9.6.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/8

1.

supports the European Commission’s efforts to ensure that European policies better reflect the concerns of national, regional and local governments and reiterates that this must be a joint responsibility of all levels of governance;

2.

supports the view that better regulation is not simply about having less legislation at EU level, but also about determining the level where the intended objectives can be best achieved, and stresses that the effective application of the principle of subsidiarity is a key element of better regulation;

3.

stresses that all regulation has to strike a balance between equally valid concerns and expectations for ‘security’ on the one hand (individual, legal, administrative, financial) and for ‘effectiveness’, ‘freedom’ or flexibility on the other hand; to balance these concerns in concrete contexts is the task of the democratic process and it is the responsibility of democratically elected representatives at all levels to explain the inevitable trade-offs and compromises to the citizens;

4.

is mindful of the work of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens (Stoiber Group), its final report and dissenting opinions;

5.

takes note of the signature of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making by the Council, the Commission and the Parliament on 13 April 2016 and hopes that this new agreement will contribute to improving EU decision-making at all stages — planning, drafting, adoption, implementation and evaluation; is concerned, however, that the specific roles of democratically elected representatives of the local and regional levels, and of the CoR are not mentioned in the IIA on Better Law-Making in any context other than that of ‘stakeholders’, despite the weight and mandate conferred on them by the Treaty of Lisbon;

6.

wishes to be involved in further initiatives on the interpretation and implementation of the new agreement so that its potential as an advisory body in the legislative cycle can be fully used; points out that many CoR members play a role in applying EU policies;

7.

welcomes the request from the European Commission for a ‘broader outlook opinion’ that provides ‘additional suggestions on the requirements imposed by EU regulation and simpler ways to achieve the same or even better results’;

8.

welcomes the European Commission’s policy-specific requests for the Committee’s outlook opinions in areas such as, but not only, the environment, energy, financial services and agriculture, where local and regional authorities can identify burdens and give suggestions for improvement corresponding to their needs;

9.

notes that this broader outlook opinion is an overview of the effects of regulation on local and regional authorities and encourages specific policy and sector-oriented analysis to identify bottlenecks and burdens;

10.

welcomes the general approach of involving specifically regional and local actors in consultation related to better regulation; in this regard, welcomes, among other things, the ‘Dutch provinces for better EU regulation’ report and draws attention to the bottlenecks that are identified and the specific solutions suggested;

11.

welcomes, in this context, the adoption of the Pact of Amsterdam with a view to the concrete implementation of the Urban Agenda for the EU, as better regulation plays an important role in the thematic partnerships. It was in this context that the report entitled Bridge! Better EU regulation for local and regional authorities was drawn up, which contained examples of specific situations where local or regional practices collide with European regulation;

12.

urges the European Commission to examine the proposed solutions related to sectoral regulations, proportionality, cross-border bottlenecks, state aid and audit pressure and to take them into account when developing new regulations;

13.

recognises the specific role played by local and regional authorities in a range of areas affected substantially by EU regulation and their role as authorities that implement EU legislation in practice and manage EU funds and stresses that their specific responsibilities provide them with good opportunities to evaluate which areas of regulatory frameworks are problematic and should be changed if necessary;

14.

believes that all levels of governance must ensure that legislation is appropriate, effective and efficient and does not create unnecessary costs and burdens, while also protecting citizens, consumers, sustainability and the environment;

15.

understands that the EU institutions must demonstrate the value of regulatory frameworks as well as the added value of EU legislation to all citizens while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

16.

recognises that the recent economic difficulties have created a climate in which additional costs caused by over-regulation have, for many local and regional authorities, exacerbated budgetary cuts. This in a situation where there has been a reduction in available resources. This has proved burdensome and led to greater pressure on those authorities to try to reduce administrative costs at the same time as being faced with increased demand for action. The CoR reiterates its view that there needs to be a simplification in and reduction of red tape, where this impacts on key tasks that local and regional authorities are required to undertake;

17.

appreciates that the reports and opinions previously adopted by the European Parliament, the EESC and the CoR have confirmed the importance of coordinated action by the EU in a spirit of partnership with national and EU institutions as well as local and regional authorities;

18.

emphasises that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in supporting citizens to overcome distress caused by long-standing economic problems, not least by making use of EU programmes, and points out that legal certainty and straightforward access to EU programmes, while recognising the need for structural reforms, are key conditions for ensuring that they are able to fulfil this role;

19.

notes that EU funding is important for many local and regional authorities to implement EU laws, and in particular to implement cohesion policy that is differentiated according to economic strength;

20.

recognises that the accessibility of EU programmes and the required regulatory regimes can cause significant difficulties in relation to interpretation of legal frameworks, rules of implementation, auditing and reporting and highlights that audit arrangements in particular often cause problems for project sponsors in connection with long-term record keeping, as pointed out in the CoR opinion on simplifying the ESIF;

21.

welcomes the European Parliament Resolution on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT): State of Play and Outlook (1) in which the important role played by the CoR as a political institution was endorsed and agrees that the REFIT Programme must not be used to undermine standards;

22.

while supporting the aim of cutting red tape and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens, stresses that REFIT must not be taken as a pretext for lowering the level of ambition, in particular in fields such as the environment, food safety, health and consumer rights;

23.

supports the goal of implementing EU legislation at national level ‘as is’ wherever possible, only exceeding the standards set out in EU provisions when required to do so for objective and technical reasons. Nonetheless, the Member States and regions must continue to be able to decide what is necessary for proper implementation on a case-by-case basis. The Commission’s proposal that each instance of ‘gold-plating’ should be justified could help to increase transparency. However, increased accountability requirements in terms of national and regional implementation must not lead to interference in domestic administrative organisation and domestic administrative procedures;

24.

stresses the importance of taking into account, when evaluating legislation, both costs, benefits and drawbacks — societal, environmental and others — for citizens and the economy, as well as the so-called ‘cost of non-Europe’ (2), i.e. the cost entailed by the absence of common action at European level in a given sector;

25.

in this context, reiterates its call on the European Commission to elaborate an EU wide standard definition of gold-plating for the purpose of legal certainty in the implementation and application of the EU law and for limiting excessive red tape (3);

26.

urges the Commission and Member States to promote the development of digital methods and ICT tools, including under the EU eGovernment Action Plan, to provide a common format and process for collecting the data required for monitoring and reporting needs, so as to reduce administrative red tape in the form of reporting to both national and EU databases;

27.

highlights the importance of ‘fitness checks’ that can identify overlaps and inconsistencies that have arisen over time from a range of objectives and new policy initiatives, in particular as regards reporting and compliance requirements;

28.

underlines the need for a better understanding of the range of reporting obligations introduced to comply with EU law; proposes that reporting requirements for local and regional authorities be listed and standardised as much as possible and that the reporting methodologies used should aim at reducing the administrative burden for citizens and SMEs as well as for local and regional authorities;

29.

recognises that language and its use can be either a barrier or an invitation to participation; easily accessible and comprehensible language is a key component of legislative and regulatory change;

30.

believes that inclusivity demands simple and clear language, structures and regulations to ensure that the EU, its purpose, programmes, policies, legislation and practical help are accessible to all;

31.

urges the European Commission to therefore simplify the language it uses, making it widely understandable, and suggests that the use of technical language be kept to a minimum, in compliance with legal requirements;

32.

believes that a more ‘user friendly’ and consistent interpretation of EU rules and regulations including, for example, proportional audit requirements, more use of fixed rates, simplified applications, claims and reporting, and clearer interpretation of regulations (for example state aid and procurement legislation) is required;

33.

understands that the EU needs to devote appropriate attention to an active communication strategy designed to engage partners, sustain activity, and attract investment;

34.

highlights the role being developed by both local and regional authorities in providing training and information on EU policies and programmes in order to bring them closer to local people;

35.

highlights the role of the EDICs in informing local people about EU legislation and programmes using content and language that is accessible to them;

36.

notes that knowledge centres, such as Europa Decentraal in the Netherlands, play an important role in facilitating the correct implementation and interpretation of EU legislation. Their experts play an important role in providing free information and advice to local and regional authorities and their associations. On the other hand the high demand for the work of knowledge centres proves the need for simplification of EU legislation;

37.

appreciates that current practice invites citizens to participate in consultations. However contributions by individual citizens are rare as most of the consultations are limited due to language accessibility and use of technical terms and contexts, and are therefore largely unwelcoming. As such, they are closed off from all but a few citizens with the skills and language that enable them to take part. It is important to ensure that all relevant parties, and above all civil society, have equal access to the texts of the consultations, which must be translated into all the official EU languages and be drawn up in the simplest, clearest and most comprehensible way possible, so as to provide maximum information about the regulations advocated;

38.

is of the view that citizen-based consultations should complement, not replace, structured public consultation, nor should they diminish the role of the relevant institutional bodies that are recognised in the Lisbon Treaty;

39.

reiterates the importance of holding a specific consultation with regional and local legislative assemblies during the legislative initiative stage, to take place through the CoR, as these bodies — which represent the territories — democratically embody the real needs of the people, including those who are not individually able to make their voices heard;

40.

regional and local authorities must therefore be considered to have priority over private corporations, both due to the role that they are recognised as playing by the Lisbon Treaty, and because they are an expression of democracy and political representation;

41.

calls on the Commission to create a ‘one-stop-shop’ for advice on regulation to ensure that applicants for EU funds are given timely, appropriate, unambiguous and clear advice;

42.

suggests that the views of practitioners should be sought during the course of a programme period, so that improvements to the legislative and regulatory framework can be based on practical experience;

43.

proposes a specific mechanism to use technical assistance funding to establish programme related legal teams to which all applicants would have free access and that can provide robust and consistent advice based on adopted, uniform interpretation of legal regulations as advised by the European Commission, and based on existing practice regarding EU funding regulations so as to remove much of the uncertainty and liability currently placed on the final beneficiary;

44.

proposes that management arrangements must create a clear separation between programme administration and project/programme delivery so as to avoid potential conflicts of interest and appraisal bias;

45.

suggests maximising the size of ‘funding pots’, within the current budget ceiling, allowing for a programme-based approach to delivery, whereby a number of related projects are combined and success is measured by headline outcomes rather than individual project outputs — in areas such as energy, to take just one potential example;

46.

proposes exploring opportunities to develop and improve financial engineering models, including specialist VC funds for key sectors, more effective alignment of grant funding with JESSICA to stimulate the property investment market, and the possibility of a JASMINE-based microcredit scheme to support start-ups and small businesses;

47.

suggests enhancing opportunities for match funding, in particular from the private sector, to ensure that financing is available to enable local and regional authorities to address local needs;

48.

asks the Commission to propose a mechanism whereby unused and de-committed funding is returned to the EU budget as allocated to the appropriate Member State, as assigned revenue, in order to guarantee that these funds will be allocated and spent to support the sectoral policies within that Member State, for which they had been earmarked by means of a vote;

49.

at present, failure to make use of available funding is due, in particular, to a poor, complex and overly defined implementation system, together with inadequate definition of priorities. It is essential to ensure proper communication with local and regional authorities as well as national bodies to redefine and clarify priorities, so that beneficiaries are not disadvantaged;

50.

it is vital therefore to ensure that multi-annual funded programmes in particular, have planning security and reliability in-built to achieve their goals. Greater flexibility in the multi-annual financial framework therefore must not lead to funds being redeployed or new political initiatives being financed at the expense of programmes that have already been approved;

51.

proposes clearly assigning roles for partners in reporting and monitoring EU-funded programmes within the municipality or region, including a review of spending and outcomes and design of remedial action and calls on the Commission to provide assistance, including funding, for local and regional authorities in cases where simplification, whether legislative or non-legislative, involves an increase in the public cost of providing their services;

52.

asks the European Commission to take further steps to simplify cohesion policy by taking into account the proposals of local and regional authorities as expressed in its opinion on Simplification of ESIF from the perspective of Local and Regional Authorities, rapporteur: Petr Osvald (CZ/PES) (4);

53.

recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are the EU’s main tools for promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion in all Member States and that their simplification is fundamental to achieving the policy objectives; immediate improvements in the current programming period, as well as long-term simplification potentially leading to a substantial revision of the existing delivery mechanism and legislation, should be envisaged;

54.

draws particular attention to the necessity of simplification, including legislative and non-legislative changes, in areas relating to auditing, reporting requirements and guidance, state aid, public procurement and gold-plating;

55.

notes that simplification efforts require targeted cooperation between all relevant Commission services, notably DG REGIO, DG EMPL, DG COMP and DG GROW;

56.

urges the European Commission to provide more information on and support for training regional and local authorities on the synergies between European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI);

57.

calls for simplification of application and reporting processes for the research and innovation funds, including through greater use of standard costs, in particular as regards auditing;

58.

stresses the recommendations of its opinion on The simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) adopted in October 2015 (5);

59.

reiterates the need to strengthen the principle of trust towards the final recipients, by easing the requirement to produce documentary evidence of expenditure during the final reporting stage and intervening in the audit stage, focusing on the results of the funded projects;

60.

is concerned that, in spite of the stated aims of the new CAP to reduce EU-level legislation, the Commission’s regulatory output via delegated legislation has increased;

61.

reiterates its call for more consistency and complementarity between the CAP and other EU policies, such as the environmental policy (and funds); greater consistency is most needed between the Rural Development Fund and the rest of the European Structural and Investment Funds jointly delivering a Common Strategic Framework based on the broad policy objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

62.

believes that the CAP should be made consistent with the goal of territorial cohesion enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, and a situation should be avoided whereby EU measures increase territorial imbalances or, for example, put public services in rural areas at risk;

63.

considers it to be very important to fully take the actual needs of actors in the regional and local business environment into account in the ongoing working process on better regulation for SMEs;

64.

points out that the REFIT Platform should also pay sufficient attention to the burden of regulation on public authorities. It is important to prevent the regulatory burden being passed from the private sector to public authorities and back again;

65.

notes that following a consultation of the winners of its ‘European Entrepreneurial Region’ scheme, priority areas for simplification, or areas where the degree of simplification introduced through existing regulation is not yet sufficient, include the participation of SMEs in ERDF-funded projects, SMEs’ access to public procurement, consumer rights and REACH. Reporting requirements for trade statistics (Intrastat) have also been identified as a priority for further action;

66.

believes that action is needed in the area of administrative simplification for SMEs, especially concerning VAT;

67.

calls for measures to be adopted to simplify access to public procurement for SMEs; is apprehensive that the degree of simplification that will be introduced through the new directives and the European Single Procurement Document may not yet be sufficient to ensure SME-friendly procurement rules;

68.

warns that the simplification measures mentioned should not undermine local and regional authorities’ ability to adopt more stringent standards to suit their specific circumstances and the needs of local people, particularly in areas such as equality and social, industrial or environmental policy;

69.

emphasises that EU law governing state aid in relation to services of general economic interest (SGEIs) has become too detailed and too complex because of the multiplicity of secondary legislation and ‘soft law’ texts relating to state aid. Further simplification will increase legal certainty, speed up the implementation of investment projects, ensure the timely provision of SGEIs, and boost growth and employment;

70.

stresses the need to raise awareness among innovative small companies about the new procedures for public procurement, their benefits and limitations, and available support. EU rules on public procurement need to undergo an impact assessment in 3 years’ time to check if they have resulted in facilitating the access to tenders for SMEs, reduced bureaucratic barriers and helped to develop long-term partnerships for supplies and services that are currently not on the market;

71.

reiterates its call for the de minimis thresholds in the case of state aid to SGEIs, as well as for the threshold for exemption from the obligation (under Article 108(3) TFEU) to declare state aid in the form of a public service compensation granted to certain entities entrusted with the operation of SGEIs, to be increased, since these measures will lead to further simplification for local and regional authorities as well as for entities receiving compensation;

72.

draws attention to its opinion on EU environment law: improving reporting and compliance adopted in April 2016 (6) and asks the European Commission and Member States to follow its recommendations in its fitness check of monitoring and reporting obligations in environment policy;

73.

draws particular attention to the specific recommendations made in the opinion related to excessively burdensome audit and reporting requirements, and calls in particular for reporting tools to be automated and synergies across reporting obligations under different directives to be found; reiterates its suggestion to establish ‘implementation scoreboards’ for additional directives in the area of environment law;

74.

supports the option of a horizontal EU directive, which would establish compliance assurance provisions across the EU environmental acquis, based on principles as mentioned in the CoR opinion referred to above;

75.

notes that in 2013 the European Union had an extensive set of 63 binding and 68 non-binding targets, with the majority to be achieved by 2015 and 2020. The impact of these targets on sub-national government as well as business needs to be measured and taken into account when targets are being proposed and amended. Unhelpful targets already in place should be removed so that local government leaders are provided with enough autonomy to be able to adapt measures to local economic and environmental conditions;

76.

reiterates that appropriate allocation of responsibilities and resources, and clear information flows between municipalities, regions and the national level with regard to Member States’ environmental monitoring and reporting requirements, are needed in order to ensure that reports and indicators relating to the state of the environment are consistent, effective and reliable.