the Covenant of Mayors when designing new support tools for signatories.

18.

In addition to vertical coordination, the CoR deems it necessary to deepen horizontal coordination between different policies. Mainstreaming climate in all policies will allow local populations to benefit from many co-benefits such as higher quality of life and local jobs. It will also allow to create synergies and decrease costs of action. For example, it is estimated that the EU circular economy package could help lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 2 to 4 % annually (2) if properly implemented. The CoR therefore calls on the COP22 to address the key role of the reduction of raw materials’ exploitation and sustainable waste management in the context of combatting climate change.

19.

The CoR therefore calls on regions and cities to champion cross-administrative cooperation. One may note the successful model of the cross-administrative committee on sustainable development of Espoo, Finland. Not least thanks to this integrated approach, Espoo has recently been ranked the most sustainable city in the EU according to a study ordered by the Dutch presidency of the EU.

20.

Beyond horizontal cooperation at local and regional levels, silo-thinking should also be avoided when designing EU support measures available for regions and cities. To this end, the CoR is looking forward to the one-stop shop announced by the European Commission in its communication ‘The Road from Paris’ and also underlines the importance of this service in addressing the needs of regions.

21.

In preparation for the COP22 and beyond, the CoR commits to supporting the European Commission and the Council in their efforts to make the implementation of the agreement a success in close cooperation with the European Parliament.

22.

The CoR should aim to be carbon neutral as an institution and will liaise with the other EU institutions, notably the European Parliament in this endeavour.

23.

Within the EU, the CoR is committed to informing regions and cities about their key role in enhanced climate action and about all facilitating mechanisms for supporting bottom-up action.

24.

The CoR, as a strong supporter of the EU Covenant of Mayors, is encouraging participation in the initiative among its members and has also created a CoR group of Covenant ambassadors to promote the initiative within their respective countries.

25.

The CoR is therefore committed to leading by example. It is part of the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) and pledges to continue its efforts collectively with the administration and its members to lower its carbon emissions and decrease its consumption of fossil fuels. To this end, the CoR will explore how to offset the unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions caused by the travel of its members and staff. This implies calculating the CoR carbon footprint, including all missions and external meetings in this calculation. Offsetting greenhouse gas emissions should finance sustainable projects within the EU. New technologies such as video-conferencing should be more widely used, including in CoR Commission meetings.

26.

With a view to becoming paperless, the CoR should follow the example of the European Parliament which does not print files for Plenary and Commission meetings anymore, unless members specifically request to have them or other imperative reasons require printed-out documents.

27.

Beyond the EU’s borders, the CoR is committed to working in coordination with DG CLIMA, the European External Action Service and Member States in the framework of the Green Diplomacy Network to support the implementation of the existing pledges from Non-EU Parties and to encourage them to make new pledges resembling those made by the European Union.

28.

In particular, the CoR will use its structures such as the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly, the Conference of the Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership, Task Force Ukraine and the Joint Consultative Committees and Working Groups with candidate and pre-candidate countries to keep climate policy high on the political agenda and support its implementation by local and regional authorities across the world.

29.

The CoR will actively engage within the MEDCOP22 organised in Tangiers to further empower cities and regions of the area to act on climate and energy. It will notably support the focus on financing and capacity-building for local and regional authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean area, and will bring these issues to the attention of the EU delegation to the COP22.

30.

Specifically, the CoR will help to promote the Covenant of Mayors at global level, starting with the Euro-Mediterranean Covenant of Mayors and possibly with the Eastern Covenant of Mayors in 2016.

31.

The CoR will also continue its engagement at UNFCCC level to support the EU delegation’s ambitious position for climate and especially the EU multi-level governance model among its partners from the Local Governments and Municipal Authorities Major Group.

32.

Given the scale of action required on climate, we all need to change the ways we produce and consume. As a result, in order to build public acceptance for theses profound changes, regions and cities will have a key responsibility for engaging with citizens and empowering them to play an active role in this transition.

33.

Both regions and cities have a crucial role to play in facilitating the dissemination of information about behaviour change and measures to support individual action on climate.

34.

Regions and cities also have to identify and remove bottlenecks, which prevent citizens from fully participating in the transition to low-carbon and resilient societies by coordinating with higher levels of government (national, EU and global).

35.

Regions’ and cities’ long-term partnerships with businesses, universities, local communities, civil society, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and schools are vital for fostering action on climate.

36.

The CoR therefore calls on regions and cities to fully play their role in championing multi-actor projects at subnational level in order to create a culture for sustainable development that will galvanise efforts at national and European levels, emphasising that there are strong differences in terms of needs and vulnerability linked to climate change among different parts of the EU and between regions and cities.

37.

The role of research in formulating appropriate policy responses to the challenge of climate change is crucial. Close links with the academic world will contribute to good policy-making with decisions based on sound expert advice.

The CoR therefore calls on regions and cities to build close links with universities and research centres within and beyond their territories and to support inter-regional cooperation in these fields.

38.

Co-production of knowledge from an early stage and cross review between policy-makers and academics will foster cooperation in identifying problems and joint problem-solving throughout the entire research process and policy-making cycle.

39.

The CoR notes with satisfaction that the recent decision by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to draft a special report on cities and climate in 2023 will drive increased research as of now on the importance of cities in combatting climate change. It calls on the European Commission to take an active part in drawing up this report and to involve the CoR in this process, as well as to champion a multi-level territorial vision of climate action. In particular, the CoR calls on the European Commission to promote research in these areas in order to feed constructively into the special report which will be used in future UNFCCC discussions, notably the global stocktake, which will assess the state of the implementation of the Paris Agreement by 2023.

40.

The CoR promotes the inclusion of research representatives in the planning and implementation of adaptation and mitigation policies.

41.

Importantly, the Paris Agreement recognises the important positive impact of adaptation on mitigation measures.

42.

The CoR will draft a separate opinion focusing on the review of the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change planned for 2017. In this context, the CoR calls for a strong commitment to integrating mitigation and adaptation measures, as well as to mainstreaming adaptation within all relevant policies.

43.

The CoR points out that due to the potential adverse effect of climate change on people and assets, regions and cities should be empowered to increase their resilience as soon as possible. However, the CoR insists that adaptation to climate change calls for vertical and horizontal cooperation, and that regions and cities also need to be connected in order to adapt to climate change.

44.

The CoR welcomes the release of the European Commission’s Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, as well as mainstreaming of disaster resilience in the COP21 Agreement. Links between building resilient infrastructure and climate change adaptation should be further strengthened to promote cross-sector coordination between civil protection services and climate adaptation actions at all levels.

45.

The CoR calls for better awareness and support mechanisms for developing regionally oriented national adaptation strategies. Their development into coherent regional action plans and down to the local level should be closely monitored with clear milestones set at EU level to be reached at regular intervals.

46.

The question of financing and access to financing, particularly for regions and cities, is fundamental for the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

47.

Although there are different funding opportunities within the EU, regions and cities encounter various hurdles, which prevent them from accessing the support measures available at EU level, both from the EU funds and through the European Investment Bank (EIB).

Following numerous debates in the CoR and with different stakeholders, the CoR calls on the European Commission, the EIB and Member States to focus on developing the appropriate administrative capacity of regions and cities, in order to take full advantage of the public and private financing opportunities available at EU level, particularly for smaller territorial entities.

48.

The EU institutions should also make a particular effort to communicate and provide information about these different opportunities. The CoR commits to supporting the European Commission and the EIB in developing the necessary targeted communication tools.

49.

The CoR is also alarmed by the potentially inefficient use of structural funds in several Member States. Whereas 20 % of the EU budget is dedicated to climate action, a climate criterion in projects financed by structural funds is not systematically applied or verified, which risks EU funding being used for projects that are contrary to EU climate objectives. The European Commission and Member States should be particularly vigilant and investigate these matters and take the necessary corrective measures, while having in mind the principle of technological neutrality and the right of the Member States to choose between different energy sources.

50.

The CoR calls on Member States to abide by their commitment to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies. Moreover, the CoR considers that the ongoing reform of the ETS should result in setting a fair carbon price which will not harm competitiveness of the Member States, and a mechanism enabling regions to support efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The CoR would like to draw the attention of the European Commission and the Council to the successful example of the carbon market set up between California and Quebec. Billions of dollars are now being reinvested in the local economy to support companies, cities and towns and citizens in the transition towards low-carbon economies. The CoR calls for the EU to take inspiration from this example in the allocation of quotas. It also calls on Member States to allow regions to play an active role in the Emissions Trading System (ETS), notably by managing part of the auction revenues and to reinvest them in sustainable projects.

51.

The EU also needs to review its own legislation to facilitate investment in renewable energy; one example is that lower tax on biofuels is at present considered to be State aid, which may only be granted as a time-limited exemption, giving rise to uncertain investment conditions and administrative red tape for producers and suppliers of renewable fuels.

Given the large scale of funding needed, regions and cities will need to attract both public and private financing. There is still large untapped potential for business in sectors relating to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

52.

The CoR therefore calls on regions and cities to support a shift in mentality from ‘funding’ to ‘financing’ viable business plans for sustainable development.

53.

To this end, dialogue between the public and private sector needs to be enhanced. In addition, regions and cities should work with the EIB and the banking sector more widely in order to increase their knowledge of innovative financing mechanisms for low-carbon and resilient projects.

In this context, the CoR insists that regulatory certainty and predictability must be key prerequisites in order for such projects to materialise. The CoR also highlights the importance to share good practices on the integration of sustainability criteria into the financial sector. Financial products should be evaluated and labelled with regard to their exposure to climate-related risks as well as their contribution to the low carbon transition, in order to give guidance to public and private investors.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/49

1.

recalls that from the 1950s onwards, transport, city and land-use planning has systematically prioritised individual motorised transportation over active mobility and public transport in many places across Europe. Car use has become the dominant mode of transportation, even for many short-distance trips. This evolution has significantly contributed to a number of severe challenges, notably climate change, air pollution, noise, road safety concerns, congestion, low quality public space, land use segregation, oil dependency within the transport sector and a drag on consumers’ purchase power, insufficient levels of physical activity among a large part of the population, etc.; the latter in particular leads to further problems (e.g. late development of motor skills, particularly in children, obesity, concentration problems etc.);

2.

calls, in order to address those challenges, for a paradigm shift in transport and planning/land-use policies which requires a new sustainable travel hierarchy, prioritising incentives and measures to make active modes (walking and cycling) safer and more attractive first, accompanied by the promotion of public transport second, the development of car-sharing/pooling third and private individual car use last and enabling the necessary integration of the different modes of transport. This needs to be translated into all aspects of traffic planning, including prioritisation of traffic flow for active transport users, investments in infrastructure, road space allocation, prioritisation in highway codes, etc.;

3.

acknowledges that a paradigm shift in transport policy is a joint effort between all levels of government, from local and regional to national, European and indeed even global governance. Therefore calls for improved integration between levels of planning, particularly local and regional, involving the active engagement of all players in civil society, including business, NGOs, trade unions, academia, etc.;

4.

points to the need to promote improved accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists at public transport stops and the provision of safe and attractive spaces and parking facilities available to all for bicycles and potential bike-sharing schemes at transport hubs in regional planning instruments;

5.

points out that changes in policies and the allocation of resources, both in human and monetary terms, are driven by ambitious political targets, and therefore advises the Commission to embrace a target of doubling cycling across EU Member States over the next 10 years (from currently approx. 7-8 % share of bicycle trips in the transport modal split to approx. 15 %);

6.

urges the Commission to analyse the potential for cycling in the EU transport modal split in the long-term (2030/2040/2050), to estimate the investments and other measures needed to realise this potential and to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. It should base this analysis upon existing, well-tested tools like the World Health Organization’s Health Economic Assessment Tool for Walking and Cycling, and develop them further by taking into account a cross-cutting approach to cycling with regard to sectors such as the economy, environment, climate, energy-efficiency, the transport sector, education, health, sport, etc.;

7.

strongly welcomes the initiative taken by the European Parliament (1) and Member States (2) in asking the European Commission to present a European roadmap/EU level strategic document for cycling. Member States’ ‘Declaration on Cycling as a climate friendly Transport Mode’, endorsed during the Luxembourg EU Presidency in October 2015, also calls for the establishment of a European Cycling Focal Point at the Commission;

8.

welcomes the 2014 Paris Declaration adopted by the Transport, Health, Environment Pan-European Programme (THE PEP) and strongly supports the development of a pan-European Master Plan for Cycling Promotion by its Member States, the WHO, UNECE and other stakeholders (3);

9.

calls for an EU Roadmap for Cycling to be included in the Commission Work Programme 2018. The roadmap should address the growing demand for coordinated action at the EU level to help unlock the well-documented environmental, health and economic benefits of cycling; while ensuring that within this roadmap there are actions that allow the raising of awareness and the dissemination of such benefits, in order to create an habit or culture of cycling;

10.

points out that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the strategic development of a national network of cycle routes falls within the competence of the Member States and the EU should therefore play a supporting role, primarily at these networks’ cross-border connections, in strategies developed by countries and regions with lower numbers of people who cycle every day, as well as coordinating and developing the European cycle route network;

11.

stresses, however, that LRAs are the principal players in shaping the conditions for tomorrow’s urban and regional transport and mobility system, with the full application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality as urban mobility and urban transport are a competence of LRAs. In that respect experience shows that detailed cycling plans can be mainstreamed into local transport strategies in order to develop ambitious visions for cycling that communities can support. In turn regional transport partnerships and strategies can also mainstream cycling in regional policies and provide support programmes for cycling;

12.

reiterates, therefore, the CoR’s call for LRAs to be more actively involved in the decision-making process (4) and believes that, as the voice of LRAs, the CoR should lead the discussion on EU initiatives for the promotion of cycling because cities and regions are expected to benefit most from such actions;

13.

also sees cycling as one central element for sustainable urban mobility, and as a centrepiece of an integrated EU urban agenda;

14.

points out that there is strong academic evidence that investments in cycling infrastructure come with a benefit-to-cost ratio of at least 5:1 (5). Economic benefits are coming from different directions: firstly, in terms of creating mainly local jobs in bicycle manufacture and the retail trade, repairs, infrastructure construction or maintenance, as well as in fields such as cycling tourism and transport and other services. Secondly, in terms of improved public health due to increased physical activity and less air and noise pollution. Thirdly, less traffic congestion leads to a decrease in blocked roads, in delays and lost working hours, and in wasted fuel. This will lead overall to a better urban quality of life and at the same time increase attractiveness. Finally, economic benefits can be seen in terms of more efficient land use;

15.

reiterates, therefore, the call of transport ministers in the ‘Declaration on Cycling as a climate friendly Transport Mode’ for an EU-level strategic document on cycling that identifies ‘EU policy and funding instruments that are already mobilised or that should be mobilised to increase cycling’s mode share and to foster cycling related employment in the EU, and include cycling in (…) EU policies and funding instruments’ (6);

16.

calls, moreover, for a forward-thinking EU transport investment policy, that should also improve public health and that invests, with full consideration of the Paris Agreement at COP 21, EU’ transport funds in cycling (7);

17.

proposes, as a general rule, that every relevant infrastructure project co-funded by the EU should take cycling into consideration as much as possible, including to avoid a possible negative impact on cycling due to the construction of motorways, railways, etc. (i.e. the ‘Cycling in all infrastructure projects’ principle). Moreover, in the 2018-2020 work programmes of the research and innovation programme of the European Commission, Horizon 2020 (Mobility for growth), cycling should be introduced as a stand-alone funding priority;

18.

requests that the European Commission establishes minimum cycling infrastructure quality criteria for relevant projects co-funded with EU money, particularly network design criteria that focus on safety, functionality and signage, so as to ensure value for the European taxpayer’s money; requests, in addition, that the Commission works with Member States and local and regional authorities to develop national guidance documents as well as a best practice database and knowledge exchange for the provision of cycling infrastructure. Similarly, calls on the European Commission to establish criteria for the financing, management and economic viability of the main measures;

19.

proposes to include EuroVelo, the long-distance cycle route network (8), in the TEN-T, thereby improving cross-border connections, developing tourism opportunities and fostering better inner-city accessibility, and suggests the use of Connecting Europe Facility funds for urban nodes, e.g. for the construction of urban and suburban (fast) cycling routes;

20.

recalls that fear of accidents when cycling amongst motorised traffic contributes to the widespread perception that cycling is a dangerous activity. This fear is to some extent unfounded, since most accidents involve the cyclist alone and no other vehicle, but it does have the effect of discouraging cycling and can be a barrier to its success;

21.

recalls that low speed limits in built-up areas and enforcement of those limits is one of the most important factors in decreasing road fatalities. Collisions between cyclists and vehicles travelling at speed are a major cause of death and serious injury for cyclists. The CoR calls, therefore, for the EU to propose to national, regional and local authorities recommendations on better speed management and on the creation of traffic-calming measures via the introduction, among other things, of streets in urban areas with a default speed limit of 30 km/h (or 20 mph) and that take bicycles into account, making it possible for various users to coexist: pedestrians, bicycles, cars, heavy goods vehicles, emergency vehicles (ambulances, fire engines, etc.). In addition, intelligent speed assistance systems should also be phased in through type-approval for all new motorised four-wheelers, buses and heavy goods vehicles to be licensed on EU public roads; points out that there is a clear discrepancy between the actual, objective safety of cycling and many people’s subjective perception of safety. In order to minimise this discrepancy, there should also be an emphasis on soft information and communication measures, such as effective public information campaigns. Only if people’s fear of cycling can be reduced and the subjective perception of safety improved, will reluctant cyclists feel at ease and use the bicycle as a form of transport;

22.

recalls, moreover, that despite the relatively low number of larger and heavier vehicles in urban areas compared to the overall number of motorised vehicles, they are disproportionately involved in cycling fatalities;

23.

regrets the excessively slow decrease in cyclist fatalities and supports, in this respect, the adoption of an EU-wide serious injury target and the exploration of possible under-reporting of serious injuries. In this regard, it must be a working principle of the EU Roadmap for Cycling to move towards the goal of zero fatalities and to be a world leader in cycling safety and protection;

24.

calls for the timely revision of the General Safety Regulation, particularly in relation to direct vision improvements concerning drivers of heavy goods vehicles, which could be complemented by other obligatory active safety systems, such as sensors to detect cyclists and automated braking systems in order to avoid collisions;

25.

calls for an update of the Regulation on the type-approval of motor vehicles with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users (9) to also include testing procedures for cyclist protection if impacting the front of a car;

26.

calls for consideration to be given to incorporating specific measures to improve safe cycling in existing EU directives such as the EU Infrastructure Safety Directive on tunnels and TEN-T infrastructure (10) for urban and rural roads;

27.

requests that the upcoming Commission guidelines on urban logistics (11) should recognise the tremendous potential to shift the delivery of services and goods of up to 250 kg to e-cargo cycles and hence recommend cycle-logistics deliveries to be the preferred option wherever possible;

28.

points out that urban and transport planning must be closely coordinated and integrated with local mobility in all areas;

29.

insists that education on road safety, traffic laws and road rules as well as some bicycle-specific rules starting in schools is paramount and it will contribute to the reduction of accidents involving cyclists; the European Commission should help in facilitating the dissemination of tried and tested local school schemes that bring together schools, police and other stakeholders in making junior cyclists aware of good cycling techniques as well as core notions on how to measure the force and velocity of potential impacts on the road while also promoting the benefits of cycling as a social, healthy and essentially safe mode of transportation;

30.

reiterates the CoR’s position that national and municipal urban access regulations and road user charging can be effective instruments to manage the competing demands for urban road space and to address crucial problems such as congestion, pollution and urban sprawl (12) and stresses, in that context, that the Commission’s forthcoming non-binding guidelines on urban accessibility (13) should consistently prioritise cycling; recommends to LRAs that revenues from access restriction schemes and road user charges should be partially reinvested in cycling so as to create attractive alternatives for car use;

31.

points out that combining cycles and public transport is mutually beneficial and that multi-modality is crucial for successful seamless urban transport networks; reiterates the CoR’s call for the obligatory publication of timetables and other travel information and full accessibility for all EU citizens (14), as well as the development of IT systems and route planning applications that take intermodality into account, and demands that, as regards multi-modality, cycling and bike-sharing schemes should be fully integrated into technical standards, EU legislation and EU-funded R & D schemes, in particular as regards journey-planning, ticketing, parking, etc. The infrastructure in and around bus and train stations, as well as public transport amenities themselves, need to be improved to facilitate easy switching between trains, buses and bicycles (15);

32.

proposes that electromobility policies at all governmental levels should always take into account e-cycling;

33.

advises the Commission to include cycling in its revision of the EU Green Public Procurement criteria for transport. Procurement criteria should not only strive to make marginal improvements to cars and light commercial vehicles (LCVs) bought by public procurers, but also to achieve a modal shift towards environmentally friendly transport modes like cycling. Therefore, it should be an obligatory step in procurement procedures according to the EU Green Public Procurement criteria to check if bicycles (including pedelecs) can be bought instead of passenger cars and cargo cycles (including electric and electric-assist cargo cycles) instead of LCVs. Similarly, it advises incorporating innovation-related public procurement criteria to facilitate all aspects of technological development and dissemination among the Member States;

34.

acknowledges that a jigsaw of policies is needed to mitigate climate change, meeting the EU’s decarbonisation objectives for the transport sector and improving urban air quality. This includes technical solutions, policy shifts, and incentives to avoid unnecessary trips. Ambitious cycling delivery programmes should be an integral part of any climate change mitigation and air quality strategy, no matter the governance level. Ambitious cycling policies can also contribute to delivering on 11 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (16);

35.

stresses that reliable and comparable data is essential to making informed decisions and measuring the impact of policy and funding interventions, and therefore advises the Commission (Eurostat) to develop a common data collection methodology and harmonised definitions for national and urban data on cycle use;

36.

welcomes the appointment of a cycling contact person within DG MOVE but points out that this position should be upgraded to a Commission-wide Cycling Focal Point equipped with at least 1 FTE in staff resources, and complemented with cycling contact points in all relevant Commission DGs ensuring an efficient inter-service consultation and intra-Commission coordination;

37.

asks the Commission to support a clearing house, equipped with adequate resources, to address Member States’ and LRAs’ need for access to best practice, case studies, reports, funding possibilities, etc. on cycling (17).

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/54

1.

welcomes the proposal’s overall vision and its aim of removing existing digital barriers to the single market and preventing further fragmentation arising in the context of the modernisation of public administrations;

2.

highlights the key importance of local and regional authorities, both in modernising administrations as the creators and administrators of digital infrastructure and services in areas of importance for society, and in taking responsibility for directly providing their residents with services shaped to meet expectations in an increasingly digitalised world;

3.

stresses how very important public services are in driving the digital transformation of the European economy, over and above e-government, and notes that the proposals set out include measures within most areas of people’s lives, but not in the culture and education sector;

4.

draws attention to the importance of modernising public institutions and systems of governance and making them accessible to individuals and businesses by means of digital services, and therefore emphasises its support for the development of cross-border public services, especially those that allow for interoperability and information transfer, such as e-procurement, e-identification, e-signatures, the electronic service of documents and other aspects of e-government (1);

5.

recommends that those local and regional authorities that are important to the success of the planned measures should be involved not only in the implementation, but also in the development of the planned national measures and tools highlighted in the action plan;

6.

suggests that the European Committee of the Regions should be included in the e-Government Action Plan Steering Board in order to ensure that the discussions reflect the local and regional dimension, given that a significant proportion of welfare services are provided by local and regional operators;

7.

shares the Commission’s view that e-government makes administration simpler, more efficient and more transparent;

8.

considers that the importance of digitising the governance of European, national or local authorities is a positive factor, including as regards simplifying time-consuming bureaucratic procedures and because it enables people to monitor legislative activities, keep up to date with problems that affect them directly and take an active role in decision-making;

9.

also agrees with the Commission’s assessment that many individuals and businesses are still unable to enjoy the full potential of digital public services, and points out that the development of e-government in Europe has been uneven between the Member States and regions;

10.

against this background, welcomes the action plan’s aim of being the instrument to join up efforts to modernise administrations in Europe;

11.

welcomes the fact that the action plan’s dynamic and flexible design allows for additional measures that can take advantage of local and regional authorities’ knowledge of providing digital public services in areas of importance to society, such as education, care and healthcare, industry, infrastructure, etc.;

12.

highlights the potential that digital governance holds in many areas including in disaster response; capitalising on mobile technology, the internet and social media for communication purposes can be a useful tool not only in collecting, disseminating and coordinating data but also in supporting democratic accountability and transparency;

13.

highlights the action plan’s ambition to serve as a catalyst for public sector modernisation. In order for it to be successful, it is important for local and regional authorities to be involved in the work and to have good access to funding sources and accompanying measures within the EU programmes coordinated via the action plan;

14.

supports the Commission’s vision that, by 2020, public administrations and institutions should be open, efficient and inclusive, providing borderless, personalised, user-friendly, end-to-end digital public services to all citizens and businesses in the EU;

15.

recognises that transparent administrations that provide data and services openly and securely are important in increasing transparency and efficiency, but at the same time points out that certain types of information handled by public institutions need a high level of protection;

16.

endorses the principle that digital should be the default method used by public administrations for delivering services, and therefore stresses that conscious, long-term, structured efforts must be made to increase digital inclusion so that more people can access the infrastructure and skills they need to enjoy the opportunities offered by digitalisation;

17.

supports the level of ambition shown in the principle that public administrations should ask citizens and businesses to provide the same information only once;

18.

at the same time notes that there are legal, technical and organisational challenges that need to be addressed before information can be re-used; in that connection, welcomes the pilot project on implementing the ‘once-only’ principle for business contacts across borders and takes the view that the extensive contacts that companies have with local and regional authorities should be analysed in the pilot phase;

19.

considers that it is worth exploring innovative e-government concepts such as e-residency, which provides access to certain services for citizens and companies without requiring a physical residence. This reduces bothersome paperwork and makes it more attractive for foreign companies to invest;

20.

notes that inclusiveness in the design of digital content and services is a principle that will benefit all users, especially people with disabilities. It is therefore important to continue with cooperation and research to update existing standards in order to keep pace with technological progress;

21.

agrees with the principle that public administrations should share information and data between themselves and with citizens and businesses openly and inclusively. At the same time, the Committee stresses that it is important for all organisations to be in a position to determine which types of information should be publicly available and which should be protected;

22.

supports the principle that public administrations’ e-government services should be cross-border by default, and stresses that local and regional authorities, many of them in border regions, can play a crucial role in identifying and developing cross-border services that are relevant, efficient and seamless;

23.

supports the principle of interoperability by default, which is a key factor in making use of the possibilities offered by digitalisation;

24.

agrees with the Commission that adequate personal data protection, privacy and information security should be included at an early stage in the development of digital services, as lack of trust in digital services is still a barrier to the growth of e-government;

25.

at the same time notes that cross-border standards for public e-services and interoperability of public administration should not replace national, regional and local systems that are already functioning well, but rather provide an overview of standards and specifications which authorities can apply so as to achieve interoperability when their existing systems have to be updated;

26.

notes that any organisation dealing with sensitive data of any kind should systematically use data classification and security in their work, particularly since activities such as advanced hacking attacks, cyber warfare and cyber terrorism can cause enormous damage. Although transparency has to be the starting point, all information deemed worthy of protection must effectively benefit from proper protection. In some extreme cases, this could mean physically separating information, or an entire system, from the internet;

27.

therefore welcomes the fact that the legal framework is being harmonised in the General Data Protection Regulation, but points out that competition in this field is global, and underlines the importance of ensuring that the legal framework does not hinder the pace at which new solutions and services are developed;

28.

stresses the importance of effective guidance on the Data Protection Regulation and the need to include all stakeholders in discussions concerning property rights and liability with respect to the use of personal data;

29.

highlights the Commission’s role in creating the basic conditions for interoperability and harmonisation that will allow for the exchange of information on which the principles are founded;

30.

points out that there are still groups of people in Europe who do not have internet access or sufficient digital skills to use digital services, and that proactive efforts need to be made to improve digital inclusion;

31.

stresses that reliable, affordable, high-performance networks in all areas are crucial in order to ensure that all individuals and businesses can access modern digital public services and can make the most of next-generation technology (Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, e-health, smart cities, etc.);

32.

emphasises that support options at European and national level must be consistently and continually developed in order to support the deployment of high-speed broadband in all areas, particularly in the regions’ rural areas, where a lack of profitability is often a barrier to market-driven development;

33.

stresses that, in order to succeed in modernising public administration, common standards and technical specifications need to be developed jointly with all relevant stakeholders; this would allow for efficient, reusable digital services with a high degree of interoperability;

34.

welcomes the Commission’s plan to revise the European Interoperability Framework, and urges the Commission to continue to support administrations’ take-up of the recommendations in the framework;

35.

emphasises that local and regional authorities should be seen not just as users of cross-border standards and services, but also as key producers within the European Interoperability Framework;

36.

welcomes the Commission’s plan to develop a prototype for a European catalogue of ICT standards for public procurement, and highlights the vital importance of procurement, particularly within local and regional authorities, in avoiding proprietary lock-in and making it possible to implement solutions and services with a high degree of interoperability and innovation;

37.

calls on the Commission to work more closely with local and regional authorities in its attempt to support full e-procurement by 2019, especially as it will be at the local and regional enforcement level that challenges may emerge; it will be crucial to work with local and regional government as well as the private sector so as to achieve the full potential of the savings that can be generated from the public procurement market estimated to be more than 2 trillion euros;

38.

notes that electronic identification is a core element in secure, efficient and accessible digital public services, and welcomes the fact that the Commission plans to take action to accelerate the take-up of eIDAS services (2);

39.

points out that work on interoperability and standards takes time and requires a long-term vision, as well as adequate and lasting funding;

40.

therefore welcomes the fact that the Commission will present a way forward for guaranteeing the long-term sustainability of cross-border digital services. This is necessary in order to build trust in these services and their technical building blocks and to ensure that the efforts made in connection with this work do not go to waste;

41.

feels that public institutions in cooperation with the private and non-profit sectors should work together in providing sufficiently accessible infrastructure but, in view of the complexity of setting an appropriate timeline for updating systems and technology in digital ecosystems, calls on the Commission to look closely at the consequences and limitations of the possible implementation of the ‘no legacy’ principle;

42.

welcomes the Commission’s ambition of making the e-Justice Portal a one-stop shop bringing together information and functions for communicating and finding information and practices relating to European law and judicial procedures, information on companies and insolvency registers;

43.

welcomes the mandatory interconnection of all Member States’ business registers, because businesses are increasingly operating beyond national borders and there is a growing need and demand for information on companies in a cross-border context, not least in Europe’s border regions;

44.

in this context, also welcomes the electronic interconnection of insolvency registers to enhance transparency and legal certainty in the internal market and avoid forum shopping;

45.

supports the initiative to facilitate the use of digital solutions throughout a company’s lifecycle, and calls for this initiative to involve less red tape for businesses;

46.

welcomes the fact that the Commission will propose an extension to the Single Electronic Mechanism for registration and payment of VAT, and calls for the complex VAT rules to be developed in a targeted way to facilitate cross-border digital trade. This will in particular benefit small and micro-businesses, as it is harder for them to contend with the administrative burdens that complex legal frameworks inevitably entail;

47.

is in favour of supporting cross-border mobility of citizens by exchanging social security information (EESSI) and information between job-seekers and employers in the EU (EURES);

48.

is in favour of EU initiatives to enable the cross-border exchange of healthcare data and services, including interoperable systems for digital prescriptions, as this will improve patient safety, is in line with the intentions of the Patient Mobility Directive (3) and increase quality and efficiency of healthcare;

49.

agrees with the Commission that getting citizens, businesses and researchers closely involved in the design and delivery of digital public services will improve the quality, efficiency and utility of those services;

50.

stresses that open data, provided to third parties securely and reliably, are a vital prerequisite in order to modernise and transform local and regional authorities so that they can deliver tomorrow’s innovative services throughout their operations;

51.

therefore welcomes the initiative of creating an EU platform for public authorities to open their data and services, but stresses that the Commission should support the development and coordination of strategies to open up data by providing local and regional authorities with technical and methodological support;

52.

emphasises that the provision of high-quality, interoperable data will require concerted efforts with regard, inter alia, to information architecture, information classification and interoperability at all levels, and therefore welcomes the deployment and take-up of data infrastructure at EU level, whereby the work done under the INSPIRE Directive can provide a model for the provision of common data descriptions;

53.

in this context, welcomes the European Cloud Initiative (4), which will provide an opportunity to improve transparency and efficiency by allowing for a shared cloud infrastructure for the provision of digital public services;

54.

emphasises that digital literacy and skills among citizens, workers and job-seekers are hugely important for the widespread implementation of digitalisation in the economy and for the modernisation of administrations;

55.

agrees that implementation of the action plan will require shared commitment and ownership at all levels of administration, and highlights the responsibility borne by local and regional authorities as the public sector’s primary ‘interface’ with citizens and businesses.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/59

1.

welcomes the proposal for a European Pillar of Social Rights as it would help implement the European Union’s aims set out in Article 3 TEU, namely that it shall ‘work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress’ (…), ‘combat social exclusion and discrimination, and (…) promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child’ and ‘promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States’;

2.

expects the European Commission to comply with the principle of subsidiarity when proposing the European Pillar of Social Rights and to respect the broad competences of national and sub-national authorities in social policy; it must also be ensured that the content of the pillar is compatible with the general principles of the Better Regulation agenda;

3.

welcomes the fact that the European Commission has decided to launch an open consultation on a pillar of social rights because, after years of crisis with high unemployment rates and austerity, a political discussion about a new initiative for social rights was much needed; considers that the Pillar can make a contribution to the coordination of social policies and rights in the Member States and foster upwards convergence;

4.

welcomes the Commission’s effort to discuss the scope and the content of the future social pillar and stresses the added value of involving local and regional authorities in such a debate, especially by strengthening and highlighting the importance of the territorial dimension for socioeconomic topics that are part of the overall EU policy approach and of a place-based approach when it comes to designing and implementing socioeconomic policies;

5.

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

6.

insists that this social pillar must be developed on the basis of demonstrable local, regional and national added-value and should be horizontal in nature, to ensure that better account is taken of the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union’s (EMU) economic governance, which is crucial for the functioning and viability of the EMU and for the legitimacy of the European integration process;

7.

highlights that if this initiative is translated into strong social safeguards including for access to health, educational, social services, together with social services of general interest, and social security services, it can be seen as a coordinating tool that provides support to Member States to address social inequalities, to combat social dumping, to drive forward upward convergence of social standards in the euro area and to consolidate the EU’s aims of inclusive and sustainable growth;

8.

reiterates its call that, in order to improve the social dimension of the EMU, it is crucial to tackle regional disparities by modernising, where appropriate, existing legislation and/or envisaging new measures to support greater convergence; suggests, therefore, that regional disparity indicators be added to the EMU social indicators scoreboard (2);

9.

expects that the European Commission proposal for a European Pillar of Social Rights will help to further strengthen the social rights — both individual and collective — listed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (3);

10.

welcomes the fact that key gender policy challenges are raised in the European Commission’s consultation exercise, such as the low participation of women in the labour market and the gender segregation of the labour market (principle 5), the gender gap in wages and pensions (principles 5 and 13), the lack of balance between work and family life (principles 5 and 18) and the multiple burden on women because of long-term care of relatives (principle 17). The European Commission should also explain whether the proposed measures are sufficient to reduce discrimination against women or whether, in addition, further mainstreaming of gender issues is needed;

11.

welcomes the fact that, although the Commission proposal only applies to Member States in the euro area, EU Member States outside the euro area were also invited to participate;

12.

emphasises that closer coordination of economic and fiscal policies in the Eurozone must go hand in hand with full consideration of the social dimension to the EMU;

13.

asks that greater emphasis be placed on the financing of social policy which is a particular challenge for local and regional authorities. Such challenges arise not only because spending on welfare systems vary widely across Europe, but also because overall investment at subnational level is going down (4);

14.

underlines the importance of a strong European social agenda, in which competitiveness and social justice complement each other, with fair wages — an area in which the EU has only coordinating powers and which is determined by each Member State either by law or through collective bargaining, and in any case in full respect of its traditions and practices — being a key component; such an agenda must fully uphold the principle of non-discrimination, in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

15.

stresses that, in view of rising youth unemployment and the growing number of people in or at risk of poverty in recent years, the social pillar must also take account of the urgent need to reduce poverty, foster social inclusion and tackle youth unemployment;

16.

highlights the need for closer cooperation between the different levels of government, sectors and stakeholders, including a stronger role for social partners and the introduction of an efficient instrument for civil dialogue, which would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the Union;

17.

points out that some local and regional authorities have used their public procurement policies to encourage and require contractors to pay fair wages to their staff, which can be an additional lever to encourage organisations to adopt fair employment practices. Reminds to this effect that EU law does not preclude the exclusion from a procedure for the award of a contract of a tenderer who refuses to undertake to pay staff concerned the statutory minimum wage (5);

18.

expresses its regret that the Commission’s proposal does not put further emphasis on tackling the challenges accompanying the changing world of work, including increased digitalisation, which should be addressed by focusing in particular on the development of digital skills in the labour force. Indeed, the emergence of non-standard forms of work leads to new risks of ‘grey zones’ in terms of labour rights and access to welfare: therefore calls on the Commission to properly define flexibility in working conditions, so as to strike a balance between flexibility and security;

19.

recalls that at a time of rapid digitisation of the economy and society, it is important to provide people, especially older people, with the digital skills needed to achieve a more inclusive social model;

20.

highlights that skills acquisition through education and training, and access to life-long learning matter more than ever in light of the changing work realities, while underlining the importance of skills being matched with labour market needs;

21.

is convinced that the democratic legitimacy of EMU can be strengthened if Europe’s citizens believe that the principle of social progress and equality of opportunity is being safeguarded so that employment and social standards are not being treated as peripheral to the macroeconomic adjustment process;

22.

urges that the European Pillar of Social Rights ensures that local and regional authorities are supported in their endeavours to implement appropriate employment and social policies, including support and capacity building to develop Work Life Balance policies, in line with the recent European Commission proposal. This approach requires that local and regional challenges be addressed in these areas and that sharing of best practice be facilitated at local and regional level;

23.

notes that Europe is facing huge social challenges, with striking economic and demographic divergences across European regions, with many young people facing numerous challenges such as an education system mismatched with the needs of the market, difficulties in finding employment, mobility obstacles especially for young people who live in small communities, located in peripheral, outermost, island and rural areas, forced mobility, or social isolation. There is therefore no ‘one-size fits all’ policy solution, and any policy intervention — either public or private — must take into account local and regional specificities, such as the case of regions facing demographic challenges and/or brain drain, while ensuring minimum social, economic and educational opportunities for young people. At the same time, in light of the persistently high rate of youth unemployment, the CoR reiterates the importance of extending the benefits of the Youth Guarantee to cover young people up to the age of 30 (rather than 25) (6);

24.

insists that the European pillar of social rights should consider a priority the need for universal access to quality welfare systems and public services, while also respecting Member States’ competences in this area;

25.

highlights the role of Regional and Local Government in pioneering flexible working practices and creating fair work conditions at the workplace, in consultation with employees and trade unions and based on the principles of equality and respect;

26.

suggests that the Commission consider the possibility of introducing incentive measures for EMU countries that implement reforms to achieve the social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to combat social imbalances;

27.

urges the Commission to support Member States in their efforts to modernise social protection systems within the framework of the European Semester; further expects the Commission to propose a fiscal capacity for the Eurozone, open to all Member States, which could also allow for a European coordination of anti-cyclical policies;

28.

recalls that being unemployed for a long time can create a vicious cycle leading to low employment opportunities, skills erosion, lower earning potential and increasing the lifetime risk of poverty and social exclusion;

29.

points out that Europe’s ageing population will lead to gaps in labour markets in many Member States, and that mobile workers can provide one way of addressing this challenge; shares the Commission’s view that the number of mobile workers in Europe is still too low to be considered a real European labour market; it is therefore essential that the qualifications of mobile EU professionals are recognised in a fast, simple and reliable way (7);

30.

stresses that elderly citizens are amongst those population groups most likely to be particularly at risk of poverty and social exclusion. In most Member States, it is primarily people living in peripheral rural areas or in disadvantaged urban areas who are affected. Moreover, elderly people are often those continuing to live in depopulated or even disappearing communities;

31.

as stated in the Committee of the Regions opinion on ‘The EU response to the demographic challenge’, more effective and efficient public services need to be put in place and new ways of improving the quality of life as well as the physical, mental and social well-being of all citizens should be established. We need to take advantage of the opportunities presented by demographic change, which include employment opportunities associated with the services for older people that are part of the ‘silver economy’ (physical and digital services, those relating to healthy lifestyles, etc.). Having access to these services is one of their fundamental rights;

32.

points out that Europeans live longer, hence the costs of health and social care will rise substantially to about 9 % of EU GDP in 2050; in this sense ICT can be a powerful ally for maintaining cost-efficient and high-quality health and social care, as it empowers people of every age to better manage their health and quality of life, in any place;

33.

recalls that investment in ICT provides a key tool for regions and cities in their efforts to tackle the challenge of an ageing population. Such investment can enhance quality of life, support social inclusion, help them to stay informed about new developments at European or national level and enable their accumulated experience and skills to contribute to the development of society and stimulate competitiveness and growth at local and regional level through new products and services;

34.

in Principle 2(a) (Chapter 1), after the sentence ‘Equal treatment shall be ensured … non-permanent employment relationships shall be prevented’, add ‘, stepping up the compliance with labour contract standards required of companies in order to access EU funding and so avoid the risk of social dumping’;

35.

Principle 2(b) (Chapter I) should be worded as follows: ‘Flexibility in the conditions of employment can offer a gateway to the labour market and maintain employers’ ability to swiftly respond to shifts in demand; however, the transition towards open-ended contracts should be ensured wherever possible;

36.

the first sentence of Principle 7(c) (Chapter II) should read: ‘Dismissal of a worker who has successfully completed their probationary period is to be motivated, preceded by a reasonable period of notice defined at national level, and there shall be an adequate compensation attached to it, if dismissal is unjustified, as well as access to rapid and effective appeal to an impartial dispute resolution system’;

37.

the first sentence of Principle 8(a) (Chapter II) should read: ‘Employment shall be fairly remunerated, enabling a decent standard of living. Wages, and where applicable minimum wages, shall be set through a transparent and predictable mechanism by each Member State either by law or through collective bargaining, and in any case in full respect of its traditions and practices. Wage setting shall safeguard access to employment and the motivation to seek work, and wages shall evolve in line with productivity developments’;

38.

Principle 11(a) (Chapter III) should read: ‘Benefits and social protection services shall be integrated as much as possible, at least in neighbouring territories and where local authorities play a bigger role, in order to strengthen the coherence and efficiency of these measures and support integration into society and the labour market’;

39.

the first sentence of Principle 12(a) (Chapter III) should read: ‘Everyone shall have timely access to good quality preventive and curative health care as well as care for elderly and/or dependent persons, and the need for healthcare or elderly care shall not lead to poverty or financial strain’;

40.

the first sentence of Principle 12(c) (Chapter III) should read: ‘All workers, regardless of contract type, shall be ensured adequately paid sick leave (reflecting the rights they have acquired under national social security systems) during periods of illness; the participation of the self-employed in insurance schemes shall be encouraged’. Monetary benefits in the event of illness cannot be defined without considering Member States’ other social security rules. Otherwise, this would lead to claims to social security disconnected from personal contributions, which in turn would run counter to the subsidiarity principle;

41.

the first sentence of Principle 13(a) (Chapter III) should read: ‘… such as by adequately crediting care periods where the employee still has the right to wage payments or compensation for loss of income, in accordance with the employee’s accrued rights under the social security system. According to national specificities, the participation of the self-employed in pension schemes shall be encouraged’;

42.

Principle 15(a) (Chapter III) should read: ‘Adequate minimum benefits shall be ensured, in accordance with national practice, for those who lack sufficient resources for a decent standard of living. For people who are of working age and fit for work, this state guarantee of a minimum subsistence level shall be linked to cooperation requirements, such as participation in active support to encourage labour market (re)integration. Receiving these benefits should not create barriers to employment’;

43.

Principle 18(b) (Chapter III) should read: ‘Measures shall be taken at an early stage and preventive approaches shall be adopted to address child poverty, including specific measures to encourage the attendance of children with disadvantaged backgrounds. For this reason protection systems shall be adapted, placing emphasis on child protection and the protection of families with young children’;

44.

Principle 19(a) (Chapter III) should read: ‘Access to social housing or housing assistance shall be provided primarily for disadvantaged or socially vulnerable people including the homeless and for those living in accommodation that is harmful to their health, unsuitable or overcrowded. Substandard social housing shall be abolished. Vulnerable persons who are not given alternative accommodation shall be protected from eviction.’ (1) As set out in previous opinions, the CoR proposes a broadening of the definition of social housing in order to reflect the Member States’ discretion in planning, delivering, financing and organising the construction of social housing, guarantee the democratic right to choose, and give priority to the right to adequate and affordable accommodation because of the inability of the current housing markets to meet accommodation needs. (2) Concerning evictions, they should not be prohibited per se as this would run counter to the right to property and the subsidiarity principle. The protection against evictions should therefore be limited to vulnerable persons and be complemented by the requirement of the provision of alternative accommodation. (3) Lower- and middle-income households should have no legal right to aid towards home ownership — as is also the case in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights — especially since the economic and social usefulness of this depends on global, national, regional and local contexts as well as on policy priorities, which should be set at national, regional or local level, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;

45.

Principle 20(a) (Chapter III) should read: ‘Affordable access to essential services of general economic interest, including electronic communications, energy, transport, and financial services, shall be ensured for all people. Measures to facilitate access to these services shall be supported’. The concept of ‘essential services’ is not a component of European primary or secondary law, unlike services of general economic interest (see also Article 36 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). Additionally, access to such services should be improved more generally, not just for those in need.

21.3.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/64

1.

takes the view that promoting stability and prosperity in the EU neighbourhood should be a top priority for the EU’s foreign and security policy, and calls for the potential of local and regional authorities (LRAs) to be drawn on in the design and implementation of EU external policy. The Committee of the Regions should play a significant role in building trust and in international cooperation at local and regional level;

2.

notes that European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) can only have an enduring impact if it brings practical benefits to the people of the EU Member States and of the ENP countries, and urges that this consideration be central when it comes implementing the new strategy;

3.

notes that the ENP is above all a project of the Institutions of the European Union and of the governments of the Member States and the neighbouring countries. Stresses that the successful implementation of the programmes and projects has a considerable impact at regional and local level, both in EU Member States and in the third countries involved. Calls above all for cooperation at local and regional level and for interaction between countries’ civil societies to be strengthened under the ENP and for adequate resources to be made available to enable this. LRAs and their associations must be involved in every phase of implementing the ENP — from programming to democratic control — and they should take part in the work of the Association Committees and Association Councils and be given permanent observer status;

4.

calls for more specific projects to promote interpersonal contacts; believes it is essential to make more resources available for cross-border cooperation, partnerships between local authorities, and scientific, cultural and youth exchanges; reiterates its request that partners be included in Union programmes such as Erasmus; welcomes the Commission’s prioritising of visa facilitation and its presentation of specific proposals for Ukraine and Georgia, and reaffirms its support for working on visa and mobility issues with those ENP partners that wish to do so, including visa liberation and facilitation dialogues;

5.

reiterates the proposals contained in its opinion of 9 July 2015 on a New European Neighbourhood Policy and calls on the European Commission and the EEAS to take these into consideration when implementing the strategy;

6.

notes that the armed conflicts, use of force, violations of territorial sovereignty, violations of human rights and of the principle of equal rights of peoples, terrorism, and serious destabilisation in many countries and regions in the EU neighbourhood have led to high rates of human loss, injuries, internally displaced people, forced migration and are hindering the development of lasting partnerships. Stresses the importance of abandoning geopolitical approaches and wishful thinking in favour of realistic objectives based on a realistic analysis and of organising cooperation between those partners who are genuinely interested in cooperating and who also have the capacity to achieve long-term objectives; insists that although it is necessary to make a distinction, a balance must be maintained between the eastern and the southern neighbourhood;

7.

points out that a durable partnership can only developed on the basis of equal rights and mutual benefit, and welcomes the Commission’s particular focus on this consideration when reviewing the ENP; calls for the concept of an equal partnership with reciprocal responsibility to be put into practice for ENP partnership;

8.

emphasises in particular the importance of not questioning the principle of consistently upholding human rights and the standards of the humanitarian provisions established by international law. In this regard, points out that the conflicts that have shaken many ENP partners pose new challenges in terms of refugee protection, respect for international humanitarian law and the need to adopt new approaches to guarantee the integration of new and more effective instruments which aim to ensure full compliance with European and international standards on refugee protection. Moreover, stresses that the upcoming negotiations on global migration pacts with many ENP partner countries should involve local authorities and ensure that migration policy and neighbourhood policy are more closely integrated to avoid contradictions and misalignments;

9.

notes that the biggest source of Europe’s influence on stability and prosperity in its neighbourhood is the attractiveness of the EU’s socioeconomic model, the unity and solidarity between the EU Member States, sustainable development, democracy, and respect for human rights and democratic freedoms; the stability of the EU and adherence to its values and principles constitute the most important contribution to stabilisation of the neighbourhood;

10.

calls for security threats to be analysed in all their complexity, starting with the causes of instability; underlines the need to tackle the socioeconomic root causes of the current security and migration challenges as a matter of priority, and welcomes the EU’s commitment to engage with the ENP partners in implementing the UN sustainable development goals; calls for increased focus on promoting social rights, since sustainable economic and social development are crucial for a stable neighbourhood; stresses that job creation is the decisive issue for the future of most neighbourhood countries, and welcomes the specific focus on youth employability and on promoting small and medium-sized enterprises; emphasises that this requires a multilevel approach, from national to regional and local level as well as regional, subregional and cross-border cooperation; urges that sectoral cooperation programmes be designed in such a way that they can be implemented by LRAs;

11.

welcomes that the European Commission has brought up a proposal for a New Partnership Framework with third countries and for a new European External Investment Plan aimed at tackling the root causes of migration by mobilising investment, stepping-up technical assistance and supporting economic and structural reforms to improve the business and broader policy environment; calls for the European regional and local authorities to be involved in this process;

12.

expects that the new ‘Migration Compacts’ that the EU is negotiating with Jordan and Lebanon in the framework of the Communication on ‘Establishing a New Partnership Framework’ of 7 June 2016 find a good equilibrium between the needs of the refugees, the needs and circumstances of these countries and the expectations of the EU and its Member States while respecting the human rights and standards of the humanitarian provisions established by international law;