9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/1

—

For an optimal policy of active inclusion a fourth, cross-cutting pillar is needed: social participation.

—

Active integration is the most important element of active inclusion. Active inclusion relies on the ‘Work First Principle’: every citizen without work should be integrated into work or education.

—

A coherent policy mix should be primarily developed and carried out at regional and local level. The main responsibility for creating jobs lies with enterprises and social partners, as key players in the field, in cooperation with local and regional authorities.

—

What is meant by sufficient income is different in each country, region or local community. Income support should be seen as adequate if structural poverty could be combated. This level can be defined as ‘sufficient’. It is impossible to formulate a general rule about the financial level that constitutes sufficiency for the EU as a whole. National, regional and local authorities are together responsible for a policy which has adequate income support. At EU level this should be discussed within the Open Method of Coordination.

—

For socially and economically deprived regions and cities in Europe, the implementation of best practice active inclusion policy mixes for the citizens furthest removed from the labour market requires financial support from the EU. The ESF's budget for local and regional authorities must therefore be directly accessible for active inclusion policies.

—

Social, subsidised or sheltered employment, social enterprises and cooperatives are instruments that can play an important role in the policy mix at the local and regional level. These enterprises should not be judged by the normal competitive European market rules (for example less rigid rules regarding public procurement and state aid are needed).

Rapporteur

:

Henk KOOL (NL/PES), Deputy Mayor of The Hague, the Netherlands

1.

In 2006 in the 25 countries of the European Community, 80 million people (16 percent of the population) are at risk of poverty. Active inclusion and the fight against poverty rely heavily on the integration of people furthest from the labour market. The persistence of large numbers of people at risk of poverty and excluded from the labour market represents an inescapable challenge to the objective of social cohesion in the European Union Treaty.

2.

The European Commission put forward three pillars to enhance the active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market: 1) adequate and sufficient income support, 2) active integration, 3) social services of high quality.

3.

For an optimal policy of active inclusion a fourth, cross-cutting pillar is needed: social participation.

4.

Active inclusion calls for an integrated and comprehensive approach to the four pillars.

5.

Active integration (the second pillar) is the most important element of active inclusion. Active inclusion relies on the ‘Work First Principle’: every citizen without work should be integrated into work or education. The first (adequate and sufficient income support) and third pillar (social services of high quality) are supporting elements. The fourth pillar (social participation) is the last resort in the policy of active inclusion. Citizens who are not able to work should be helped with income and other measures to participate in society. We agree with the Commission that these pillars form an integrated, comprehensive approach. Each authority should therefore strive for the right balance between social welfare, social services, community services as well as financial and non-financial incentives to work.

6.

The Member States and their local and regional authorities are primarily responsible for active inclusion strategy and policy. But to stimulate the development and exchange of these policies, common principles are put forward in line with the EU objective of social cohesion.

7.

The main actors to develop and implement policies are the local and regional authorities. The EU's role is supportive. This definition of a comprehensive policy of active inclusion is proportional and based on the principle of subsidiarity.

8.

The four pillars (income support, active inclusion policy, access to high quality social services and social participation) are interlinked and should reinforce each other. For each region, target group and individual person concerned, an optimal policy mix between these four pillars is required. Policies of active inclusion are tailor-made to allow for the differences between target groups and individual persons. Depending on the national economic model, the relative importance of these four pillars and the policy instruments selected in each pillar may differ among the Member States and the local and regional authorities.

9.

The results of policies to integrate people furthest from the labour market are most clearly felt by regional and local governments. They also bear the consequences of weaknesses in these policies at local, regional, national or European level. A coherent policy mix should therefore be primarily developed and carried out at regional and local level. Local and regional authorities know the local circumstances, the characteristics of the labour market and the many actors that can play a key role in implementing a comprehensive approach to active integration.

10.

Local and regional authorities should therefore create effective partnerships with other public authorities, private enterprises, social partners, NGOs and representatives of clients to implement a coherent policy mix.

11.

Local and regional authorities need a large degree of policy freedom to develop and implement such policies, which should be designed and implemented in cooperation with other public and private bodies. European and national policies (fiscal, immigration, education, labour contracting, etc.) should be tailored to and consistent with the needs of local and regional policy development and implementation.

12.

Hindrances and bottlenecks caused by European, national, regional and local legislation and practices should be eliminated.

13.

The most important instrument of active inclusion is improving active integration. To include all individuals, a comprehensive approach to active integration is needed. For each region, target group and individual an integrated policy mix is also needed. Regional and local governments are the main actors to develop and implement these coherent policy mixes with their partners (e.g. national government, employers, other public authorities, NGOs). The essence of a comprehensive and integrated policy mix lies in eliminating bottlenecks for as many people as possible in order to integrate them into the labour market. This can be done by providing advice, guidance and training for paid work and by creating employment for sheltered groups. Sheltered employment means employment for those who are not yet fit to enter into regular work at once.

14.

An optimal policy and a comprehensive approach to active inclusion include the following elements:

15.

The use of intensive personalised action plans helps to improve active integration.

16.

Target groups are an important element of the comprehensive, integrated policy mix. At regional and local level public authorities should design and implement policies that are most effective for actively including all individuals regardless of their backgrounds, but tackling the specific barriers they face.

17.

The main responsibility for creating jobs lies with enterprises and social partners, as key players in the field, in cooperation with local and regional authorities. At national and regional level, the central government has a facilitating responsibility for creating optimal economic conditions such as good education, effective job placement, tax measures and flexicurity (social security and flexible labour options). Local and regional authorities, social services and NGOs are the final link in the chain, particularly for those furthest away from the labour market. Naturally, individuals also have their own personal responsibilities.

18.

Public, social and private employers should be strongly encouraged to improve existing jobs and create new quality jobs (offering sufficient income levels, good labour conditions and training/education). Practical (low-skilled) jobs are particularly needed. Private employers can be stimulated by national, local and regional authorities to create jobs by optimising the entrepreneurial climate for them.

19.

Local and regional authorities are important employers themselves. As employers they should also implement the principals laid out in this document.

20.

In the case of people who are far removed from the labour market because of physical or psychological disability, there may also be a need to create and fund social and subsidised work and work for sheltered groups. Local and regional authorities can play an important role here by stimulating social enterprises.

21.

The coexistence of all kinds of jobs (temporary, flexible, part-time and full-time, as well as homeworking) can help those furthest away from the labour market to enter employment.

22.

All kinds of formal and informal means of education and training, partial training schemes, accreditation of prior learning (APL) and a focus on lifelong learning, including further training, should be part of the coordinated effort to improve the qualifications of the people furthest removed from the labour market as well.

23.

More efforts are needed by national, regional and local governments to improve the quality of education in line with the needs of the labour market. The local authorities should have a more active employment policy and the needs of the local market should best be considered. In Member States in which labour market policy is a local responsibility, local authorities should be encouraged by national governments, with help of the EU, to monitor the local labour market.

24.

The comprehensive, integrated policy mix of active integration should include incentives to facilitate entrepreneurship among those furthest removed from the labour market themselves.

25.

people furthest removed from the labour market need a sufficient level of income support and other forms of assistance to live a dignified life and to maintain a certain level of fitness to be able to reintegrate into the labour market. It is correct to underline that this is a fundamental principle in the European Union.

26.

What is meant by sufficient income is different in each country, region or local community. Sufficiency is influenced by the level of income support, price levels, the characteristics of the household, taxes, duration of exclusion, cultural, social and historic factors, etc. Income support should be seen as adequate if structural poverty could be combated. This level can be defined as ‘sufficient’. It is impossible to formulate a general rule about the financial level that constitutes sufficiency for the EU as a whole. National, regional and local authorities are together responsible for a policy which has adequate income support. At EU level this should be discussed within the Open Method of Coordination.

27.

A common principle could be formulated at EU level stating that the difference between minimum incomes earned in the labour market and the level of income support should be large enough to encourage individuals and target groups to work. This difference is an important financial incentive in the comprehensive policy mix. ‘Make work pay’ is an important principle for the Commission, many Member States and regional and local governments. National, local and regional authorities should therefore take into account the risk of the poverty trap when developing and applying income support measures.

28.

Income support should be provided only to those who are unable to earn a labour market income or who are only able to earn an income below subsistence level (e.g. because of their low productivity or their need to accept low income jobs). National, local and regional authorities should not hinder the functioning of the labour market and should engage in tight monitoring and serious claim assessment, acting as a strict gatekeeper for those seeking income support. At the same time, active policies should exist to reach all those in need of social insurance, income support and social participation.

29.

Income support could take many forms and is ideally tailor-made at local and individual level. Examples of income support could be: income support at subsistence level for members of the labour force who are neither in employment nor studying, in-kind support to improve nutrition, clothing, education, housing and healthcare, income support to supplement labour income (if income is based on low productivity levels), income support to overcome high costs of mobility, income support to increase one's qualifications and competences, support to start one's own business.

30.

Some of those furthest from the labour market suffer from multiple personal and physical handicaps. Integration into the labour market and even sheltered work is not a realistic option for them. Part of the comprehensive approach is that local and regional authorities also care for these citizens. Several instruments should be used to stimulate their social participation.

31.

Local and regional authorities should use all kinds of financial and in-kind instruments to facilitate the social participation of those who are not working. These instruments stimulate social, cultural, sports, welfare and voluntary activities for those who would otherwise be at risk of social isolation.

32.

To make income support, active integration and social participation as effective as possible personalised action plans are needed. These ensure that the necessary supportive measures for an individual client are planned in time and guaranteed. Local and regional authorities need the means to create an infrastructure of quality services and to make personalised action plans.

33.

The need for and characteristics of personalised action plans call for a wide variety of instruments for local and regional authorities.

34.

Local and regional authorities should stimulate the use of instruments and management practices that can improve the quality of social services (for instance universal access to the Internet, one-stop front office, lex silentio, binding and appropriate deadlines for taking a decision on income or in-kind support).

35.

To be successful, active inclusion policies must integrate local, regional, national and EU policies. They must include and combine minimum income, active labour market measures, education and social services. There are many pitfalls that can hinder the implementation of comprehensive, integrated policies at local and regional level. National, local and regional governments together should stimulate the implementation of a comprehensive approach.

36.

For socially and economically deprived regions and cities in Europe, the implementation of best practice active inclusion policy mixes for the citizens furthest removed from the labour market requires financial support from the EU. The ESF's budget for local and regional authorities must therefore be directly accessible for active inclusion policies. A European budget to finance social participation is also needed. The Interreg approach is a good example of effective support from the European Union.

37.

Social, subsidised or sheltered employment, social enterprises and cooperatives are instruments that can play an important role in the policy mix at the local and regional level. These enterprises should not be judged by the normal competitive European market rules (for example less rigid rules regarding public procurement and state aid are needed).

38.

The comprehensive approach is mainly carried out by local and regional authorities for the local population. It should be legally possible for these authorities to focus their policies of active inclusion on the local population.

39.

Local and regional authorities should play a leading role in implementing active inclusion policy measures. According to the EU principle of subsidiarity a common EU principle could be formulated stating that national and EU legislation and practices should follow the needs formulated at local and regional level (marginal taxes, benefit structures, stimuli for lifelong learning, financial incentives for employers, labour law, anti-discrimination law, differentiation of minimum wage levels etc.).

40.

The Open Method of Coordination provides a framework of political coordination without legal constraints. In such a framework the Member States agree to identify and promote their most effective policies in the field of active inclusion with the aim of learning from each other's experiences. The following policy recommendations are formulated to strengthen the Open Method of Coordination.

41.

Many policies aimed at improving active inclusion and income support for people furthest removed from the labour market are not effective enough. High quality comparative studies and evaluations of regional and local policies of active inclusion are needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these policies. The European Commission could stimulate such high quality studies.

42.

Peer review by local and regional authorities and a network of regional and local observers (Progress) can enforce learning processes. The quality of the reviews and the quality and activities of the network of regional and local observers should be clearly defined from the start.

43.

Differences in labour supply and demand, variations in pay levels and in income support across Europe create labour movements that can hinder the active inclusion of local people furthest from the labour market. OMC can be used to discuss the influence of these movements on the question of active inclusion.

44.

The development and dissemination of best practices can be stimulated by annually selecting the best local and regional authorities for active inclusion and rewarding them with a European award. Examples of good practice could be systematised along the lines of the work carried out by ESF's thematic work groups.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/6

—

stresses that in order to be effective, this campaign to address the issue of poverty and social exclusion should be seen as a long-term effort, and therefore emphasises the need for action taken during or before 2010 to have a permanent impact;

—

calls for structured measures to be taken to bring about a decisive change in the campaign against poverty and all forms of social exclusion which both inhibit the freedom of individuals and harm society itself; and considers that it would be useful to make involvement in the European Year open not only to the Member States, but also to local and regional authorities or groupings of these as entities in their own right;

—

draws attention to the need to focus in particular on the situation of children, because children who grow up in a situation of poverty and exclusion are drawn into a ‘cycle’ that is passed from one generation to the next, with serious long-term consequences, depriving them of the right to develop their full potential and threatening their personal development, education and general well-being;

—

urges the Community institutions to pay close attention to the complex and multidimensional forms of poverty and social exclusion, so as to formulate coherent preventive measures and strategies focusing on social empowerment processes.

Rapporteur

:

Linetta SERRI (IT/PES), Member of Armungia Municipal Council (CA)

1.

is very interested in the initiative launched to declare the year 2010 the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion;

2.

shares the concerns that motivated the decision to declare 2010 the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, since the conditions of poverty and exclusion in which 78 million European citizens live have to be dealt with above all by local and regional authorities;

3.

stresses that in order to be effective, this campaign to address the issue of poverty and social exclusion should be seen as a long-term effort, and therefore emphasises the need for action taken during or before 2010 to have a permanent impact;

4.

notes that local and regional authorities have a particular role to play in recognising and promoting effective access to social, economic and cultural services for people living in poverty or social exclusion. Local, regional and national authorities have basic responsibility for framing, funding and carrying out policies designed to guarantee the integration of people who are excluded;

5.

shares the view that when implementing social policy, local, regional and national authorities have the basic responsibility for framing, funding and carrying out policies designed to guarantee integration of the people who are most excluded from the labour market. Service providers — private, public or public-private — play an essential role in implementing these policies at local level;

6.

stresses that the Year for Combating Poverty must strengthen the integration of people who are poor and socially excluded, and of the organisations to which they belong. The year must affirm the principle of an inclusive society by creating a space in the public sphere where excluded people can be reached, based on developing the crucial contribution made by the organisations to which they belong;

7.

believes it is necessary to strengthen experience-sharing between the Member States, local and regional authorities, and international organisations involved in the fight against poverty, in a process of mutual learning;

8.

endorses the proposal to reaffirm the importance of collective responsibility, involving not only decision-makers but also public and private actors;

9.

notes that the commitment to fight poverty and social exclusion at every level of government, and the political commitment to prevent these phenomena, must be affirmed and continued;

10.

calls for structured measures to be taken to bring about a decisive change in the campaign against poverty and all forms of social exclusion which both inhibit the freedom of individuals and harm society itself;

11.

would like to see greater determination when it comes to implementing measures to ensure complementarity with other relevant Community action to promote social inclusion, such as the PROGRESS programme, the Structural Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), and in relation to action to combat discrimination and promote gender equality and fundamental rights, as well as action in the areas of education and training, culture and intercultural dialogue, youth, childcare and elderly care, citizenship, immigration and asylum, and research;

12.

wishes all types of discrimination that encourage poverty and exclusion be tackled;

13.

considers that it would be useful to make involvement in the European Year open not only to the Member States, but also to local and regional authorities or groupings of these as entities in their own right;

14.

sees a need to strengthen the open coordination method in relation to social protection, social inclusion and the European employment strategy ensuring greater involvement for the regional and local level. The effectiveness of this method depends largely on the efforts of local and regional authorities in drawing up regional action plans to combat poverty and social exclusion and in promoting a broader approach that embraces the three major dimensions of active inclusion;

15.

observes that when it comes to improving access to services, local and regional authorities deliver social services in most Member States. These levels of government are therefore in a better position to frame and apply new rules for managing services in order to facilitate access to them;

16.

draws attention to the need to focus in particular on the situation of children, because children who grow up in a situation of poverty and exclusion are drawn into a ‘cycle’ that is passed from one generation to the next, with serious long-term consequences, depriving them of the right to develop their full potential and threatening their personal development, education and general well-being. More attention must be paid to large families and young families looking at potential risk factors of social exclusion;

17.

notes that full participation of the younger generations is ensured primarily by access to training services — the PISA-OECD's latest survey identified a close link between low skills and social exclusion. The commitment and involvement of EU citizens is crucial to social cohesion and development in Europe;

18.

urges the Community institutions to pay close attention to the complex and multidimensional forms of poverty and social exclusion, so as to formulate coherent preventive measures and strategies focusing on social empowerment processes;

19.

calls for more account to be taken of the problems faced by local and regional authorities, especially those in border areas near points of entry to the EU, in relation to asylum requests and illegal immigrants.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/15

—

stresses the need for rapid and consistent application of the regulation throughout EU territory, in keeping with the European spirit of the new instrument;

—

underlines that by giving forms of territorial cooperation between institutional actors at different levels from two or more Member States a Community legal structure, the EGTC can trigger a process of horizontal European integration in which the principles of subsidiarity and proximity are applied;

—

emphasises that the possibility of involving different institutional levels in a single cooperative structure opens up the prospect of new forms of multilevel governance, enabling European regional and local authorities to become driving forces in drawing up and implementing EU policy, helping to make European governance more open, participatory, democratic, accountable and transparent;

—

states its intention to play a key information and promotion role with regard to the EGTC instrument, by means of political mobilisation, communication initiatives, establishing networks to pool experience and best practices, and research activity;

—

calls on the Commission to launch a strategic debate on the EGTC in the forthcoming Green Paper on European territorial cohesion.

Rapporteur

:

Mercedes BRESSO (IT/PES), President of the Piedmont Region

1.

warmly welcomes the adoption of the Regulation on a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC); this constitutes an effective response to the basic need to step up the European integration process while respecting regional diversity by adjusting current models of governance to the challenges that the European Union must face;

2.

notes that the European Union is confronted with changes that are crucial to its future: obvious examples include the new Treaty of Lisbon signed on 13 December 2007, the recent enlargement of the Schengen area to nine new countries, the adoption of the euro by Cyprus and Malta at the beginning of 2008, and the current budget review;

3.

is in principle pleased that the new Lisbon Treaty places territorial cohesion among the EU's objectives in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union and states that particular attention shall be paid to cross-border regions; this is a clear acknowledgement that the harmonious and balanced development of a polycentric European territory must be promoted when EU policies are being drafted; calls on the Commission to table a proposal on the measures and activities at European level which could in the future be included under that objective;

4.

recognises that the future of the European Union and its territories depends on achieving more powerful synergies between cohesion policies and strategies to promote competitiveness, and on developing sectoral policies that help, especially where the least-favoured territories are concerned, to address the challenges set by globalisation, by means of a cross-border, transnational and interregional approach; notes that cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation has already brought and continues to create added value: European, political, institutional, economic and socio-cultural added value;

5.

recalls that territorial cohesion lies at the heart of the European Union's Territorial Agenda. This illustrates the need for the territorial dimension to play a more decisive role in the future of EU cohesion and other Community policies;

6.

considers that territorial cohesion is an essential factor in achieving the objectives of economic growth and solidarity, and in achieving a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment, social progress and sustainable development;

7.

argues that territorial cohesion can simultaneously boost competitiveness and sustainability in Europe's regions, in keeping with the objectives of the new Lisbon Strategy updated by the Member States in 2008;

8.

considers that territorial cooperation and first of all cross-border cooperation, is a key element for European integration and a political priority of the EU and recalls the special importance that territorial cooperation has in the case of outermost regions, islands and mountains;

9.

calls on the Commission to launch a strategic debate on the EGTC in the forthcoming Green Paper on European territorial cohesion;

10.

supports territorial cooperation as a key instrument of cohesion policy for resolving issues with a significant territorial dimension in economically, socially, culturally and environmentally crucial sectors;

11.

emphasises that territorial cooperation provides an effective response to the need for funds in the 2007-2013 programming period to be allocated in a more geographically balanced way;

12.

welcomes the fact that the 2007-2013 programming period provides for a significant increase in territorial cooperation within cohesion policy, by:

13.

views Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as an important legal instrument to strengthen cooperation between regional and local authorities in Europe through uniform Community rules directly applicable in all Member States;

14.

considers that its foreseeable potential will also increase as a result of having a direct link with the acquis communautaire, which gives it greater force and makes it more likely to become incorporated into law; this link also makes it more far-reaching and dynamic than traditional cooperation instruments;

15.

points out that the previous legal framework — which the regulation does not abolish — often produced uncertainty;

16.

welcomes the fact that the Regulation on an EGTC has incorporated many of the developments introduced by the Council of Europe acquis regarding territorial cooperation. Indeed, the right of local and regional authorities to cooperate across national borders was first recognised by the Council of Europe, with the 1980 European Framework Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities and its 1995 and 1998 Additional Protocols;

17.

notes that the EGTC is an instrument introducing a European structure for cooperation, the purpose of which is to enable the traditional legal and administrative problems connected with implementing and running cross-border, transnational and interregional programmes and projects as well as territorial cooperation in general to be successfully tackled;

18.

emphasises that the EGTC helps to bring stability and certainty to territorial cooperation, by setting up cooperative groups possessing legal personality as well as the means required to carry out projects and actions, with or without a financial contribution from the Community;

19.

stresses that the EGTC can provide an efficient coordination and implementation platform for European, national and regional policies in a wide range of crucial areas such as infrastructure, company competitiveness, research and innovation, training, environmental protection and risk prevention, energy and transport networks, health and social issues, and sustainable and polycentric urban development;

20.

recalls that European programmes such as Interreg have prompted the creation of numerous structures, understandings and agreements intended to flesh out forms of cross-border and interregional cooperation between territorial authorities in areas of common interest;

21.

believes that the EGTC could be a new opportunity to provide legal structure for Euroregions and develop this concept in a consistent way. In the past, Euroregion cooperation initiatives have made a decisive contribution to enhancing real cooperation in a broad spectrum of activities, neighbourhood relations, bringing peoples closer together, knowledge transfer and the exchange of good practices;

22.

stresses that the EGTC Regulation does not seek to suppress existing Euroregions in operation or constitute an additional administrative structure but to provide a credible option for trans-European territorial cooperation;

23.

stresses that the EGTC provides a strong tool for pursuing decentralised cooperation throughout the European Union in a number of policy fields on the basis of stable structures capable to mobilise the involvement of citizens and take joint decisions that will be fully implemented and even lead to long term strategic cooperation;

24.

suggests that the EGTC can and should be a primary working instrument, improving access to the credit market in order to finance infrastructure or services of common interest across different areas of the EU; this will in turn generate the revenue needed to secure the financial health of these measures;

25.

emphasises that one measure to be implemented at the Community level would be to encourage the use of the EGTC as the preferred instrument for cooperation, due both to the substantial benefits resulting from the simplified management of cooperation policies, plans and projects and to a more widespread use of better administrative practices across the EU;

26.

feels that the adoption of the EGTC instrument could ensure that existing cooperation structures both operate in a more coherent and effective manner, as part of an approach to rationalise funds rather than spread them too thinly, and also produce better quality results;

27.

stresses that the EGTC will help considerably to make resource distribution and management more effective by involving regional and local authorities and regional economic and social stakeholders more closely;

28.

underlines that by giving forms of territorial cooperation between institutional actors at different levels from two or more Member States a Community legal structure, the EGTC can trigger a process of horizontal European integration in which the principles of subsidiarity and proximity are applied;

29.

argues that the EGTC will enable European regional and local authorities to become driving forces in drawing up and implementing EU policy, helping to make European governance more open, participatory, democratic, accountable and transparent;

30.

emphasises that the possibility of involving different institutional levels in a single cooperative structure opens up the prospect of new forms of multilevel governance in which stakeholders would contribute, each according to their own remit, to the overall success of the undertaking;

31.

underlines that the choice of a regulation guarantees uniform rules for territorial cooperation in all the Member States, minimising the disparities caused by regulatory fragmentation; it would be the first time that a common instrument of such a wide geographic scope is introduced;

32.

considers that the implementation of the regulation should be properly coordinated, so that the various legal acts drawn up by the Member States in order to apply Regulation (EC) 1082/2006 can be brought together without creating any incompatibility or obstacles;

33.

highlights the need for rapid and consistent application of the regulation throughout EU territory, in keeping with the European spirit of the new instrument;

34.

notes, in line with the procedures referred to in the introduction to the Regulation on an EGTC, the importance of involving henceforth third countries in the implementation of the new Community instrument, in the most appropriate ways;

35.

takes note of the fact that some Member States have already adopted the regulation's implementing provisions, but reserves the right to analyse these measures carefully in order to gauge how far they comply with the objectives of achieving uniform rules and promotion of territorial cooperation;

36.

regrets that most Member States have not yet taken steps to adopt the regulation's implementing provisions and urges the relevant authorities to do so without further delay and without placing barriers and red tape in the way of setting up EGTCs and making them fully functional;

37.

points out that the EGTC was intended, not least, to simplify the procedures for running and implementing territorial cooperation initiatives, and therefore requires extensive cooperation within each Member State between the various national, regional and local authorities insofar as each is concerned;

38.

therefore believes cooperation and exchange of information between Member States, together with direct involvement of regional and local authorities, to be essential;

39.

recalls that with the Regulation on an EGTC, Community law is ushering in a new category of legal person that, in spite of the significant references to national law, must be treated in a substantially uniform way in the different Member States, in compliance with the principles of direct applicability and direct effect;

40.

points out that Article 2 of the regulation sets forth a precise hierarchy to the effect that both Community law and the provisions laid down in the conventions and statutes of new EGTCs take precedence over the law of the Member State in which the EGTC is established, the latter applying solely in areas which are not or only partially covered by the regulation;

41.

stresses that the provisions of the regulation which do not refer to national law apply directly whenever an EGTC is set up;

42.

considers that the regulation confers a fully-fledged right upon the potential EGTC members situated in the territory of at least two Member States, that may be exercised immediately in order to set up an EGTC in compliance with the provisions of the regulation;

43.

recalls that non-fulfilment by the Member States of their obligation to adopt the relevant implementing proposals inhibits the potential of the EGTC concept, and therefore calls on the European Commission to urge Member States to fulfil their pledged obligations in this matter;

44.

is convinced that the European Commission can contribute decisively to making the EGTC fully operational, in accordance with the true spirit of the regulation;

45.

calls upon the European Commission to press the Member States to adopt the necessary implementing measures, at the same time providing proper support to the competent national authorities by adopting guidelines, criteria for interpretation and technical details. To this end, the Commission could make use of the work carried out by the EGTC Expert Group set up by the Committee of the Regions;

46.

urges that, in the event that cases of non-compliance should continue, the Commission consider the possibility of activating the necessary infringement procedures against any Member States that have not, without reason, fulfilled their obligations to adopt the implementing measures required under the regulation;

47.

feels that specific Community information and training measures and any other appropriate measures, including legal, economic and financial incentives, can be used to promote the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation;

48.

in this regard, considers that basic economic-financial incentives can be broken down into two broad groups. It thus suggests that the first would require a specific programme with Community funding, allocated from the ERDF, which would contribute to the creation of new EGTCs or the conversion of prospective cooperation projects managed using conventional formats;

49.

considers that the second group of economic-financial incentives would require calls for tender launched by the Commission to award a comparative advantage in the evaluation of projects to those projects including the setting-up of an EGTC and a forecast of sustainability when the project itself is concluded. This would help to promote an institutional short- and medium-term culture of cooperation which would seek new sources of funding in addition to the Community budget;

50.

with regard to the legal measures that should be undertaken to help make the institution a success throughout the EU, the main responsibility should belong to the Commission, with the technical support of the Committee of the Regions;

51.

proposes that the Commission step up information measures within its directorates-general in order to raise awareness of the EGTC's contribution to implementing EU sectoral policy;

52.

states its willingness to work together with institutional stakeholders in the above-mentioned promotion measures;

53.

points out that it has specific consultative powers in the area of cross-border cooperation, under the terms of Article 265 of the EC Treaty:

54.

states its intention to play a key information and promotion role with regard to the EGTC instrument by means of political mobilisation, communication initiatives, establishing networks to pool experience and best practices, and research activity;

55.

emphasises that an EGTC Expert Group has been set up with the task of monitoring the adoption of national implementing provisions and of fostering the pooling of experience on setting up and operating EGTCs at territorial level;

56.

undertakes to highlight the opportunities provided by the legislation of both Member States and non-EU neighbouring countries, in order to maximise the chances of cooperation between the territorial authorities of the European Union and those of third countries;

57.

will intensify its cooperation with pan- European regional Organisation with specific and long experience in the field, of trans-European territorial cooperation;

58.

stresses that close interinstitutional cooperation, involving the European institutions, national governments and regional and local authorities, is a prerequisite for the success of the EGTC and territorial cooperation.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/20

—

considers that the EU must equip itself as soon as possible with a genuine European immigration policy, respecting the powers of the different levels of government, while assuming those which are within its remit;

—

welcomes the Commission's initiatives to establish mechanisms to facilitate regular labour migration, insofar as an imbalance exists between the implementation of restrictive measures to combat irregular migration and those intended to promote regular migration, and calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive European migration policy, ensuring that European-level measures offer added value, as in the case of highly skilled labour;

—

agrees that illegal employment is one of the main pull factors for irregular immigration and that, in consequence, the Member States must intensify and improve their work, so that all necessary measures to combat the irregular labour market are taken;

—

regrets that the role of the Committee of the Regions is not mentioned in any of the reference documents, and voices its concern at the lack of attention to the territorial dimension, whereas until present the role of local and regional authorities in managing migration had been recognised, as had been the Committee of the Regions' consultative role in this sphere;

—

argues that hand-in-hand with the development of the external dimension of the policy and of European instruments for managing immigration, the territorial dimension must also be strengthened, involving local and regional authorities in providing a global approach to migration. To this end, it must be ensured that the European Commission promotes a more proactive role for the Committee of the Regions at the initial stage of Community action;

—

welcomes the initiative to promote circular migration, considering that this may make a positive contribution to the Member State labour markets and to development in the countries of origin.

Rapporteur

:

Anna TERRÓN I CUSÍ (ES/PES), Secretary for European Union Affairs, Government of Catalonia (the Generalitat)

1.

considers that the European Union must equip itself as soon as possible with a genuine European immigration policy, respecting the powers of the different levels of government, while assuming those which are within its remit;

2.

welcomes the Commission's initiatives to establish mechanisms to facilitate regular labour migration, insofar as an imbalance exists between the implementation of restrictive measures to combat irregular migration and those intended to promote regular migration, and calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive European migration policy, ensuring that European-level measures offer added value, as in the case of highly skilled labour;

3.

agrees that illegal employment is one of the main pull factors for irregular immigration and that, in consequence, the Member States must intensify and improve their work, so that all necessary measures to combat the irregular labour market are taken;

4.

believes that when it comes combating the illegal labour market efforts must be directed primarily at those persons, employers or individuals, who recruit third-country nationals with irregular status in a Member State. Immigrants often find themselves in a very vulnerable position and may be exploited in an immoral or illegal way;

5.

considers that a single permit is a valid tool for preventing the type of irregular immigration that has occurred, and recalls that Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union sets out the right to good administration;

6.

considers cooperation with third countries to be crucial for a global and coherent view of immigration, as recognised by the European Council in its 2005 conclusions, recalling that ‘migration issues are a central element in the EU's relations with a broad range of third countries, including, in particular, the regions neighbouring the Union’ (1);

7.

points out that when it comes to setting up ‘partnerships for mobility’, priority should be given to third countries which are prepared to take action to tackle illegal migration and human trafficking;

8.

welcomes the proposals to develop closer cooperation with third countries by means of ‘mobility partnerships’ or technical and/or financial assistance, and urges the Commission to devise new forms of cooperation, based on an approach of equality, with countries of origin and transit, creating a climate of trust in which these countries can cooperate in combating irregular immigration and introduce mechanisms to organise regular migration;

9.

points to the key role that local and regional authorities play in negotiations and relations with countries of origin and transit, especially in areas such as development and cooperation. It recalls the substantial part local and regional authorities have played in ensuring that the Aeneas, Meda and Tacis programmes, amongst others, have functioned properly, and underlines the contacts with, and knowledge of, the countries of origin and transit acquired thanks to immigrant communities;

10.

regrets that the role of the Committee of the Regions is not mentioned in any of the reference documents, and voices its concern at the lack of attention to the territorial dimension, whereas until present the role of local and regional authorities in managing migration had been recognised, as had been the Committee of the Regions' consultative role in this sphere;

11.

argues that hand-in-hand with the development of the external dimension of the policy and of European instruments for managing immigration, the territorial dimension must also be strengthened, involving local and regional authorities in providing a global approach to migration. To this end, it must be ensured that the European Commission promotes a more proactive role for the Committee of the Regions at the initial stage of Community action (2);

12.

highlights the work of local and regional authorities in immigrant integration policies, and their role in ensuring that mechanisms for access to the labour market operate properly, and also points to the role they can play in training immigrant workers to join both European labour markets and the labour markets of their countries of origin in the event of return;

13.

recalls that local and regional authorities play a key role in providing public services for immigrants (both regular and irregular), reception, health care, education and housing policies being prominent among these. As recalled by the Fifth Conference of Parliaments of EU Capital City Regions (April 2006), for some regions and local authorities immigrations has entailed and continues to entail a significant cost for public services. New methods should therefore be devised that would allow local and regional administrations to play a more important part in implementing national initiatives and strategies regarding access and entry to the labour market;

14.

indicates that it prefers the term ‘irregular immigration’, since in many official languages the term ‘illegal’ clearly implies criminal behaviour, and in any case urges that use of the term ‘illegal immigrant’ be discarded;

15.

notes that other EU policies that may affect migrants are mentioned, such as development policy, the European Employment Strategy and other social and economic policies, and therefore calls for closer coordination with all those policies affecting the immigrant population;

16.

calls on the Commission to take account of the Member States' estimates of labour force requirements, on the basis of information supplied by the Member States to Eurostat and of lists of occupations that are difficult to fill, in order to gain a more detailed view of the actions and estimations of the different Member States. However, in doing so it should respect national competences regarding the admission of third-country nationals to labour markets;

17.

points to the importance of a reliable, up-to-date statistical system of enabling states to exchange experiences and information concerning employment and labour market policies on a voluntary basis, as set out in Directive (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection (3);

18.

highlights the important role that local and regional authorities can play in gathering information and statistical data, and draws attention to the contribution they could make to a European immigration portal, or to extending the services offered by the EURES network, for example. Regional and local authorities already operate many web portals which could complement such initiatives;

19.

voices its concern at the lack of clear reference to the international agreements that the Member States have signed under International Labour Organisation auspices, and recalls that they must work in compliance with the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (ILO, 1998), and the Plan of action on migrant workers (ILO, 2004) and, more broadly, with the fundamental rights of the person, as enshrined in current international conventions;

20.

considers it to be extremely important to establish a network of local and regional authorities to develop common statistical tools and indicators that help to provide a more accurate picture of migration;

21.

wishes to highlight the importance of promoting the establishment of permanent working groups and forums (conferences, seminars, etc.) for exchanging experiences and good practice in receiving migrants and in integrating them into society and into work;

22.

supports the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families by the Member States;

23.

welcomes the initiative to promote circular migration, considering that this may make a positive contribution to the Member State labour markets and to development in the countries of origin;

24.

recognises that circular migration may forge a valuable link between the countries of origin and the host countries, and may serve to promote dialogue, cooperation and mutual understanding;

25.

warns that circular migration must function properly if it is not to become a channel for irregular immigration, by establishing effective channels to ensure migrants' return and facilitating circularity. At the same time, it understands that circular migration cannot replace permanent migration, nor restrict Member States' initiatives regarding immigrant integration policies;

26.

advocates a closer connection between immigration policy and other policies of EU scope, with a view to improving the economic and social environment of the countries of origin and contributing ‘to reducing the incentives for irregular migration’ (4);

27.

applauds the mobility partnerships with third countries and recognises the importance of promoting association agreements with the countries of origin. The Commission emphasises in its Communication that the division of competences between the EU and Member States should be taken into account when concluding mobility partnerships These must contain instruments for the joint management of migration flows, measures to combat irregular immigration and facilitate the readmission and return of irregular migrants, and mechanisms to foster the economic development of these countries;

28.

notes the importance of concluding readmission agreements with third countries as part of their commitments, and points to the need to make repatriation of this kind easier while respecting immigrants' rights and internationally-recognised rights;

29.

calls for acknowledgement of the role of local and regional authorities in international cross-border cooperation; and encourages the facilitation of local and regional participation in the European Neighbourhood Policy urging local and regional authorities to work together with the regional authorities in the countries of origin, making use, to this end, of the programmes established by the European Commission and in particular the joint pilot scheme for regional cooperation between the outermost regions and neighbouring third countries; as it recalls that these authorities are the most aware of the economic and social impact of immigration and the corresponding repercussions in the regions of origin;

30.

recalls that the effects of circular migration on the countries of origin must be analysed, and the impact on them of remittances must be examined. It urges that, in the light of these studies, the necessary instruments be introduced to facilitate the transfer of remittances;

31.

calls for consideration to be given to involving the towns and regions of origin and destination of migration flows in the mobility partnerships, since they can facilitate mobility for immigrants and exert a positive influence on the social integration of immigrants;

32.

underlines the need to promote mechanisms that encourage mobility within the EU for immigrant workers legally residing and working in a Member State;

33.

stresses that third countries which participate in partnerships for mobility must endeavour to effectively promote the return and reintegration of migrants by taking active measures to promote the creation of production infrastructure and decent employment conditions. Host country authorities should remind mobility partner countries of origin of this, and provide them with advisory and other support, without such support involving financial outlay;

34.

agrees with the idea of long-period multiple entry visas to facilitate circular mobility, and supports initiatives geared to boosting the activity on Member State labour markets of those third-country nationals previously admitted as students and those who, having taken part in circular migration mechanisms, have met the conditions for return;

35.

calls on the Commission to strive to ensure that, following their return to their countries of origin, circular migrants may transfer their accumulated pension rights;

36.

takes a positive view of incentives for cooperation with third countries that are complementary with other measures and promote the participation of local and regional authorities in development projects;

37.

supports the idea of setting up common visa application centres in third countries, and urges that this initiative should not lead to more red tape, but rather simpler and more straightforward procedures;

38.

backs the Commission's intentions to combat illegal work by third-country nationals. The application of economic, administrative or, when deemed to be of sufficient seriousness, criminal nature sanctions to secure compliance with EU rules is a matter for the national level, except for sanctions designed to secure the effectiveness of EU law;

39.

points to the need to assess whether the word ‘employer’ or ‘entrepreneur’ is appropriate in each language version of the directive and considers that, where the legal system of a Member State makes a distinction between the two words, it would be preferable to use ‘employer’ rather than ‘entrepreneur’, in order to distinguish the spirit of enterprise from criminal behaviour and to cover situations in which a person may provide regular employment without having the legal status of an entrepreneur;

40.

argues that action against irregular work must take the form of penalties for those who employ illegally, but also of stepping up labour inspections, improving channels for legal recruitment, and examining alternative systems that enable best practices to be promoted. The results of labour inspections should be made public to allow consumers and potential employees to make informed choices;

41.

considers that action against irregular work, one of the main pull factors for continuing irregular migration flows, must be a priority in EU measures concerning immigration policy, and that the legal basis of the directive should focus on action against irregular work leading to a reduction in irregular immigration rather than the other way round;

42.

recalls that local and regional authorities, in accordance with the national legislation, can play an important part in implementing labour market control and supervision measures, and that there may be a need to expand human and material resources in order to increase the number of inspections;

43.

considers that, as part of the efforts to combat irregular work, particular attention should be given to countering illegal smuggling of migrants and human trafficking, and condemns the role of the mafias and organised criminal networks in sustaining irregular immigration in general, and labour exploitation in particular: this has become a profitable criminal activity;

44.

supports the initiatives to combat irregular work, and urges that joint initiatives be promoted between the various levels of administration (national, regional and local) and social actors (principally employers and trade unions, but also NGOs and associations defending rights) in this area. It calls for awareness-raising and information campaigns to be launched in specific employment sectors with the aim of dissuading those who recruit workers by irregular means and informing them of the benefits of employing legally;

45.

agrees that it would make no sense to exclude individuals who take on irregular workers within the scope of the directive, but warns that it is impossible to prevent such situations without providing straightforward, additional arrangements for the regular recruitment of staff who are in short supply on the labour market;

46.

highlights the importance of making temporary, and especially seasonal, employment more flexible and rapid, and also of defining paths for seasonal immigration in accordance with the 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration, as factors that can help to prevent the continuation of irregular recruitment;

47.

draws attention to the extremely vulnerable employment and personal circumstances of many immigrant women in the European Union, and urges that greater attention be devoted to this question;

48.

supports the decision not to impose sanctions on third-country nationals covered by the proposal, although the requirement for a return or removal decision (5) may be interpreted as a penalty, and welcomes the economic sanctions to be imposed on offenders, and in particular the payment of the costs of return, to which the board and lodging of the immigrant pending the conclusion of the return procedure could be added; emphasises that the European Union should guarantee the consistency of legislative instruments relating to return measures, and their compliance with fundamental human rights;

49.

urges that the necessary measures be taken to guarantee that returned migrants receive any outstanding pay;

50.

calls for better protection on the part of the competent Member State authorities for abused workers, and asks that consideration be given to the possibility of granting long-term residency to them, especially in the most serious cases, in line with the provisions of Directive 2004/81/EC on the resident permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities;

51.

welcomes initiatives advocating the promotion of legal channels for immigration into the EU, together with attempts to harmonise the various and complex mechanisms for access to the Member State labour markets;

52.

believes that there is a need for measures such as the ‘Blue Card’ with the aim of making the EU more attractive to migration flows of qualified and highly qualified workers, meeting the needs of the European labour markets, and ensuring the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy; however the Commission is asked to provide a clearer definition of what is meant by ‘qualified’ and ‘highly qualified’ migrants; further suggests that the definition should take into account a migrant's standard of education, work experience, language skills and other relevant factors;

53.

points out that the contribution of unskilled or semi-skilled workers to the labour markets of some European countries should not be underestimated, and reminds the Commission –after it has analysed and evaluated employment possibilities for unskilled and semi-skilled workers– of the Council's commitments concerning the alignment of admission procedures for labour market reasons, as set out in the Policy Plan on Legal Migration;

54.

considers that the ‘Blue Card’ should not only be granted to qualified workers applying for admission to EU territory, but also to those already resident in a Member State;

55.

considers it essential to obtain reliable, basic information on the need for qualified labour on the Member State employment markets, and asks the Commission to work on an effective, uniform method to compile and present statistics in this area in keeping with Regulation (EC) No 862/2007;

56.

calls on the Member States to promote the involvement of local and regional authorities in deciding on the volume of admissions of third-country nationals for highly qualified job vacancies, and regrets that this is not explicitly mentioned in the draft directive;

57.

is concerned that the mobility for employment purposes of highly qualified workers may be affected by the requirement to live in the first Member State for at least two years, and urges the Commission to seek alternative formulas to ensure labour mobility and to meet the needs of the national labour markets;

58.

takes a positive view of the entry conditions regarding members of the families of highly qualified workers: this can be a decisive element in recruiting highly qualified personnel, as illustrated by the experience of other countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States;

59.

recalls the importance of preventing a brain drain from the developing countries, and is concerned to note that, according to the ILO, skilled worker admission programmes (amongst which it points to the Commission's recent initiatives on circular migration) ‘tend to intensify brain drain concerns’ (6);

60.

requests that the brain drain and its effects on the countries of origin be analysed using reliable data and statistics, in order to devise joint responses with the countries of origin that prevent, as far as possible, the risks and repercussions it entails;

61.

urges the Commission to take all appropriate measures to promote ‘brain circulation’ as an alternative to the ‘brain drain’, a concept under which migrants return to their countries of origin and share the benefits of the skills they acquire in the destination countries (7), and which allows relations between the communities of origin and of destination to be forged and deepened;

62.

welcomes the proposal for a single application for a combined residence and work permit, and calls for administrative procedures geared to processing these permits to be upgraded;

63.

applauds all proposals that simplify EU access procedures for work purposes, and calls for the permit application and approval procedures to be streamlined in order to guarantee that the system operates efficiently;

64.

considers the single permit to be a useful tool in countering the irregular situations that have occurred and which represent a large-scale problem in the countries of the EU, undermining the right to good administration recognised by the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights;

65.

welcomes the recognition of a common set of rights for all holders of the single permit, and recalls that these rights should be recognised as being connected with the international framework of labour protection provided by the ILO;

66.

recalls that, as recognised in opinion CdR 233/2006 (8), it is important to improve mechanisms for recognising the equivalence of immigrants' occupational qualifications and, more broadly, professional skills, with the aim of facilitating their entry onto the labour market best matching their skills;

67.

warmly welcomes the inclusion of guarantees in procedure for submitting the single application for the combined permit, particularly regarding the requirement to give reasons for rejecting an application, and the possibility of seeking remedy in the event of rejection;

68.

stresses that the Member States, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, must involve local and regional authorities in drawing up their immigration policies, especially in areas regarding integration and the labour market, so that they can take part in deciding on the number of third-country nationals to be admitted to their territory, and on their employment profiles.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/26

—

is convinced that the values of democracy and human rights as they are proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the Treaty of Lisbon has constituted the cornerstone of the European integration process, and that the improvement in the protection of human rights in the EU area will enhance the credibility of the promotion of democracy and human rights in the EU's external relations.

—

points out that democracy and human rights are, above all, issues of global concern and constitute public goods and that in many societies the local authorities are the closest duty bearers to the individual person in implementing these rights. As the instrument is primarily focused on public institution-building, it could place more emphasis on local and regional institutions.

—

also draws attention to the possibility of the Committee of the Regions' election monitoring strategy finding its place in the framework of Objective 5 in order to enhance the construction of a grassroots democracy and of a feeling of ownership of the democratic process among the populations.

—

finds support for election observation to be an important part of the development of democracy and feels that particular emphasis should also be placed on monitoring local and regional elections in third countries in future EU election observation strategies.

—

considers that EU observation of national elections should pay more attention to the impact assessment of the promotion of democracy at the local and regional levels.

Rapporteur

:

Ms Heini UTUNEN (FI, ALDE), Member of the City Council of Jyväskylä

1.

Notes that the CoR is convinced that the values of democracy and human rights as they are proclaimed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights attached to the Treaty of Lisbon has constituted the cornerstone of the European integration process, and that the improvement in the protection of human rights in the EU area will enhance the credibility of the promotion of democracy and human rights in the EU's external relations.

2.

Finds it of crucial importance that the European Union believes that democracy and human rights are universal values that should be vigorously promoted around the world and supports the work in achieving them in third countries.

3.

Recalls that the Committee of the Region's consistent position has been that there could not be genuine democratic governance without substantial transfer of power and competences to the local and regional level; by cooperating to produce tangible solutions to concrete everyday problems, local and regional authorities can build trust between peoples, confidence in local democracy and faith in intercultural dialogue. They can offer more local ownership and more sustainable capacity building for democracy and human rights promotion.

4.

Points out that democracy and human rights are, above all, issues of global concern and constitute public goods and that in many societies the local authorities are the closest duty bearers to the individual person in implementing these rights. As the instrument is primarily focused on public institution-building, it could place more emphasis on local and regional institutions.

5.

Recognises the unique role of the EIDHR in contributing to the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law in third countries worldwide and also its role in the creation of a consistent and coherent approach to EU action in this particular field.

6.

Considers the EIDHR as a visible asset for Europe which reinforces the European profile in the field of promoting democracy and human rights in third countries. The CoR emphasises that the intention of the EU to promote democracy does not imply that the EU should or could export a model or impose it on third countries. The EIDHR serves as a possibility to spread common principles of individual freedom more effectively. Points out that the European Charter of local self-government adopted by the Council of Europe has served as a key source of inspiration and guide for many new democracies in Europe in their efforts to establish effective local self-government. The draft European Charter for regional democracy of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities could serve the same purpose;

7.

Stresses that taking into account the strategy's objective to provide assistance regardless of the consent of third-country governments, the CoR considers that democratically elected local and regional authorities in the countries concerned should be defined as partners for the achievement of the EIDHR's goals, by being explicitly included in the list of actors on the same level as civil society organisations.

8.

Recalls that the CoR has already set up several instruments for the implementation of its policy in the countries it has established contacts with; in particular, the creation of three Working Groups, on the Western Balkans, Turkey and Croatia, as well as the organisation of a cycle of conferences on the European Neighbourhood Policy, have allowed a regular political dialogue and sharing of best practices with local and regional level representatives from third countries.

9.

Prefers a more long-term strategic approach on the instrument and its objectives. The priority areas have been changing during every programming period and thus the long-term development and assessment of the programme and its initiatives is difficult. The detailed evaluation and precise reporting of the finalised programmes helps further develop future programmes.

10.

Pays attention to the need to streamline the application procedures for funding through the EIDHR and urges a simplification of the concrete running of the programme so that it would enable the less organised structures to take advantage and to work fully and flexibly with the instrument. As the EIDHR remains an instrument of relatively modest size, working in a selective and strategic fashion is crucial to its success.

11.

Recommends that the evaluation and reassessment of the Strategy should be from the perspective of local and regional authorities and subsidiarity in third countries. The administration of the EIDHR must not increase the bureaucracy in such a manner that it becomes an obstacle especially for the projects which are distinctive for the local actors. Maximum flexibility should be allowed to avoid the discrimination that the heavy structures would cause.

12.

The Committee of the Region's commitment towards democracy, good governance, European values and human rights justifies its involvement in the Strategy as a whole. However, among the proposed five objectives, a specific emphasis could be given in the multi-annual planning for 2010-2013 to the involvement of local and regional authorities in Objective 2. The CoR also draws attention to the possibility of the Committee of the Regions' election monitoring strategy finding its place in the framework of Objective 5 in order to enhance the construction of a grassroots democracy and of a feeling of ownership of the democratic process among the populations.

13.

Points out that while the support of this Objective is directed mainly towards non-governmental organisations, it should be recognised that in some countries and regions human rights defenders and even municipal civil servants can be under a certain risk due to their position and daily work. The effort should be made to mobilise support on their behalf.

14.

Holds that participatory and inclusive democracy at a local and regional level is the best way in the long term to build a citizens' need-oriented and well-functioning democracy, based on good governance and benefiting from the citizens' confidence and support.

15.

Calls for inclusive democracy models by ensuring for instance the political representation of both men and women, the indigenous population (where relevant), and local minorities; in addition, participation by local minority populations, persons with disabilities and children and young people are fields in which it appears crucial to share best practices and supporting local authorities in strengthening public involvement.

16.

Notes that the key element of good governance, based on broad political representation and participation, is a recognition that the best decisions are taken as near to the citizens as possible.

17.

Points out that the democratic processes of accountability — starting from the local and regional level — are vital in ensuring transparency of governing, and play a key role in combating corruption and alleviation of poverty.

18.

Believes that by developing people-to-people contacts on a less formal level, and by giving priority to finding solutions for the daily problems of citizens on a practical basis, local and regional authorities play a significant role in strengthening local cooperation among conflicting interest groups.

19.

Considers that civil society, local NGOs and community-based organisations (CSOs) for fundamental freedoms and human rights as well as local human rights defenders can achieve the best results in implementing political, economic and social rights at the local level when their work is recognised and free from threats, harassment and insecurity and that the local level is especially relevant for the promotion of democratic values and political awareness of the citizens if they are able to work together with empowered local and regional authorities.

20.

Highlights the added value of the local approach when it comes to transborder cooperation on various subjects, including conflict settlement. The positive role which local initiatives — such as ‘diplomacy of the cities’ through promotion of intercultural dialogue and confidence building measures at local level — can play in conflicting contexts deserves special mention. Therefore global campaigns for democracy and human rights should be even more strongly envisaged, for example by applying a transnational approach which contains a clear local and regional perspective.

21.

Recalls that although human rights dialogues are generally carried out with state authorities, issues of democracy have clearly also to be dealt with by local and regional level actors. A functioning democratic system cannot be created and maintained without local and regional involvement and ownership of it — both contribute in every way to the development of this system.

22.

As the UN definition of human rights defenders is ‘persons and organisations engaged in promoting and defending human rights and fundamental freedoms’, the role of local level decision-makers and activists can clearly be seen.

23.

Urgently points out that a significant number of cases of torture take place in local prisons and police stations. Therefore a strong effort has to be made to implement national law and international commitments at the local level. Support should therefore also be directed towards local NGOs monitoring the authority's actions and to training the authorities.

24.

Supports the guideline on children's rights and sees the relevance of local authorities in the areas of education and access to adequate education and health care, including work on reproductive health rights especially for girls.

25.

Endorses the European Commission communication A special place for children in EU external action COM(2008) 55 final, in which children are given a special place in EU external action, and points out the need to promote the mainstreaming of the interests of children and children's rights in all EU external action.

26.

Welcomes the cooperation agreements already existing with such actors as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the International Criminal Court and would highly appreciate it if importance should be attached to facilitating local democracy and increasing the capacity of local and regional authorities to implement civil, political, economic and social rights.

27.

Stresses the right of children to participate, influence and have their voices heard in matters affecting them in accordance with their age and maturity (as provided in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), especially when decisions about local matters are taken.

28.

Is convinced by having experienced and by actively advancing local and regional democracy, devolution and self-governance in Europe that guaranteeing the respect of established local and regional competences by national and European authorities is crucial for the promotion of genuine democracy and human rights worldwide.

29.

Stresses that election monitoring has become one of the CoR's effective tools in its external policy over the past two years; acknowledges the experience and long standing commitment which the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities has shown in this area. It welcomes the fact that it has been given the opportunity to contribute to the CLRAE's efforts to promote and advance local and regional democracy.

30.

Finds support for election observation to be an important part of the development of democracy and feels that particular emphasis should also be placed on monitoring local and regional elections in third countries in future EU election observation strategies.

31.

Considers that EU observation of national elections should pay more attention to the impact assessment of the promotion of democracy at the local and regional levels.

32.

Underlines that the forthcoming Strategy for the period 2010-2013 should take into account the role that local and regional authorities could play in that initiative especially from the point of view of local election processes and European expertise in monitoring them in third countries.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/30

—

highlights that throughout the European Union, the regional and local tiers bear responsibility for the protection and promotion of linguistic diversity. They are ideally placed to build a constructive partnership with language-teaching institutions in order to devise teaching and training courses that meet specific local needs and demands;

—

believes that, given the importance of linguistic diversity in the European Union, the intention when creating a multilingual society must be to maximise the benefits of diversity and minimise its drawbacks;

—

believes that everyone in the EU, while preserving his own mother tongue(s) as the badge of his own cultural heritage, must in the course of his life additionally acquire an active and passive knowledge of a shared second language and a third language chosen on the basis of cultural affinity or the social and economic mobility requirements of the country or region of origin;

—

highlights that with a view to achieving the objective of ‘mother tongue plus two’, the regions must play a leading role, especially in implementing the education programmes;

—

proposes that all regions be encouraged to set up local multilingualism forums which would monitor local social, economic and educational trends and put forward measures to raise public awareness and motivation in relation to lifelong learning of ‘mother tongue plus two’.

Rapporteur

:

Roberto PELLA (IT/EPP), Member of Biella Provincial Council and Vice Mayor of Valdengo

1.

congratulates the European Commission on the powerful impetus given to the multilingualism agenda by the creation on 1 January 2007 of a portfolio dedicated to it and assigned to Commissioner Leonard Orban. Given the importance of this portfolio and the challenge which it represents, it should be strengthened so that it can develop and effectively achieve the objectives assigned to it;

2.

underscores the priority that multilingualism has in the European policy agenda — a priority which embraces every area of Europe's social, economic and cultural life.

3.

endorses the work programme set out by Commissioner Orban, who considers multilingualism to be instrumental in achieving a more integrated Europe and increased dialogue between cultures;

4.

believes that, given the importance of linguistic diversity in the European Union, the intention when creating a multilingual society must be to maximise the benefits of diversity and minimise its drawbacks, rather than merely exploiting diversity as the means to an end;

5.

draws attention to the study of the high-level group on multilingualism set up in 2005 and endorses the action it calls for, namely:

6.

points to the findings of the on-line consultation initiated in September 2007, which makes the following key points regarding action on multilingualism:

7.

highlights and endorses the proposals of the group of intellectuals for intercultural dialogue established at the European Commission's behest and chaired by Amin Maalouf, affirming in particular:

8.

stresses that the promotion and safeguarding of cultural and linguistic diversity is a top priority. In the European Union, linguistic diversity should be also understood as the recognition and use of:

The Union and its Member States should promote linguistic diversity in their respective fields of activity;

9.

Throughout the European Union, the regional and local tiers bear responsibility for the protection and promotion of linguistic diversity. The regional and local levels are also responsible for education, training and adult education, as well as being one of the social partners and coordinating regional and local growth and development;

10.

When training continues throughout the career, the concepts of ‘knowledge’ and ‘learning’ grow in importance, partly because the world of work with its diverse opportunities requires better language skills;

11.

Regional and local authorities are ideally placed to build a constructive partnership with language-teaching institutions in order to devise teaching and training courses that meet specific local needs and demands;

12.

maintains, therefore, that regional and local authorities are the best equipped to satisfy the various local language needs, without prejudice to any support they might receive from central/national authorities;

13.

considers that Europe must build its social and economic cohesion by making the most of the opportunities afforded by mobility, globalisation, European culture and the sense of European citizenship;

14.

A key way this can be achieved is by eliminating the linguistic hurdles that countries and individuals have to face, since:

15.

Regarding the open-coordination method in respect of multilingualism, the Commission must be at pains to involve not only the national level of administration, but also the local and regional ones, since it is often these that bear most responsibility for implementing the relevant measures in their area;

16.

In this connection, attention must also be given to the respect and dignity of non-official languages spoken by minorities, which — no less than the official languages — constitute an element of the diversity of regional culture that must have its place in European programmes of inclusion;

17.

considers it important to enshrine the aims of Europe's multilingual policies in the ‘mother tongue plus two’ objective;

18.

believes that everyone in the EU, while preserving his own mother tongue(s) as the badge of his own cultural heritage, should in the course of his life additionally acquire an active and passive knowledge of a shared second language and a third language chosen on the basis of cultural affinity or the social and economic mobility requirements of the country or region of origin;

19.

The choice of the third language must be made not only from what are considered the official languages of the EU, but also from European minority languages and, above all, non-European languages that offer major cultural, economic and social opportunities for the growth of Europe's competitiveness;

20.

proposes that the following key recommendations be adopted as priorities in Europe's multilingual policy and implemented in order to motivate the population, preserve diversity and put local and regional bodies centre-stage in the choice of approaches to learning;

21.

Local and regional authorities are key players, not just because many of them have political and administrative powers in the sphere of education and training, but also because of their ability to better monitor the situation of public multilingualism and trends in the application of relevant Community directives and programmes. It is at regional and local level that powers acquired and measures carried out are tested, which can give a strong impetus to European political action;

22.

With a view to achieving the objective of ‘mother tongue plus two’, the regions must play a leading role, especially in implementing the education programmes;

23.

In any country, each region may have its own specific historical, civic, cultural, social and economic characteristics;

24.

Regional diversity must be encouraged, which means that regions must be called upon to provide language on the basis of studies and research, surveys of cultural traditions carried out by local authorities and regions, the wishes of the general public, and the socio-economic outlook and requirements of the region;

25.

It would thus be possible to monitor consistency between local needs and current educational programmes and to take advantage of flexibility at local and regional authority level to adjust educational initiatives that have not produced the results hoped for;

26.

The language selected must be freely chosen. In case a Member State has more than one official EU language, the learning of the other language(s) has also to be encouraged;

27.

believes that the multilingualism policy should also include a significant external component. Promoting European languages beyond the EU is of interest both culturally and economically. In the same way, the EU should be open to languages from third countries, such as Chinese, Arabic, Indian languages, Russian, etc.

28.

We would therefore propose that all regions be encouraged to set up local multilingualism forums which would monitor local social, economic and educational trends and put forward measures to raise public awareness and motivation in relation to lifelong learning of ‘mother tongue plus two’;

29.

Programmes to include migrants must also be strongly promoted. Knowledge of the relevant languages they and their children need in order to develop their full potential in European society must be encouraged and facilitated, while ensuring that their right to preserve their language of origin is fully respected. The languages they should learn and acquire are the official EU language of the territory as well as the co-official languages of the areas or regions where they live, as laid down in with their constitutional provisions;

30.

In short, local, regional and national institutions must encourage the education system to include a broad range of languages in the education curriculum. Education systems should cover a broad range of languages tailored to regional social, economic and cultural requirements;

31.

believes that language skills are a key factor in competitiveness. Studies have shown that European businesses lose markets by not having the relevant language skills;

32.

thus calls on the Commission to keep up its efforts in this area;

33.

As far as smaller languages and languages spoken by a minority are concerned, it should be remembered that these help to boost the basic European cultural value of diversity and should therefore not only not be placed at a disadvantage in this process but should be a particular object of protection;

34.

The designation ‘minority’ or ‘smaller’ must not become a reason for discrimination against the language;

35.

proposes the promotion of debates to establish more appropriate terms that better reflect the actual situation;

36.

Thus it is important to continue the process of officially recognising minority languages which represent firmly rooted European traditions and cultures;

37.

This would allow official recognition by the EU, so that it would translate its own texts into more languages than the current 23, thus fostering direct dialogue between Europe and its citizens;

38.

The European process of officially recognising languages and regional diversification will enhance social inclusion;

39.

welcomes the conclusions of the European Council of 13 June 2005 allowing the use within the EU bodies and institutions of languages other than those recognised as official languages under Regulation 1/1958;

40.

Languages that are not recognised as official languages, either at European or local or regional level, must nevertheless continue to be covered by programmes to protect cultural identity;

41.

There is also the problem of how to support citizens in the lifelong learning process;

42.

Although it may be easier to ‘direct’ language learning at school and help today's young people not to later lose the intercultural linguistic awareness acquired at their desks, the problem becomes more complex with generations who have left the education system a long time ago and have never followed a multilingual training process. It is also important to secure access to language learning for the older generation, many of whom have never engaged with other languages, either in their everyday lives or for professional reasons. This would enhance their means of expression in their old age, leading to a more fully engaged European citizenship on their part;

43.

It is therefore necessary to promote systems of learning that are not only affordable (the cost of language courses often hinders the delivery of education to older people), but also available to people who have mobility problems or cannot make the active commitment required in terms of time;

44.

points out that efforts must be made to learn as correctly as possible a foreign language, especially in view of the ever growing migrant community;

45.

It is important to stress, therefore, that less rigorous ways of learning do exist which enable people to acquire rudimentary language skills with which they can understand and be understood. These methods of learning should be promoted by national, regional and local educational institutions and funded by the EU to disseminate learning opportunities and bridge the generation gap in language learning;

46.

This also means supporting alternative forms of learning through multimedia by promoting media transmissions in the original language with subtitles (e.g. TV programmes, films, news), as well as broader use of computer language courses or online translation programs. In other words, a sort of lifelong ‘self-learning’;

47.

In young people and children, on the other hand, the motivation to learn new languages must be kindled at an early age. Language learning should begin as early as possible — so that children become familiar with the sounds of a foreign language — because this makes it easier for them to learn the language faster and more comprehensively;

48.

Progress in language acquisition at primary and secondary school should be developed. The education process must provide more opportunities to speak a foreign language at primary school and to learn a third language at secondary school;

49.

University education must provide facilities for perfecting or further improving a person's linguistic skills, which also means boosting the Erasmus and Socrates programmes;

50.

But universities must open their doors not just to mature students who want to brush up their language skills but also to businesses, which must be helped and encouraged in enabling their staff and management to take on the challenge of learning new ‘commercial’ languages by promoting partnerships between businesses and universities;

51.

It is also necessary to develop translation and interpreting courses that involve not just institutions (from the general public to the regions and the European Parliament: promoting and rewarding cities that can present their own websites and external documentation in several languages is a good incentive for local institutional multilingualism), but also points of contact with the general public;

52.

Multilingualism can be promoted on the basis not just of education and training but through recreational activities;

53.

For example, learning more languages through sport or culture is a way of raising awareness among a wide range of people, from children to adults;

54.

Music songs are already in themselves a global and multilingual market: it would be useful, for example, to promote events such as EuroMusic Open Day focusing on lyrics in songs;

55.

Circulation of literary works in bilingual editions (original and translation) should be stepped up, not just on the initiative of individual publishing houses but also through public partnerships set up to encourage local and regional governments to promote private multilingual initiatives;

56.

accepts the need for ‘institutional’ multilingualism within the EU. EU institutions should therefore ensure without delay that at least passive interpreting from EU official languages is provided to enable participants in discussions to express their views in their own languages;

57.

feels that preserving cultural diversity means guaranteeing a system of formal and informal translation into all official European languages. It is absolutely necessary in encouraging multilingualism that bilateral communication takes place in the languages of the participants at informal meetings too;

58.

For formal meetings and for working and official documents there must be translation into all the official Member State languages. Respecting each Member State as a cornerstone of the EU, the EU in return must be accessible by giving each of them, in accordance with their respective constitutional provisions, the documents through which an active European citizenship can be exercised;

59.

Multilingualism must not be limited to developing social and economic mobility within the EU, but should also allow European citizens to become open to markets and cultures outside Europe;

60.

This is also important in the light of current trends that are pushing the EU towards increasingly closer economic and cultural contacts with markets such as China, Russia and Japan;

61.

Improved EU external competitiveness thus also depends on upgrading education and training courses in non-EU languages;

62.

The selected third language can also be chosen from all the languages that European countries use in their contacts, bearing in mind especially the languages of emerging non-EU countries and the cultural profile of countries with which Europe is building up its trade relations.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/36

—

recalls the fundamentally positive response from Commission President Barroso to the question asked by the European Association of Elected Representatives from Mountain Areas calling for a Green Paper on European policies for upland areas during the Structured Dialogue at the Committee of the Regions plenary session on 7 December 2006;

—

notes that upland regions are, on the one hand, areas with permanent natural and geographical handicaps and, on the other, regions with natural and human assets conducive to growth and job creation;

—

calls for the European Union to put in place a truly integrated European policy for all upland regions whilst respecting their diversity;

—

would support active development by the European Commission and the Member States of the EU of the general objectives of the renewed Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies through a European action plan for the competitiveness and sustainable development of upland areas;

—

recommends that the European Commission takes into consideration three major policy areas:

Rapporteur

:

Mr Luis DURNWALDER (IT/EPP), Regional councillor and President of the Bolzano autonomous province

1.

recalls the fundamentally positive response from Commission President Barroso to the question asked by the European Association of Elected Representatives from Mountain Areas calling for a Green Paper on European policies for upland areas during the Structured Dialogue at the Committee of the Regions plenary session on 7 December 2006;

2.

highlights the recognition in the Lisbon Treaty (Article 158), in the definition of the objective of territorial cohesion, of the need for upland areas to be given special attention, along with other regions which suffer from permanent natural or geographical handicaps;

3.

recalls that uplands are essential to the life and activity of the entire population of the European Union through their natural resources, their cultural resources such as linguistic diversity and particular skills, and their economic resources such as agriculture, industry and tourism;

4.

notes that, as a whole, upland areas are to be found in 21 Member States of the European Union and account for 35,69 % of Europe's surface area and 17,73 % of its population (1);

5.

notes that upland areas account for 26 % of the land surfaces of the Earth and 10 % of its population, and are a key part of the sustainable development of the planet, as recognised by Chapter 13 of Rio's Agenda 21;

6.

notes that the accessibility of mountain areas is of key importance for completing a true single market and for making the free movement of people, goods and services a reality;

7.

points out that upland areas are even more diverse when one looks at the cohesion of mountain massifs defined as supra-regional cross-border or transnational areas taking in mountain areas, valley floors and foothills, urban and rural areas;

8.

reiterates that the mountain environment has an incredible amount of biodiversity and is particularly fragile and sensitive to climate change; as a consequence, it constitutes a real early-warning system;

9.

states that upland areas have traditionally been in the vanguard of potentially innovative sustainable development in the face of permanent natural handicaps;

10.

recalls that local and regional authorities have significant experience in sustainable development in upland areas;

11.

recalls the efforts of the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee to encourage more attention to be paid to upland regions in European policies through opinions and studies;

12.

notes that, to date, there is no European policy or integrated Community strategy on upland areas along the lines of the ones put in place for maritime regions or urban areas;

13.

points out that local and regional authorities in upland areas set great store by their autonomy and by compliance with the subsidiarity principle, reflecting a bottom-up approach to European governance;

14.

notes that upland regions are, on the one hand, areas with permanent natural and geographical handicaps and, on the other, regions with natural and human assets conducive to growth and job creation;

15.

points out the need to bring European policies together into an integrated sustainable development strategy that can take account of the diversity of massifs;

16.

highlights the urgent need for balanced and fair work by the EU to make best use, in a sustainable manner, of the diversity of European urban, coastal, sparsely populated and mountainous areas;

17.

recalls the importance of the role and the work of upland populations in managing landscapes and the balance of the upland environment;

18.

supports the work by regional and local authorities and the networks that bring them together to exchange good practice in relation to the renewed Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives and aimed at economic, social and territorial cohesion;

19.

recalls the relevance of the Lisbon strategy and the 2007-2013 cohesion policy guidelines for upland areas, as for other areas, as drivers of Europe's global competitiveness;

20.

recalls the central role of the cross-border and transnational dimension of European policies in European integration;

21.

highlights the need to bring the political and administrative side of Europe closer to the daily lives of ordinary people;

22.

emphasises the added value at European level of working at the level of upland regions (the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Carpathian Mountains, the Iberian Sierras, the Balkans, the Mediterranean mountains including those on islands, the Nordic mountains, the central mountains, etc.) taking account of their cross-border and transnational dimension;

23.

highlights the importance of upland areas in terms of their natural and cultural resources;

24.

recalls the significant number of national and regional integrated policies for upland areas;

25.

takes note of the work of the Alpine Convention and the launch of the Carpathian Convention;

26.

pays tribute to the work of the Euroregions and Working Communities in their role as mediators and driving forces in border areas;

27.

would like a real European strategy for upland areas so as to complement at inter-sectoral level the progress expected from the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion that is currently being prepared;

28.

notes that a European policy for upland areas would involve a large number of sectoral policies that are already covered in part by European legislation but have never been coordinated under an integrated approach;

29.

lists below some major policy areas that an active policy on upland areas needs to cover:

30.

calls for the European Union to put in place a truly integrated European policy for all upland regions whilst respecting their diversity;

31.

would support active development by the European Commission and the Member States of the EU of the general objectives of the renewed Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies through a European action plan for the competitiveness and sustainable development of upland areas;

32.

advises the European Institutions to take account of the characteristics of individual area in their work towards ‘better lawmaking’;

33.

calls on the European Commission to recognise the diverse and positive contribution that local and regional authorities make in the field of sustainable development of mountain areas and to include this in the new European policy for upland areas;

34.

recommends that the European Commission takes into consideration three major policy areas:

35.

recommends that the European Commission makes upland regions pilot areas for innovation, the knowledge society and sustainable development;

36.

would like upland areas to be able to continue to develop innovation based on their traditions and improve the competitiveness of their SMEs;

37.

suggests that the European Commission and the Members States of the EU consider the different needs of different areas as regards employment and training;

38.

recommends that the European Commission develop, based on the experience of Nature Parks, an integrated management method for isolated high and medium mountain areas which can combine policies for conserving natural resources, particularly through the Natura 2000 networks, with policies for the enhancement and balanced development of upland regions;

39.

advises the European Union to take account of the specific needs of particular areas when framing the Europe-wide organisation of its civil security, given the concentration of natural hazards and the very different constraints, and hence techniques, for the deployment of civil protection and rescue services in upland areas;

40.

calls for consideration to be given, as part of the CAP reform, to the strategic role of upland agriculture, pastoralism and winegrowing in maintaining landscapes, the quality of water and the production of high-quality produce with a high degree of territorial traceability. This more locally-oriented Common Agricultural Policy would benefit high-quality, low-yield production, which is a key element of European agriculture and of the utmost importance in environmental terms;

41.

calls on the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to offer a balanced, comprehensive package of measures suitable for backing up steps to phase out the milk quota regime, especially in upland and middle mountain regions. These measures should be financed with resources from market organisation measures which are no longer used, but should not be at the expense of direct payments. In order to maintain agriculture, extensive farming and dairy production in upland areas and middle mountain regions, a more economically-oriented measure in the second pillar should be developed, aimed inter alia at creating market opportunities, thus supporting those types of farming in areas with natural and geographical handicaps, which produce significant benefits for nature and the environment;

42.

calls on the European institutions to take into account in their policies the key role of upland forests and sustainable forest management in view of the highly effective protection they provide for the areas of forest concerned and, in particular, residential areas, and their resulting contribution to conserving resources and biodiversity, with a view to combating climate change and preserving air and water quality and the countryside and to the socio-economic development of upland regions;

43.

maintains that there is currently too little economic activity related to forestry in Europe, both in terms of its environmental role and of its economic products (energy, construction, raw materials);

44.

calls on the European institutions to include in their analysis of European territories the energy needs and renewable energy production capacities (hydro-electric, solar, wind, biomass and wood) of mountain areas, and their ability to construct buildings to passive house standard;

45.

calls on the European institutions, national and regional public banks, and the European Carbon Fund or Bluenext to take into consideration the positive contributions to the quality of the environment (forests, meadows and mountain pastures) made by upland areas in terms of carbon sinks, which could be financially rewarded through the carbon certificate or credit systems;

46.

recalls that the energy, transport and ITC TENs must include a genuine territorial dimension and thus take account of the geographical, environmental and human situations of the regions they cross if they are to become genuine European networks for pan-continental communication and exchanges supported by the local population;

47.

intends to take an interest in experiments in local and sustainable integrated transport in upland towns as part of the European debate on sustainable urban mobility;

48.

stresses the need for a permanent link between upland populations and large population centres in order to achieve the renewed European objectives for growth and jobs;

49.

calls on the European Commission to do everything possible to reduce the digital divide and enable all areas and all European citizens to access high-speed, and in the near future very high speed, connections via cable or satellite, inter alia under the i2010 European initiative on e-inclusion;

50.

recommends that the upland dimension of certain international geopolitical issues, such as those relating to water and natural resources, respect for cultural diversity and education, sustainable economic development and migratory flows, be included in foreign and neighbourhood policy;

51.

advises the European Commission to territorialise its communication strategy so as to draw closer to the daily lives of European citizens;

52.

suggests that a stronger territorial dimension be given to European policies, the Community decision-making process and comitology so as to improve European democracy;

53.

calls on the European Parliament to identify the budgetary impact on each upland area of the European Union's activities;

54.

recommends that cohesion policy be coordinated on a partnership basis in upland regions so as to avoid fragmentation and improve the strategic dimension of structural measures;

55.

suggests that the operational programming of other Community policies that have a territorial impact also be coordinated at this relevant level, i.e. upland regions, so as to define cross-sectoral, integrated and partnership-based strategies;

56.

supports the measure adopted by the Council of Ministers responsible for spatial planning to study the impact of climate change on upland areas as part of the Territorial Agenda action plan, and calls on the European Commission to take account of this issue in its work and legislative proposals;

57.

supports the key role of cohesion policy in this European strategy on upland regions and the leading role of the territorial cohesion objective and Interreg programmes;

58.

calls on the Member States and their parliaments, as part of their procedures for adopting the regulation on the EGTC, to consider the vital importance of a common legal instrument to promote territorial cooperation in upland regions;

59.

highlights the need to take account in competition and single market policies the crucial role of Services of General Interest and Public-Private Partnerships in upland economies, and of overcoming the permanent economic and social costs in these areas with permanent natural handicaps in order to avoid depopulation and make best use of their assets;

60.

calls on the European Commission to consult all the stakeholders and observers involved in the Alpine Convention and the Carpathian Convention in order to study their governance and objectives and to decide, on that basis, whether or not to ratify the protocols of the former and to sign and ratify those of the latter, and, if so, to play a leading role in these transnational Conventions;

61.

proposes that a European year be dedicated to upland areas and that a biennial European conference of upland regions be organised by the Commission, in conjunction with the Committee of the Regions, along the lines of the 2002 conference;

62.

calls on the European Parliament and the Council, during the hearings prior to their appointment, identifiably to entrust competence for upland areas to a single Commissioner, who would coordinate the activities of the College on this cross-cutting territorial issue, in addition to his other competences;

63.

calls on the European Commission to make proposals in a Green Paper on the future of European policies on upland regions as a precursor to an integrated, partnership-based European strategy for upland areas led by the European Commission, the Member States and regional and local authorities, supported by socio-economic and environmental players, and involving national and European associations representing regional authorities from upland areas.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/41

—

believes that it is essential to strengthen communication with the European public by engaging them in a permanent dialogue in order to establish a debate which is democratic and based on trust and solidarity so as to promote a truly European spirit and make it easier to espouse active European citizenship;

—

stresses the joint responsibility of national, regional and local elected representatives to integrate a European dimension into their actions; requests, accordingly, that a communication partnership be encouraged between EU institutions, national governments, national parliaments and local authorities in order to provide the public with a better knowledge of Europe and to convey clear and objective messages on the measures taken at EU level;

—

welcomes the new ‘Debate Europe’ phase of Plan D, which maintains the ‘going local’ approach and which provides an additional means through which people can be reached, get connected and act in partnership in the wake of European elections and in the context of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty;

—

welcomes the Commission's decision to co-fund a new series of Plan D civil society projects, and agrees with the focus placed on decentralised calls and actions supporting local projects; strongly welcomes the fact that these calls place the involvement of members of the Committee of the Regions and facilitation of dialogue with local political decision-makers at the forefront of the objectives; however, calls on the Commission to ensure that local and regional authorities themselves are eligible under such calls for proposals;

—

proposes that the Europe Houses should not be limited to the Member States' capital cities alone and that local and regional authorities and other cities should also be able to establish such institutions, in line with a fixed set of criteria; in this sense welcomes the Commission's intention to go ‘even more local’ by encouraging debates beyond Europe's capital cities with the Commission Representations and the second generation of Europe Direct centres foreseen for 2009;

—

is ready to actively contribute and participate in initiatives launched by other institutions, including citizens' summits which could be organised by EU Presidencies.

Rapporteur

:

Ms DU GRANRUT (FR/EPP), Regional Councillor for Picardy

1.

supports the European Commission's initiative to devise a new strategy for communication with the European public, in accordance with the wishes of the European Council, by involving the European institutions and the Member States more closely and recognising the importance of action taken at local and regional level;

2.

believes that it is essential to strengthen communication with the European public by engaging them in a permanent dialogue in order to establish a debate which is democratic and based on trust and solidarity so as to promote a truly European spirit and make it easier to espouse active European citizenship;

3.

reiterates its belief in the crucial need to encourage, via a decentralised dialogue, a debate on our common values, the achievements of the European venture and the impact of Community policies on people's lives, and the challenges for the EU's future, as well as to promote better knowledge of European issues among the people of Europe;

4.

stresses the joint responsibility of national, regional and local elected representatives to integrate a European dimension into their actions; requests, accordingly, that a communication partnership be encouraged between national governments, national parliaments and local authorities in order to provide the public with a better knowledge of Europe and to convey clear and objective messages on the measures taken at EU level;

5.

requests therefore that the European Commission provide the instruments whereby people can truly participate; highlights, in this respect, the role of primary means of communication, especially the internet as a means of bringing government closer to citizens and as a fundamental communications tool, including for local and regional authorities;

6.

is pleased that the Commission intends to strengthen the principle of partnership between the European institutions and the Member States; strongly emphasises the need to recognise its vital role in this process, as well as that of local and regional authorities; notes that the Commission concedes that the public's lack of knowledge about the European Union is primarily due to a lack of involvement on the part of the Member States, whilst acknowledging the positive effects of decentralised cooperation, as well as the need to act at local and regional level;

7.

welcomes the new ‘Debate Europe’ phase of Plan D, which maintains the ‘going local’ approach and which provides an additional means through which people can be reached, get connected and act in partnership in the wake of European elections and in the context of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty;

8.

calls on the European Commission to include the requirement to communicate in the formulation of every European policy, particularly policies which have a direct impact on the regions, such as the Structural Funds; and believes that the revised EU budget should provide a chapter for communication with citizens;

9.

believes that it would be useful to capitalise on the ratification phase of the Lisbon Treaty and the forthcoming European elections to encourage a true debate on Europe; to this end, it has set up a specific working group to optimise its members' capacity to communicate with the public on Europe;

10.

notes the content of the declarations by Commissioner Wallström regarding the territorial approach and the essential role of local and regional authorities in reaching out to the public and explaining the general thrust and benefits of the EU's political action on economic development, territorial cohesion, the environment, security and social advancement during the many events organised as part of Plan D throughout the European Union;

11.

reaffirms, in this context, its intention to build on the terms of the cooperation agreement with the European Commission, particularly in the light of its addendum on communications policy, in order to organise discussions and events on issues touching the public's everyday life such as employment, security, migration, fundamental rights, environmental conservation and energy supply, thereby demonstrating the added value of Community policy when combined with the powers of local elected representatives;

12.

asks for contact persons in each Commission representation, who were appointed in accordance with the CoR-Commission cooperation agreement and are responsible for the local and regional rollout of the communication activity themes outlined by the Interinstitutional Group on Information, to become truly operational information relays between the Commission and the members of the CoR. They should facilitate the involvement of local and regional authorities in decentralised events and in the official visits of Members of the Commission to the Member States;

13.

notes that while a new communication strategy requires that the EU institutions and bodies become more interactive, it should also be fuelled by contributions from the grass roots, which can only be evaluated and passed on by authorities who not only have a good knowledge of the EU's decision-making process, but also have a duty of responsibility towards and are close to their fellow citizens; emphasises the terms of the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality outlined in the Lisbon Treaty which require the Commission to take account of the financial and administrative impact on local and regional authorities when drafting legislative proposals;

14.

notes that engagement with local and regional stakeholders and local and regional authority participation in the Commission's formal consultations on new legislation strengthens the activities of towns and regions as information and communication channels within the European Union and is part of multi-level governance. This two-way exchange of information could involve the regional offices, local and regional authorities in Brussels as well as national and European associations of local and regional elected representatives;

15.

draws attention to the need to ensure that information on the EU is tailored more towards the different target groups in question and takes a form appropriate to the local situation;

16.

asks that lessons be drawn from the events organised by local and regional authorities under Plan D as outlined in the two progress reports on the implementation of decentralised communication by the Committee of the Regions;

17.

welcomes the Commission's decision to co-fund a new series of Plan D civil society projects, and agrees with the focus placed on decentralised calls and actions supporting local projects; strongly welcomes the fact that these calls place the involvement of members of the Committee of the Regions and facilitation of dialogue with local political decision-makers at the forefront of the objectives; however, calls on the Commission to ensure that local and regional authorities themselves are eligible under such calls for proposals;

18.

stresses that in order to make the ‘Debate Europe’ phase of Plan D efficient in every Member State, greater synergies need to be sought between MEPs, local and regional elected representatives, spokespersons of national governments, heads of the representation offices of the European Parliament and the Commission and representatives of national associations of local and regional authorities;

19.

proposes that the Europe Houses, public institutions which aim to attract the general public with a large range of activities, should not be limited to the Member States' capital cities alone and that local and regional authorities and other cities should also be able to establish such institutions, in line with a fixed set of criteria; in this sense welcomes the Commission's intention to go ‘even more local’ by encouraging debates beyond Europe's capital cities with the Commission Representations and the second generation of Europe Direct centres foreseen for 2009;

20.

emphasises that communication with young people should seek to disseminate information which makes young people realise that it would be in their interests to become involved in European integration;

21.

calls on all spheres of government to ensure that, during the course of their school career, young people are given a basic grounding in EU affairs allowing them to understand the EU's powers, how it functions, its activities and the opportunities it offers for both their personal and professional future and the 21st century challenges;

22.

recommends that Member States' communication actions be implemented in collaboration with local and regional representatives, for instance through the organisation of decentralised events in the regions and regular discussions with local and regional assemblies on current EU policies, if possible with an MEP and representative of one of the Commission's directorates-general, as is the case for national parliaments;

23.

notes that local and regional politicians could be vital in launching a two-way communication process aimed at informing the public about the role and real nature of the Union, eliciting a reaction from the public to such information and bringing Europe closer to the regions which such politicians represent; similarly they are in a good position to pass on the views of the grass roots, i.e. public, local and regional opinion, to those responsible for preparing and deciding on EU policy;

24.

stresses the role that political parties can play in local and regional communications promoting the European project, and calls on local and regional elected representatives to educate young politicians on European affairs so that tomorrow's decision-makers can integrate the European dimension into their activity;

25.

believes that it is essential to present the text of the Lisbon Treaty in a clear and trustworthy way, setting out its benefits, the logic behind it and its improvements as regards the transparency, efficiency and legitimacy of the EU's action and citizen involvement in policy-making;

26.

recommends that local and regional councils organise a special session open to members of the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament from the same constituency, dedicated to the achievements of European integration and the workings of the EU institutions for instance on Europe Day (9 May);

27.

announces the following priority actions planned by the Committee of the Regions for 2008 in the field of communication:

28.

wishes to cooperate closely with the European Commission to draft a ‘working plan’ based on communication initiatives within the framework of inter-institutional cooperation, and by increasing the number of operational management partnerships with the Member States on a bilateral basis;

29.

is ready to actively contribute and participate in initiatives launched by other institutions, including citizens' summits which could be organised by EU Presidencies;

30.

is convinced that an inter-institutional information and communication framework could bolster the principle of partnership between the EU institutions and bodies, the Member States and the local and regional authorities; such a framework should be adequately funded;

31.

emphasises the benefits of its participation in the Interinstitutional Information Group (G.I.I.), plans to present its annual programme on decentralised communication on a yearly basis and therefore asks to be involved in the preparation of the annual inter-institutional programme on this matter;

32.

is in favour of assessing the activities of the G.I.I. to identify any possible improvements and to see whether a group should be created to coordinate the measures implementing the general guidelines laid down by the G.I.I.; the CoR would be happy to participate in this;

33.

is delighted at the opportunity to take part in an annual inter-institutional debate on communication and, accordingly, asks that it be recognised alongside the European Commission, European Parliament and Council as a key partner in a decentralised communications strategy;

34.

stresses that in order to achieve the objective of increasing EU citizens' knowledge of EU affairs, there is a need to increase the number and effectiveness of existing information channels and to make them more accessible. Cooperation between local and regional authorities and media should be improved and new technologies deployed;

35.

expresses satisfaction at this year's launch of the European Commission's pilot information network project, which will seek to get national parliaments more involved in the European debate and requests that it be associated with this initiative, along with local and regional elected representatives;

36.

asks the European Commission to link up the websites of its representations in the 27 Member States with the websites of national associations of local and regional authorities, cities and regions and that the information provided be tailored to local audiences, particularly information on the implementation of European policies;

37.

recommends that the Europa site contain a separate page on the role of local and regional authorities in the European decision-making process highlighting the fact that almost 75 % of European legislation is implemented at local and regional level; this page should also include a link to the Committee of the Regions' website and the websites of any European and national associations of local and regional authorities which so wish;

38.

stresses the importance of the European Commission's e-participation initiative, which aims to enable the public to participate in formulating policies, particularly at local and regional level, and, accordingly, invites local and regional authorities to develop their local websites in a way that allows citizens to express their opinions as part of an online process of consultation and interaction, in particular their expectations regarding European policies;

39.

urges the European Commission to include videos produced by the Committee of the Regions on the EU Tube website;

40.

lastly, requests that the European Commission provide a platform for discussion with local and regional elected representatives on the Europa website to respond to questions from the public, e.g. as part of the Debate Europe forum, as this initiative could help increase the interaction between CoR members and the public in their respective Member States;

41.

underlines the importance of there being a wide range of different information and communication channels so that all EU citizens have an opportunity to acquire information on the EU on an equal footing.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/46

—

welcomes the European Commission's initiative to designate 2009 as the European Year of Creativity and Innovation. Europe's creative potential is the key to meeting the Lisbon objectives and thus to becoming the world's most innovative, knowledge-based economy;

—

notes that, in the European cities and regions and at local level, culture, creativity and innovation are the key sources of growth, investment and new jobs;

—

highlights the particular importance of early, pre-school learning and primary education for the development of basic competences, i.e. the knowledge, skills and attitudes that equip people to live and work in modern European society, and to acquire additional knowledge;

—

stresses that the initiative makes an ideal follow-on to the Year of Intercultural Dialogue. Linking up the themes of a number of different European ‘years’ helps ensure that the activities do have an impact in the medium and long term;

—

notes the absence of any specific funding for the Year of Creativity and Innovation. If creativity is seen as a vital ingredient of European social development, it should not be restricted to the fields of education and culture alone. Interdisciplinary thought engenders new and creative solutions.

Rapporteur

:

Gerd HARMS (DE/PES), Plenipotentiary of the Land of Brandenburg for federal and European affairs and state secretary in the Brandenburg state chancellery

1.

welcomes the European Commission's initiative to designate 2009 as the European Year of Creativity and Innovation. Taken in a very broad sense, as the Commission rightly does in its proposal, creativity is the ability to find new solutions in the most varied fields of human activity and is the sine qua non of technical, cultural and social innovation. Europe's creative potential is the key to meeting the Lisbon objectives and thus to becoming the world's most innovative, knowledge-based economy;

2.

endorses the Commission's analysis of the fundamental conditions needed for the development of creativity and innovation. It would thereby highlight the particular importance of early, pre-school learning and primary education for the development of basic competences, i.e. the knowledge, skills and attitudes that equip people to live and work in modern European society, and to acquire additional knowledge;

3.

backs the Commission's view as to the importance of education in encouraging creativity, and considers that creativity should not be restricted only to pre-school learning and a child's early years at school. Artistic subjects should remain important throughout the school career. Nor must creativity be restricted to so-called ‘creative subjects’. Creative problem-solving abilities and innovative thinking must be an integral part of all formal education processes. In this connection, the CoR would draw particular attention to the importance of multilingualism;

4.

stresses the need to ensure not only the promotion of excellence and high achievement, but also proper education and training for the people in every region as the foundation for individual and collective prosperity and for the ability of regions to innovate;

5.

notes that, in the European cities and regions and at local level, culture, creativity and innovation are the key sources of growth, investment and new jobs. To succeed in European and global competition, regions must develop their creative potential and capacity for innovation. Regional and local authorities are generally responsible for facilitating lifelong learning, pursuing an active labour market policy, developing regional innovation strategies and fostering innovative and creative economic sectors;

6.

emphasises again the major importance of local authorities and regions in developing innovative environments. Relevant here are local innovation policies, technology centres, business incubators, science parks and venture capital;

7.

makes clear that this applies not only to the creative sector and knowledge-based modern industries. On the contrary, creative solutions are needed to the social, environmental and economic challenges facing modern societies at all levels;

8.

welcomes in particular the explicit recognition of the role of regional and local authorities in the Commission legislative proposal, which notes that

9.

endorses this assessment and advocates the broad involvement of local and regional authorities in the European Year of Creativity and Innovation;

10.

backs the objectives of the European Year of Creativity and Innovation (Article 2). The comprehensive approach underpinning these objectives makes it possible to go beyond art and artistic aspects alone and take a broad view of how Europe's creative potential is developed and harnessed. During the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, the CoR feels that steps must be taken above all to promote and draw attention to interdisciplinary activities involving lifelong learning facilities, cultural bodies and players, business, science and civil society. It is also necessary to promote creative learning based on the search for and development of knowledge, as opposed to imitation and memory-based learning;

11.

stresses that the initiative makes an ideal follow-on to the Year of Intercultural Dialogue. Linking up the themes of a number of different European ‘years’ helps ensure that the activities do have an impact in the medium and long term. Activities undertaken as part of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue are designed to promote a more open, tolerant and flexible European society and tie in closely with creativity and innovation. Coming into contact and engaging with other cultural expressions and trends can act as a fillip to creativity and open up new pathways to resolving homegrown issues;

12.

notes that the Commission proposal makes specific reference to the key lifelong learning competences called for by European Parliament and the Council. The CoR would refer to its opinion on this recommendation (1), in which it highlighted the special significance of mathematical and scientific competences. In that opinion, the CoR also underscored the importance of encouraging women to take up these disciplines through the tools of lifelong learning. In future, European societies will have to do even more to encourage young people, and young women in particular, to train in scientific and technological disciplines and to study engineering and take up work in that sector;

13.

notes that interplay between working life, society and higher education is an important prerequisite for innovation and growth at local and regional level. An inclusive, non-discriminatory infrastructure is needed to encourage active citizenship and joint responsibility for social cohesion and sustainable development;

14.

advocates better education and training, in order to optimise the value of Europe's greatest resources — its young people. This education should focus particularly on studying technology, so as to boost European research, development and innovation, but care should also be taken to provide sufficient training in humanities and values; it is important to give the teaching of European history and culture the attention it deserves within the education system;

15.

has repeatedly stressed the particular importance of promoting research, training young scientists, supporting scientists' mobility and backing European-level scientific cooperation. The development of a research-friendly climate and the promotion of patents — together with the effective protection they provide — encourage innovative processes in both society and economy;

16.

emphasises the need to create standards and protection rights for intellectual property and the development of a European charter for the handling of intellectual property;

17.

in this connection, would also highlight the key importance of the Structural Funds, and in particular the Regional Development Fund, in supporting the practical application of scientific findings in innovative products and processes;

18.

deplores the tardy publication of the initiative. Such a short run-up period risks compromising the venture's success. It is thus particularly important that the Commission should now make every effort to involve as many partners in the process as possible;

19.

highlights the specific role played by the audiovisual media in developing creative environments. In many European regions, successful economic clusters are being established thanks to a combination of talent promotion, outstanding education and training centres and the media sector. Such developments should be given special recognition during the European Year of Creativity and Innovation;

20.

bemoans the Commission's failure to mention the wide range of possibilities available under the European mobility programmes. Mobility during education and training — interregional exchanges across Europe — can be particularly helpful in unleashing young people's potential for creativity and innovation;

21.

also criticises the absence of any provision for monitoring the success of the initiative and the failure to lay down the basic parameters under which the objectives are to be met;

22.

feels that the European Year of Creativity and Innovation can only succeed if the Commission as a whole takes up the challenge involved and if the opportunities are fully exploited in all the directorates-general. Strong support is also needed from the Member States and from towns, regions and local authorities. The CoR therefore calls for the inclusion not only of education policy but of other policy areas as well in actively helping shape the European Year of Creativity and Innovation;

23.

points out that fostering creativity and innovation is an integral part of many regional and local development plans. In giving practical shape to the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, care should be taken to avoid any suggestion that Commission initiatives are the only way to tap into these resources. The focus, not least in the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, should be on highlighting successful approaches pursued in the local authorities, regions and Member States and support should be given to disseminating examples of best practice. All Commission initiatives should comply with the subsidiarity principle;

24.

draws attention to the rich experience of local and regional authorities and civil society organisations, as expressed, for instance, in local and regional policy activities and during the Open Days organised by the CoR. This experience is indicative of the many and varied ways of developing and supporting the creativity and innovation that is such a mark of our European local authorities and regions;

25.

notes the absence of any specific funding for the Year of Creativity and Innovation. On the question of funding the activities, the Commission proposal makes explicit reference only to the Lifelong Learning Programme 2007-2013 and the Culture Programme 2007-2013, albeit the issues at stake here — creativity and innovation — go far beyond the confines of these schemes. Other issues also need to be addressed, including, not least, the scientific dimension, cooperation between industry and science, European mobility, rural development and social policy. If creativity is seen as a vital ingredient of European social development, it should not be restricted to the fields of education and culture alone. Interdisciplinary thought engenders new and creative solutions;

26.

Point 4.4 of the Commission proposal speaks of ‘refocusing communication activities on the themes of the Year’, yet the proposed measures give no further indication of how this is to be done. The CoR makes clear that any such measures must be coordinated between the Community, the national, the regional levels and the local levels;

27.

supports the Commission and offers to work with it in giving practical shape to the European Year of Creativity and Innovation. The cities, regions and local authorities are the natural partners for this venture and are the birthplace of many creative solutions. The CoR expects the Commission to involve it fully in the activities and to brief it comprehensively on all measures at an early stage.

9.10.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/51

—

wants to ensure that the new regulatory framework does not harm Member States' cultural and media policy objectives and takes into account the specific needs in rural areas, regions with low population density, outermost regions and conurbations, as well as those of cultural or ethnic minorities;

—

objects to harmonisation measures of radio frequency spectrum management proposed by the European Commission. Member States should remain in charge, whilst assuring consistency with international agreements; this will involve preserving a sufficiently wide spectrum band for broadcasters to ensure their mission content;

—

discards the new remedy proposed on functional separation of undertakings and the veto right of the Commission on certain corrective measures taken by the national regulatory authorities. It urges national regulatory authorities, when analysing and defining relevant markets, to take local or regional cultural or linguistic differences into account;

—

appreciates the Commission's efforts to improve consumer protection and user rights, in particular, by giving consumers more information about prices and supply conditions, by improving data protection and security and by facilitating access, including emergency services; nonetheless, voices concern about the possible economic and financial impact of these proposals for local and regional service operators;

—

believes that the creation of a European Electronic Communications Market Authority, combined with a substantial transfer of market regulation powers from Member State level to the European Commission, will lead to an imbalance in the distribution of powers between national and European regulatory authorities; therefore advocates a Body of European Regulators in Telecommunications which would embed today's European Regulators' Group into European law.

Rapporteur

:

Marc SCHAEFER (LU/PES), Member of Vianden Municipal Council

1.

welcomes the Commission's aim of opening up the telecommunications markets to competition and of boosting investment in high-speed networks (all technologies, including fixed, mobile and satellite), as well as its aim of ensuring optimised spectrum management in the internal market in the context of audiovisual service digitisation;

2.

must ensure that the new regulatory framework does not contain any measures which could risk having a negative impact on the objectives of the Member States' cultural and media policies;

3.

must also ensure that the interests of cultural or ethnic minorities as well as the needs of the regions are taken into account when establishing new regulatory mechanisms (particularly with regard to spectrum management);

4.

would like the proposed regulatory framework to include mechanisms promoting the development of broadband internet access in rural areas or regions with low population density and in the outermost regions; in this context it should, however, be borne in mind that local and regional authorities may have to invest in the development of ICT and infrastructure, particularly in conurbations;

5.

appreciates the Commission's efforts to improve consumer protection, particularly with regard to data protection, security and the provision of broader access to electronic communications services and emergency services for all users, including the disabled; nonetheless, voices concern about the possible economic and financial impact of these proposals, especially for local and regional service operators;

6.

appreciates the Commission's efforts to develop pan-European services, provided that such services are developed by taking into account national and regional differences and the technological and economic needs of economically weaker market players;

7.

draws the Commission's attention to the geographical diversity of the national, regional and local markets which may necessitate a certain degree of variety and diversity in the regulatory mechanisms and procedures e.g. geographical segmentation;

8.

is sceptical regarding the potential added value of some of the planned new measures, as they will affect all Member States, regardless of their specific circumstances or progress achieved at national or regional level. Indeed, in the context of the regulation of the telecommunications markets and spectrum management, the idea of transferring more powers to EU level raises serious concerns for the CoR;

9.

believes that the Commission's proposals open the way forward to the more consistent application of the EU's rules in order to complete the single market for electronic communications;

10.

welcomes the Commission's recommendation (1) to substantially reduce the number of markets susceptible to ex-ante regulation; as a result, where regulation remains necessary, it will become more efficient and simpler both for operators and for national regulatory authorities;

11.

appreciates the Commission's proposals to set up more effective mechanisms for coordinating and harmonising the regulatory frameworks of the individual Member States as well as procedures for coordination, negotiation and consultation between the different national regulatory authorities;

12.

shares the Commission's view that the efficient management of spectrum is important for facilitating access for operators and for fostering innovation and cultural diversity;

13.

shares the Commission's opinion regarding the need to ensure co-location and facility sharing for providers of electronic communications networks provided that such sharing is technically possible and that the costs of such an operation may be allocated in a fair manner;

14.

endorses the Commission's view on the importance of harmonisation of numbering within the Community where this promotes the functioning of the internal market or supports the development of pan-European services. However, the CoR believes that the Member States are more competent to take the necessary measures to carry out such harmonisation, which may be conducted within the framework of the ‘European Regulators' Group’;

15.

believes that the Member States should remain solely competent for defining spectrum allocation in the case of services that enable linguistic and cultural diversity and ensure media pluralism;

16.

believe that there is no need to impose functional separation as an additional measure supporting market liberalisation and is of the opinion that the most effective method of competition is that based on infrastructure; moreover, it believes that the existing regulatory framework already allows separation measures including, inter alia, functional separation;

17.

believes that the document should retain all references to procedures provided for by international agreements pertaining to radio frequency spectrum management as these agreements are already in place and constitute a regulatory framework which is broader than that of the European Union;

18.

endorses the Commission's efforts to strengthen and improve consumer protection and user rights in the electronic communication sector, in particular, by giving consumers more information about prices and supply conditions, and facilitating access to and use of e-communications, including emergency services, for disabled users;

19.

appreciates the proposals which seek to enhance the protection of individuals' privacy and personal data in the electronic communications sector, in particular through strengthened security-related provisions and improved enforcement mechanisms;

20.

draws the Commission's attention to the needs of consumers in economically disadvantaged or rural areas, or in regions where access is difficult in geographical terms, the outermost regions or regions which have a low population density;

21.

draws the Commission's attention to the fact that certain measures for ensuring network security and consumer protection require coordination and implementation at international rather than EU level;

22.

draws the Commission's attention to the fact that a number of the measures proposed in the Directive in question will require considerable investment in technical infrastructure (e.g. for access to a single emergency telephone number, or identifying caller location); it would appear that such investments will be beyond the means of small-scale service operators such as local or regional operators;

23.

appreciates the Commission's efforts to promote the portability of numbers between fixed and mobile networks;

24.

wishes to draw the Commission's attention to the specific needs of rural areas which often have a very limited infrastructure based on the network of the traditional operator alone, and would like to see the formulation of specific measures e.g. via structural funds drawn up for these regions; also wishes to draw attention to the structural limitations and additional costs of electronic communications which outermost regions are permanently faced with. For this reason, consideration should be given to specific measures to place citizens from these areas on an equal footing with those from the rest of Europe;

25.

believes that the ‘must-carry’ rules for broadcasting services must be extended to all additional services and be the subject of regular reviews;

26.

believes that the creation of a European Electronic Communications Market Authority would effectively represent an addition to the current institutional arrangement for the regulation of electronic communications markets, would not be compatible with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and would risk adding another level of complexity rather than simplifying the process which is the subject of this package of proposals;

27.

therefore is in favour of a Body of European Regulators in Telecom. Such a body could take on many functions outlined in the proposal for a European Electronic Communications Market Authority (EECMA) and share many of the elements that the Commission's draft proposal has assigned to the Authority without taking on the nature of an agency and thus avoiding some of the potential problems with the EECMA.