28.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/1

Rapporteur-general:

Brendan BURNS

Co-rapporteur:

Pavel TRANTINA

1.1

Recognising that the EU has no direct powers in the fields of education or vocational training and that education systems vary between Member States; the EESC wishes to highlight a common European problem concerning the provision of Continuing (Vocational) Education and Training (CVET) in rural and remote areas across Europe, which needs to be addressed at European, national and regional levels.

1.2

A new pan-European agenda is required to encourage European institutions and national governments, along with businesses, trade unions and other civil society organisations, to improve cooperation so that CVET can be accessed by employees undergoing training and their employers. This should occur close to the place of employment and in environments compatible with it. Competent authorities should promote and encourage this cooperation and make sure it is adequately funded.

1.3

Society and public authorities need to recognise that micro- and small businesses are not smaller versions of big companies. This assumption has proven to be false and is one of the main reasons why we have a ‘skills mismatch’ in education and employment.

1.4

There is a requirement to develop new CVET and vocational qualifications (VQs) for micro- and small businesses based on empirical evidence of the tasks that are actually carried out in these businesses.

1.5

Training for rural businesses must be delivered locally, using ICT and other broadband delivery mechanisms. To achieve this, universal access to high-speed mobile and terrestrial broadband in rural and remote areas should be treated as ‘essential infrastructure’. EU competition laws should therefore not be allowed to stop national or regional governments from developing fast broadband in rural areas.

1.6

National and local governments need to recognise that investing in the development of micro-, family and small businesses in rural and remote areas is a good long-term investment that will help to stop migration, reduce the pressures on services in towns and cities, restore economic sustainability to local communities and help preserve the rural environment.

1.7

The long-term financial support of local groups by national/regional governments will help coordinate the process of identifying and meeting local needs. Such support will also help involve communities in directly addressing the problems of rural exodus, while financial support from the Structural Funds, especially the European Social Fund, should enable the continuing vocational training (VT) to be provided that meets the needs of those involved.

2.1

The purpose of this opinion is to highlight the need to develop a better system for continuing education and training (CVET) and continual professional development in rural areas, in particular in mountain and island (RM&I) areas.

2.2

According to the definition from Cedefop (1), CVET means ‘education or training after initial education and training — or after entry into working life aimed at helping individuals to improve or update their knowledge and/or skills; acquire new skills for a career move or retraining; continue their personal or professional development. Continuing education and training is part of lifelong learning and may encompass any kind of education (general, specialised or vocational, formal or non-formal, etc.). It is crucial for the employability of individuals.’

2.3

The problems associated with CVET in rural and remote areas have been identified in a number of EESC opinions (2) on agriculture and at public meetings. This opinion seeks to provide a synopsis and propose answers to some of the key questions.

2.4

Throughout the EU, RM&I areas differ considerably. Alongside extremely prosperous regions with low unemployment and robust growth are regions with mounting economic problems, emigration and an ageing population. In addition, opportunities to access vocational education and training are not always available within a reasonable distance.

2.5

As living standards have improved in towns and cities, many young people in RM&I areas have migrated, which creates a downward economic and social spiral that gains momentum as more people migrate. The loss of population reduces the amount of money circulating within a community, which then affects the viability of local businesses, shops and transport links. This is further compounded by the eventual loss of medical services, banks, schools and other facilities.

2.6

Europe’s RM&I areas provide us with much of our local food and raw materials. They also provide a place where people can relax and enjoy recreation, sports and other activities, but without competent, well-trained local employees to run the farms, forests, quarries, hotels and arts and craft businesses, many of these facilities will cease to exist.

2.7

The ability of businesses to operate in these difficult locations is a key issue and employers need competent, well-trained staff. To achieve this, there needs to be closer cooperation with employers and local schools, technical colleges and universities.

2.8

Regions are the level where cooperation between training centres and businesses is best introduced and developed. Authorities at all levels must give proper and specific consideration to introducing and developing CVET in rural and peripheral areas and/or areas of low population density, which would include sufficient investment, but also support, encouragement and assistance for local initiatives that promote cooperation between training centres and businesses.

2.9

As the EESC has stressed several times, personalised career counselling and guidance must be put in place (3).

2.10

Access to CVET is fundamental to developing self-employment and a competent workforce. Unfortunately, most VT facilities are based in highly populated areas, thereby placing people undergoing training from RM&I areas at a disadvantage due to their need to travel long distances to reach these centres. In most cases, this will incur additional costs and considerable inconvenience, especially if attending short or day-release courses.

2.11

Bringing training to RM&I areas is a problem that has been recognised in various EU countries. Unfortunately, schemes to address this problem have often mostly been based on ‘urban solutions’ that are not relevant to RM&I areas.

2.12

Education systems across Europe vary so much between the Member States (some organised centrally, others at federal level, with the regions having responsibility) that it is difficult to envisage a ‘European solution’. However, while the solutions may vary, it is still worth identifying common problems and seeking some common solutions, enabling mutual learning from best practice. The EESC emphasises that it considers the dual training system, with joint responsibility on the part of schools and businesses providing training and the involvement of the social partners, to be particularly good practice.

2.13

Rural CVET can offer specialised training in certain areas that are directly related to rural economic activities and their natural features, including fishing, forestry, the environment, farming, etc. This specialist training should meet the quality standards required to make specialist programmes a means of attracting learners, giving people who have done this training a relevant qualification and thus contributing to local socioeconomic relaunch.

3.1

Employment in micro- and small businesses is not always understood by educational institutions that provide training. Most vocational education and training courses have been developed to meet the needs of medium and larger companies, where the workplace is organised into various departments and where employees are recruited to learn a specific job. This industrial mass-production type of work relies on having everyone performing well-defined tasks and carrying out procedures that can be easily evaluated, and where each qualification is associated with a specific job.

3.2

In contrast, most micro- and small businesses need employees to be multi-skilled and flexible. Rather than being employed to do one specific job, employees work in small teams that collectively perform all the tasks needed to run the business. Employees in these businesses therefore have to perform tasks that in larger companies would be done by employees with several different job titles.

3.3

This manner of operating is not always understood by city-centric educational institutions. Recognising the problem would help educators understand how micro- and small businesses operate and why the present ‘job-focused’ training and qualifications are not appropriate to how micro- and small businesses operate. This would also help small enterprises develop and support in-house work-based education and training.

3.4

Many micro- and small businesses also operate to different customer requirements, which often requires one-off innovative solutions. For example, a small mechanical business will need the practical skills to ‘repair and reuse’. This differs from most large businesses that do not repair but ‘remove and refit’ new parts, returning the broken part to the manufacturer. This simple example explains why employees in small businesses need additional skills that are not required in larger companies. This is why we have a ‘skills mismatch’ and why so many European micro- and small businesses reject the current VET and VQs that have been developed for their sectors.

3.5

Similar procedural and skills-related problems have been identified by micro-, small and medium-sized businesses in engineering, architecture, agriculture, construction, forestry and a multitude of other businesses.

3.6

Family-run businesses also present different problems where sons and daughters are often the catalyst for change and are both trainee and potential manager. In family-run businesses, the training of sons and daughters starts at a much earlier stage than for an employee in a large company.

4.1

Training new and existing employees is a problem, especially when employees attend technical training centres far from their place of employment. If the time lost in travel becomes excessive, then many micro-and small employers will consider training of an employee a waste of time.

4.2

Micro- and small businesses recognise that lifelong learning (LLL) and validation of skills and qualifications acquired through non-formal and informal learning (4) help workers and businesses develop and introduce more technology. Much of the learning materials for LLL are available online by accessing industry training videos, manuals, online demonstrations, e-learning courses and other such online distance-learning programmes. Unfortunately, access to these learning programmes is often challenging in RM&I locations, due to very slow broadband speeds (between 0,4 mbps and 1,5 mbps) (5).

4.3

The distance to training centres can become less important if the quality of courses is high and if transport is arranged and travel costs are reimbursed, but this does not address the main issues facing the majority of people undergoing training in RM&I areas.

5.1

CVET is a specific factor to consider in relation to economic and social development (Europe 2020 Strategy). It is also an element which contributes to territorial and social cohesion in the European Union.

5.2

Making local facilities available for use for the common good would help RM&I communities provide appropriate vocational training. Government authorities should concentrate on removing barriers that stop local initiatives meeting identified CVET needs. Closer cooperation and a greater understanding of the challenges faced by both the local authorities and the initiators of projects, including civil society organisations, would contribute to finding constructive solutions.

5.3

Governments could use the opportunity to decentralise services to rural areas, thus creating advantages for local communities (6).

5.4

At the hearing on ‘Vocational Development and Training in Rural Areas’ (7), the importance of communities taking control of their problems and finding their own specific solutions was repeated in several of the presentations. This evidence also raised other associated issues and clearly showed that the improvement of CVET needs to be part of a much wider plan that simultaneously addresses a combination of community problems.

5.5

Cooperation between all the stakeholders involved is essential. To bring vocational training into these communities, it is necessary to engage with all local businesses, schools, school staff, students and their families, the unemployed, employees, civil society organisations and volunteers, as well as the long-term needs of the community. In particular, it was identified as essential for local people to become empowered and for some of them to become ‘drivers’ for change, so that communities can be empowered to develop their own solutions.

5.6

The need for political will at local, regional and national government levels to ensure such communities receive long-term financial and infrastructure support was also identified as a problem that needed to be addressed.

5.7

Communication using mobile and terrestrial broadband was identified as an important conduit for the development of vocational education and training, especially the development of ICT skills, which are becoming essential in the workplace and in the home. Digital knowledge and skills are required to use devices and access services. These skills are now a core part of everyone’s economic and social lives and should therefore cover all stages and forms of education, from primary to adult education (8). Policies also have to take into account the characteristics of the local population in terms of age, educational attainment and income levels. Rural CVET can also use open and distance learning (e-learning/open learning) to complement face-to-face teaching for certain subjects or training activities, for which technology and connections must be available.

5.8

Universal access to high-speed broadband is therefore crucial to promoting social and territorial cohesion. The plans to expand the use of Structural and Rural Development funds to supplement the roll-out of commercially-viable broadband infrastructure are therefore welcome. However, it is also critical that the benefits of this investment flow to the public through the provision of high-quality services (e.g. medical services, access to local government, etc.) and a significant reduction in costs for all end-users. Public areas offering free Wi-Fi access are also important for developing universal access to high-speed broadband in small towns and villages.

5.9

It is recognised that the provision of the skills needed to live and work in RM&I areas is a complicated issue requiring an integrated approach driven by each local community, as suggested by Volonteurope through its campaign on rural isolation of citizens in Europe (9). Businesses and local authorities should be given adequate support from the European Social Fund to provide CVET, and the conditions for accessing such support should be eased. It is also essential that financial support is not founded on a purely commercial basis. Access to funds available, under Leader and CLLD (Community-led Local Development programmes), for example, is essential. This will facilitate the role of Local Action Groups (LAGs), community organisations and civil society by providing a sustained framework for operation, funding, involvement and assistance.

5.10

Europe has networks of local and regional authorities that are committed to cooperation in the area of vocational training and lifelong learning (LLL). Namely, the Foundation of European Regions for Research, Education and Training (Freref) and the European Association of Regional and Local Authorities for Lifelong Learning (Earlall). Access to continuing vocational training, with particular focus on rural areas, should also be dealt with by these European networks, as it is mainly at regional level that areas for cooperation and partnerships between the sectors concerned can be created, i.e. between local and regional authorities, companies and social partners, civil society and centres for employment, training and career guidance, etc.

5.11

Civil society organisations (CSOs) should be encouraged to share examples of best practice and innovative approaches to rural isolation. Their representatives should be enabled to play an active role in the governance structure of European funds that have an impact on rural development (EAFRD, ESIF), truly participate in the design of programmes and oversight of monitoring committees at national level, and involve local groups and vulnerable groups in the design and implementation of projects. In the field of non-state training organisations, the Grundtvig (10) Folk High School movement (which started in Denmark in the 19th century, and has since spread very successfully to other countries) provides an excellent example. At the same time, CSO representatives should inform the European Commission of bad practices by Member States, in order to ensure that governments meet their obligations to consult and involve a variety of stakeholders (especially at the local level) in the design, implementation and evaluation of European programmes.

5.12

The EESC calls for the EU’s Youth Guarantee to be used to promote the education and training of young generations in rural areas. EU subsidies should be geared in particular towards how the transfer of successful and innovative experiences can be stepped up and how these experiences can be put into practice.

6.1

This opinion has proved to be an extremely complicated issue. A wide variety of associated problems such as transport, rural housing, medical and social services, the encouragement of rural businesses via tax incentives, the development of tourism and many more ideas that were touched on in our discussions and during the hearing could all have been explored in greater depth.

6.2

However, we recognise that these issues cannot all be dealt with in a single opinion. We would nevertheless recommend that they be addressed in future opinions.

6.3

More in-depth investigation needs to take place to understand the tasks that have to be performed in micro- and small businesses and how these tasks are allocated; this in turn would influence how qualifications for micro- and small businesses are constructed and how training is provided.

6.4

The EESC proposes to launch a study to help identify solutions to the challenges raised in the opinion.

6.5

The EESC calls for an interinstitutional dialogue on the challenges and the possible solutions to be established, with the involvement of several Commission directorates-general, civil society (EESC), local/regional authorities (CoR) and Cedefop.

28.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/8

Rapporteur:

Mr Pierre-Jean COULON

1.1.

Following the Western Balkans Civil Society Forum held in Belgrade on 2 and 3 June 2015, the EESC asks ‘for [the] Energy Community, which aims to expand the EU’s energy acquis to enlargement and neighbourhood countries, to be further strengthened and closely integrated into the project of Energy Union; energy should be a factor for the development and interconnectivity of the region and the citizens of the Western Balkans should be given a clear idea of the economic and environmental benefits of accession to the EU’.

1.2.

The plan for an Energy Union to improve energy interconnectivity should include the western Balkans.

1.3.

Existing gas transport and distribution infrastructures must be used in an optimised way; the reverse flow technique must be used. All studies of potential new structures must be considered:

1.4.

A joint gas storage reserve should be studied for the region, independently of efforts to beef up national capacity.

1.5.

The EESC welcomes the relaunch of studies on installing a methane (liquefied natural gas/LNG) terminal in the Adriatic and is pressing for its completion.

1.6.

Investment in renewables is necessary, and must be based on reinforced connections and networks and supported by a clear and sound legal framework.

1.7.

Balkan civil society must be systematically involved and integrated in the meetings of the Energy Community, working through the EESC and its local partners.

1.8.

The EESC calls for better interregional cooperation and the development of projects in the field of energy, which will enhance regional stability and job creation.

1.9.

The EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive is a particularly important part of the Union acquis and should be followed up with specific programmes in the countries concerned. Cooperation must be sought between the various parties on smart meters and broad-based solutions. Energy efficiency and energy saving are factors in generating activity for businesses and in creating green jobs, as well as traditional jobs.

2.1.

The 35 chapters of the EU acquis required for the accession of a new Member State to the Union include Chapter 15, Energy, which shows the importance of this issue. It was already addressed during the accession negotiations with Montenegro, and will also be discussed soon in relation to Serbia. It should be pointed out, however, that energy issues play a useful or essential role in many other chapters as well: energy has to be taken into account in the context of agriculture, transport, business, social questions, the environment, etc.

2.2.

The South-East Europe region includes existing EU Member States, states which are formal candidates for the various accession processes and potential candidate countries.

2.3.

In the framework of the accession negotiations, candidate countries should be encouraged to implement the EU acquis as soon as possible in order to promote their integration into the EU internal energy market, to the benefit of their citizens.

2.4.

The new European Commission has made the creation of an Energy Union one of its highest priorities: this is the sole portfolio of a Commission vice-president, and no less than a dozen other Commissioners are also involved. This Energy Union, which the EESC has been calling for several years (see TEN/493, for example) is finally on the agenda, and countries likely to join the Union in the short or medium term must not be excluded from the early discussions. The opinion referred to above made express reference to the need to take these countries into account.

2.5.

The Strategic Framework for an Energy Union, published by the European Commission on 25 February 2015, which was the subject of opinion TEN/570, aims to strengthen the Energy Community. It stresses the need for further integration of the energy markets of the EU and the Energy Community countries. It also explicitly mentions the members of this Community in connection with the management of supply crises. It at last envisages the regular updating of energy infrastructure Projects of Common Interest (PCIs), which could in future include Projects of Energy Community Interest (PECIs).

2.6.

A balance needs to be struck between conventional and renewable energies: to this end, new interconnections need to be established between energy networks, or existing interconnections with the Union’s networks strengthened. Gas is an important issue and supplies must be secured by means of interconnections with the EU as well as by the construction of a methane terminal. Finally, the Turkish Stream gas pipeline project, which replaces the abortive South Stream, is an opportunity, as are the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) and Ionian Adriatic gas Pipeline (IAP) projects. It should be borne in mind that this region is almost inevitably a conduit between the production regions (oil, gas) and the major consumer regions in the Union. But the priority must be the use of existing infrastructures, which are often underexploited; the use of reverse flows must be encouraged: given the need for security of energy supply, large, vulnerable gas pipelines should not be given priority.

3.1.

In the field of energy, as has been seen recently at the European Economic and Social Committee (TEN/562, TEN/570, etc.), governance is crucial to facilitate energy choices, coordination of investment, particularly in infrastructure, implementation of solidarity between states and defining the role and involvement of various stakeholders, including civil society (social partners, consumers, environmental organisations, etc.).

3.2.

In many respects the foundations of this governance have existed since the establishment in July 2006 of the Energy Community, which includes all the countries of the Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia). In 2010, Moldavia joined the Energy Union, followed by Ukraine in 2011. Georgia too is a candidate for membership. It should also be noted that Norway and Armenia, and especially Turkey, have observer status.

3.3.

The treaty aims to extend the EU’s internal energy market to south-eastern Europe and beyond. The objective is to:

3.4.

Although the intentions are laudable, the progress made in recent years has been rather limited.

3.4.1.

The Energy Union process proposed by the European Commission makes provision for going beyond interinstitutional relations between the EU and the Member States of the Energy Community. To this end, the EESC should be an integral part of this broadening of procedures, by integrating the regional energy situation in the broader sense into the European energy dialogue.

3.4.2.

Adoption of the Union acquis in energy and incorporating energy into the internal market require clear progress in the region’s practices with regard to energy pricing, so that prices take into account real costs and are not based on a policy of price subsidy.

3.4.3.

The facilities put in place for civil society under the enlargement process must be used to this end. These include the Joint Consultative Committees — with FYROM (not currently operational), Montenegro and Serbia (candidate countries that have initiated negotiations and whose JCCs are operational) — and the Western Balkans Follow-up Committee.

4.1.

We have seen the need to strengthen electrical interconnections within the region, as well as into and out of it, together with supply routes, particularly for natural gas, and possibly to construct a methane terminal. This would obviously be located in the Adriatic part of the region; it would be shared by the states of the region, or at least most of them, and would facilitate the supply of LNG from more distant sources and, in due course, from the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus).

4.1.1.

The recent signing (on 10 July 2015), in relation to gas connectivity in central and south-eastern Europe (CESEC initiative), of a Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, FYROM, Serbia and Ukraine should facilitate diversification in the supply of natural gas and the integration of markets in the region. The EESC would like to see Montenegro become a signatory to this memorandum.

4.2.

The regional energy mix is in fact unbalanced; there is no true market, with the structure of the mix varying from one country to another and prices almost always being regulated and often maintained at an artificially low level, which provides no incentive for energy efficiency or for investment in diversified sources.

4.3.

Worldwide, in fact, coal accounts for nearly 50 % of energy consumed and oil and petroleum products for more than 30 %, while gas represents ‘only’ around 10 %. Production from waste and biofuels is gaining ground, but without any truly coordinated plan.

4.4.

According to several sources (IEA, REN) and studies, the Western Balkan countries have major renewable energy potential, which must be mobilised and benefit from investment so as to enable these countries to participate in the EU’s 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies.

4.4.1.

These opportunities must be assessed in terms of coordinated investment, but above all in terms of the potential for developing activities and creating jobs, particularly in the new energy technologies (green jobs), and solving the problem of energy poverty. The Energy Union must serve to develop these activities, including through EIB financing.

4.4.2.

The Civil Society Facility provided for in the accession process must underpin proposed civic energy projects (non-profit, cooperatives, NGOs, etc.).

28.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/12

Rapporteur:

Stefano PALMIERI

1.1.

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) notes that the launch of the EU strategy for the Alpine region (EUSALP) comes at a very particular time — a time marked, on the one hand, by the lingering damage of the financial crisis to the real economy and, on the other, by the endeavour to push forward and put in place economic, environmental and social structural changes whose special focus is on people’s quality of life and well-being.

1.2.

The EESC points out that the territorial entities in EUSALP — five EU Member States (Italy, France, Austria, Germany and Slovenia) and two non-EU countries (Switzerland and Liechtenstein) — enjoy levels of economic development, environmental sustainability and social cohesion appreciably above the European average, as well as a long record of territorial cooperation.

1.2.1.

Even so, the EESC sees the EUSALP as an element of value added for the Alpine region that will help preserve, and where possible improve, the high economic, environmental and social standards that distinguish these areas.

1.2.2.

The EESC sees the EUSALP as a driver for development that can nurture the competitiveness and cohesion of Europe as a whole, in keeping with the objectives of European cohesion policy and the principles of cooperation and solidarity that imbue it.

1.3.

The EESC points out that the areas concerned share common traits, such as those embodied in the Alpine mountain areas.

1.3.1.

The EESC notes that the Alps are not just Europe’s second most important biodiversity reservoir, they are also the defining hallmark of the entire area. Such is their size and configuration that the Alps form in some cases a tangible and intangible dividing line and in others an economic, environmental, cultural and social nexus between the different territorial levels.

1.4.

While the EESC welcomes the EUSALP, it does see a need for additional elements.

1.5.

The EESC regrets that the EUSALP does not put the social dimension on the same footing as the environmental and economic aspects. The EESC would therefore like to see a clearly framed mainstreaming of the social dimension that would ensure the pursuit of a growth model that can secure competitiveness and, at the same time, social inclusion and protection, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

1.5.1.

Along the same lines, the EESC also thinks it vital to bolster the cross-cutting dimension of the EUSALP’s objectives in order to better stimulate the harmonisation and balance between economic, environmental and social sustainability, in keeping with a holistic approach to development and social innovation.

1.6.

While the EESC believes the objectives laid down in the EUSALP to be consistent with the Alpine region’s strategic priorities, it nevertheless calls for additional measures to really turn challenges into drivers for competitiveness and cohesion, above all in the realms of economic globalisation, demographic trends, climate change, energy issues and geographical positioning.

1.7.

With reference to the ‘Economic growth and innovation’ thematic priority, the EESC thinks it essential to conceive innovation strategies that more effectively nurture competitiveness and generate jobs, attract new investment, strengthen action in support of agriculture and forestry and make the most of the varied forms of tourism in the area. (See points 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 for greater detail.)

1.8.

With reference to the ‘Mobility and connectivity’ thematic priority, the EESC considers it essential to act to shrink goods and passenger road transport, to promote environmentally sustainable accessibility to tourist areas, to bring down road traffic noise in urban and suburban networks, and to make sure services and connectivity are available in all reaches of the Alpine region. (See points 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 for greater detail.)

1.9.

With reference to the ‘Environment and energy’ thematic priority, the EESC believes it essential to maintain a balance between the conservation of natural and cultural capital and its rational use, ecological connectivity, the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, and a secure energy supply that is affordable and of a high quality. (See points 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13 for greater detail.)

1.10.

The EUSALP must, in the EESC’s view, enjoy an effective multilevel governance that can capitalise on both the horizontal dimension (civil society participation) and the vertical dimension (participation of local and regional authorities), with the former complementing and enhancing the latter, fully in keeping with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

1.11.

The EESC calls for the launch of a permanent capacity building process to support and enhance the participation of civil society in shaping the EUSALP and for the instigation of a standing forum to represent and support the Alpine region’s social and economic partners, while also being active in individual regions affected by the strategy.

1.11.1.

To this end, the EESC proposes setting up a specific ‘Going local — EUSALP’ programme that provides for the active participation of all the Committee bodies involved in and affected by the development processes proposed by the EUSALP. This ‘Going local — EUSALP’ programme will thus make it possible to introduce — with local civil society — information and training on the activities set out in the action plan, along with opportunities for the various local bodies to participate, while at the same time ensuring that decisions on planned activities are taken jointly.

1.12.

When it comes to the EUSALP’s monitoring and evaluation systems, the EESC considers it vital to accompany quantitative measurement with qualitative indicators, in line with the ‘beyond GDP’ approach.

1.13.

The EESC would like to see the measures to be carried out under the EUSALP made more economically sustainable by means of a strategy geared to both exploiting synergies and complementarity between the European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 and other European direct management programmes and to using the tools provided by community-led local development (CLLD).

1.14.

The EESC believes that in order to achieve the strategic objectives set out by the EUSALP, it is essential to use the funding opportunities provided by the European Investment Bank (EIB), as well as to promote the involvement of private investment as proposed by the ‘Juncker Plan’.

1.15.

The EESC welcomes the proposals set out in the action plan that aim to enhance the synergies between the EUSALP and other existing macrostrategies, including with a view to projecting the concept of macro-regions towards other European areas which are of strategic importance in terms of Europe’s economic competitiveness and social cohesion, such as the Western Mediterranean and the Balkans.

2.1.

The purpose of this opinion is to evaluate the action plan of the EU strategy for the Alpine region (1) from the point of view of organised civil society. It draws and builds on the EESC exploratory opinion on An EU Strategy for the Alpine Region  (2) and the conclusions of the hearing held on 25 June 2015 in Ispra, Italy, as well as other opinions adopted by the EESC on other macro-regional strategies (3).

2.2.

To turn the challenges identified in the EUSALP action plan into factors for economic competitiveness and social cohesion, help needs to be given to implementing development policies in line with the aims set out in Article 3(1, 2, and 3) of the Treaty on European Union (4) and to a holistic approach to development and social innovation.

2.2.1.

Strengthening the holistic approach of the EUSALP will contribute effectively to the macro-region’s competitiveness and cohesion through the implementation of policies and projects that make the economic, environmental and social targets truly interdependent.

2.2.2.

The EUSALP must be planned and implemented with a view to social innovation — a process of development that will promote and underpin the implementation of new ideas that, in turn, must not just improve economic competitiveness but also serve to address the needs of people who live in the Alpine region and society as a whole.

2.3.

If we look at the analyses and assessments produced by the EESC in its opinion on taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy (5) and its mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy (6), it is clear that the EUSALP is a useful tool for securing a resilient social and economic system — a tool that can guarantee ‘protection and development’ for Alpine region civil society.

2.3.1.

Strengthening the resilience of the Alpine macro-region is a decisive factor in increasing civil society’s capacity to absorb, manage and prevent the impact of crises and structural change that increasingly afflict our socioeconomic systems and in buttressing the Alpine region’s economic competitiveness in terms of social cohesion and sustainability.

2.4.

In line with the decisions taken in the ‘Political resolution towards a European Union Strategy for the Alpine region’ (conference in Grenoble) (7), the action plan identifies the challenges facing this area of cooperation, the political priorities, objectives and actions, and some examples of project ideas.

2.5.

The prime challenges and the objectives identified in the EUSALP action plan relate to economic globalisation, demographic trends, climate change, energy issues and geographical positioning. While welcoming the substance of the EUSALP action plan, the EESC considers it necessary to incorporate the objectives set out below.

2.5.1.

Promoting a dynamic business system and assisting the competitiveness of businesses in the region through innovation in order to strengthen the capacity of the economic system to effectively tackle the challenges posed by economic globalisation, to respond to the needs of civil society and to guarantee employment and the creation of new high-quality jobs.

2.5.2.

Helping to enhance potential derived from traditions and social diversity, thus contributing to preserving the hallmarks of the areas involved while at the same time building on local know-how and traditions as a way of furthering economic development and social inclusion.

2.5.3.

Supporting initiatives that aim to tackle the demographic changes taking place in the Alpine region more effectively, with particular reference to managing the combined effects of an ageing population and new migration processes.

2.5.4.

Promoting the climate change mitigation and adaptation schemes of the regions involved, with specific reference to impacts on the environment, on biodiversity, on economic activities and on people’s living conditions (8).

2.5.5.

Helping to overcome challenges relating to energy: sustainability of demand, security and affordability for businesses and the public, stimulating investment in cheaper, cleaner energy sources, a more open and competitive macro-regional energy market, more cost savings through the exploitation of indigenous energy resources, conventional renewable sources (such as biomass, hydro and geothermal) and unconventional renewable sources (such as wind and solar).

2.5.6.

Shaping policies and initiatives to make the most of the Alpine region’s geographical strategic capital, especially in transport, while adhering fully to the principles of environmental protection and conservation. Backing must be given to new approaches in shared responsibility and fair cooperation between territories, such as vertical links between large cities and rural, mountain and tourist areas.

2.5.7.

Promoting balanced, equal and universal access to services of general interest in order to meet the needs of those living in the Alpine region, with particular focus on local systems that suffer from geographical handicaps.

2.5.8.

Bolstering the protection and sustainable management of biodiversity, landscapes and natural resources, striking the proper balance between conservation work and initiatives to achieve a rational use of ecosystem services and products, as well as a more balanced distribution of the benefits deriving from their use.

2.5.9.

Helping to get a social mainstreaming benchmark defined by planning measures on working conditions, social security, gender issues, people with disabilities and immigrants.

2.5.10.

Defining and developing a distinct and recognisable ‘functional focus’ in the preparation and implementation of development processes aimed at curbing imbalances between the economic, environmental and social dimensions, to be a test bed that can help capitalise on the results of cohesion policy across Europe.

2.5.11.

Promoting as broad as possible a process at regional and local level that involves shaping, discussing and sharing the environmental, social and economic choices affecting the area. This process should use methods tried and tested in other contexts and locations conducive to bringing representatives of the public, the economic and social partners and civil society organisations together.

3.1.

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

3.2.

The EESC welcomes the EUSALP action plan, but believes that the three thematic priorities (‘economic growth and innovation’, ‘mobility and connectivity’ and ‘environment and energy’) need to be expanded and fleshed out.

3.3.

Although, according to the European Innovation Scoreboard (9), the areas in the Alpine region strategy surpass the European average when it comes to innovation, it is clear that policies and strategies to cultivate traditional forms of innovation deliver a low return on investment in terms of competitiveness and jobs created.

3.4.

Efforts must therefore be made to strengthen the operational tools that support ‘open innovation’ (10), a model based on implementation of the ‘quadruple helix’ concept, through which public institutions, businesses, universities, and individuals (citizens) work together in processes typical of innovation (co-creation, exploration, experimentation and application) in order to develop new products and services focused on the real needs of end-users.

3.5.

The Alpine region’s development depends on making the most of local production chains and the areas that are the backbone of the production system. Development policies need to be implemented to bring in fresh investment, especially in emerging industries, not only to maximise production efficiency, but also to combat depopulation in peripheral areas.

3.6.

It is crucial to promote training and upskilling of workers in both traditional production sectors and emerging sectors (including the cultural and creative sector).

3.7.

Agriculture, especially mountain agriculture, and forestry are economic sectors that must be given assistance in order to preserve anthropogenic landscapes, to encourage settlement in peripheral areas, to maintain the infrastructure in mountain areas, and to supply the raw materials for high-quality food and products.

3.7.1.

To make mountain agriculture and forestry more competitive, the priority is to promote initiatives designed to enhance specific quality brands of mountain product, to support more structured forms of collaboration among the Alpine region’s mountain areas and between these and urban systems, not least by implementing projects under 2014-2020 Community programmes (11) (with specific reference to support for promoting mountain agricultural products).

3.8.

What distinguishes tourism in Alpine area regions is the variety of activities sought by tourists: nature tourism, sports and activity holidays, heath and relaxation, cultural tourism, conferences and events, and even shopping.

3.8.1.

The priority is to boost sustainable tourism through an integrated policy leading to the definition of rules for the protection of the Alpine region and the dissemination of sustainable development models. Backing also needs to be given to schemes that encourage year-round tourism by promoting kinds of tourism not yet fully exploited (such as health tourism) and through a general improvement in the quality of services in mountain areas.

3.9.

Because of the distinct topography, transport in the Alpine macro-region is concentrated along a few corridors, resulting in a disproportionate increase in long-distance freight transport by road in areas that are highly environmentally sensitive. Mobility is a sine qua non in peripheral and mountain areas for maintaining social contacts; phenomena such as changes in lifestyle and demographic trends are increasing the use of private motor vehicles.

3.9.1.

It is essential to support the implementation of initiatives that seek to adapt and streamline transport infrastructure in all regional systems in the Alpine region, with particular focus on cross-border links, shifting the greatest possible quantity of goods and people from roads to rail and other modes and furthering the environmentally sustainable accessibility of tourist areas, paying attention both to long distances and to the ‘last mile’.

3.9.2.

With specific reference to urban and metropolitan transport systems, the transfer of individual traffic to local public transport, walking and cycling needs to be encouraged by upgrading infrastructure and taking measures to foster change in people’s habits, providing incentives to use eco-friendly forms of transport and mobility.

3.10.

Balanced, equal and universal access to high-quality services and connectivity are indispensable to ensuring an adequate quality of life for all the inhabitants of the Alpine macro-region, especially those living and working in areas with a geographical handicap.

3.10.1.

It is a matter of priority to encourage the adoption of innovative approaches to providing basic services (education, healthcare, social services and mobility) in mountain and rural areas and to buttress information and communications infrastructure and technologies in order to ensure sufficient availability of public services to meet the needs of all those living in the Alpine region.

3.11.

The variety of flora and fauna species and natural landscapes in the Alpine region constitute assets to be protected and promoted, since these are the essential elements underpinning the quality of life and attractiveness of these parts.

3.11.1.

The protection and sustainable management of biodiversity and natural, cultural and landscape resources must be assisted, striking the right balance between conservation work and initiatives to achieve a rational use. It is also crucial to back measures supporting the area’s ecological connectivity in line with the European Commission’s stipulations in its communication Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital  (12).

3.12.

While it is true that managing climate change and its ensuing natural risks is a common challenge for the whole Alpine region, it is also true that the Alps themselves, which are the most densely populated and most intensively exploited mountain system in the world, have a higher than average sensitivity to climate change.

3.12.1.

It is crucial to launch transnational initiatives (the consequences of climate change do not stop at borders) for mitigation and the adaptation of the Alpine region to climate change: the aim of mitigation must be to avoid the unmanageable consequences of climate change by reducing greenhouse gases, while adaptation must serve to reduce vulnerability to climate change and to manage unavoidable impacts.

3.13.

To guarantee and improve the quality of life and the advantages it enjoys, the Alpine region needs a secure, affordable and high-quality energy supply.

3.13.1.

In addition to furthering actions designed to increase the share of energy from renewable sources, such as water, wood, biomass, wind and sun, it is crucial to foster energy efficiency in both the public and private sectors.

4.1.

Not only has the economic crisis had an adverse impact on the real economy and on millions of lives, it has also clearly demonstrated the need for public measures to block the adverse effects of growth that is economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable and so to protect standards of living and welfare by stepping up action in the area of social and welfare policies and on the environmental front.

4.2.

The EESC believes that the EUSALP’s social dimension is inadequately addressed and needs further reinforcing in order to ensure the development of a growth model that secures competitiveness and, at the same time, social inclusion and protection, especially for those in the most vulnerable and disadvantaged situations.

4.2.1.

To this end, the EUSALP should include measures to:

4.3.

Although the EUSALP’s governance system is consistent with the EESC’s findings in its opinion on the governance of macro-regional strategies (13), problems and possible necessary additions can nevertheless be identified.

4.3.1.

The EUSALP’s multilevel governance needs to be bolstered by the introduction of an effective horizontal dimension (participation of economic operators, social partners and representatives of civil society). This should complement and enhance the vertical dimension (participation of local and regional authorities), in full compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the application of which is crucial to ensuring the fair territorial redistribution of the benefits the EUSALP yields and to preventing the interests of particular countries and areas from prevailing over common ones.

4.3.2.

It is essential to ensure the launch of a EUSALP civil society forum whose work should dovetail with that of the action groups and progress within a business model that enables the real involvement of representatives of economic and social partners in implementing the strategy at regional and local level. For this reason, it is desirable that regional (and, where possible, local) civil society forums be set up alongside the macro-regional civil society forum so as to ensure that all local elements are genuinely involved in managing the strategy.

4.3.3.

It is also crucial to promote a permanent capacity-building process that will support and enhance the active participation of civil society in shaping the EUSALP and at the same time raise awareness of the Alpine region’s main concerns and priorities. With reference to these priorities, the EESC proposes setting up a specific ‘Going local — EUSALP’ programme.

4.4.

The implementation of the strategy for the Alpine region must go hand in hand with an efficient monitoring system that can assess real improvements brought about by the EUSALP.

4.4.1.

It is crucial to complement quantitative measurement with qualitative indicators consistent with the ‘beyond GDP’ (14) approach in order to gauge the impact of policies adopted on quality of life, environmental sustainability, social cohesion and the health and overall wellbeing of present and future generations.

4.5.

The considerable funding the EU has already committed through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) 2014-2020 (15) and European territorial cooperation (ETC) (16) could, if coordinated and embedded in a unified strategic approach, secure the necessary financial resources to support implementation of the EUSALP.

4.5.1.

It is important to develop innovative approaches aimed at exploiting the synergies and complementarity between the European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 and other European direct management programmes, as set out in the European Commission’s guide Enabling synergies between European Structural and Investment Funds and Horizon 2020  (17).

4.5.2.

In order to achieve the strategic objectives set out by the EUSALP it is also essential to capitalise on the funding opportunities provided by the European Investment Bank (EIB), as well as to promote the involvement of private investment as proposed in the ‘Juncker Plan’ (18).

4.5.3.

Another priority in supporting the EUSALP’s financial sustainability is, where possible, to back initiatives to implement the tools provided by community-led local development (CLLD), particularly the instrument of the same name (19) and integrated territorial investment (20), as proposed in the EESC opinion on CLLD (21) and in the Italy-Austria Interreg V programme in the notice for submission of cross-local development strategies in relation to CLLD (22).

28.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/20

Rapporteur-General:

Carmelo CEDRONE

1.1

The economic and social situation in Greece continues to present serious and severe difficulties due to low growth rates and a lack of public funds needed to stimulate growth. The causes of this situation are well known and have been repeatedly highlighted by the EESC in recent years and months. These difficulties also have consequences for the availability of the resources necessary to implement programmes planned with the support of the Structural Funds for the period 2014-2020, and for residual funding for the period 2007-2013.

1.2

The Commission has submitted a proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013 laying down the common provisions for the five European Structural and Investment Funds as regards specific measures for Greece (1).

1.3

The Commission proposal, which aims to compensate for a lack of liquidity and public resources for investment in Greece, sets out two financial arrangements. These essentially consist of advance payments on funds already allocated to Greece — which therefore does not have an impact on the budget for 2014-2020 — and an increase in co-financing rates.

1.4

The legislative proposal concerns both the 2007-2013 and the 2014-2020 periods.

1.5

With regard to the 2014-2020 period, the Commission proposes to increase the level of initial pre-financing of the funding available for cohesion policy programmes under the Investment for Growth and Jobs Goal (ERDF, ESF and CF) and programmes supported by the EMFF by 7 percentage points. In total, this amounts to EUR 1 billion available over 2 years (EUR 500 million in 2015 and EUR 500 million in 2016).

1.6

With regard to the 2007-2013 period, the Commission proposes a maximum co-financing rate of 100 % (applies to the declared eligible expenditure for calculating interim payments and final balances of operational programmes implemented in Greece) and to release earlier the 5 % of remaining EU payments that are normally retained until the closure of programmes. This would translate into immediate additional liquidity of some EUR 500 million in 2015 and another amount of EUR 500 million in 2016.

2.1

The EESC shares the Commission’s concerns regarding the need to provide Greece with additional financial resources that will restart investment in sustainable growth. For some time, the EESC has made proposals of this sort for all countries and areas that have budget or debt problems or high unemployment rates (2).

2.2

The Committee believes that the Commission’s proposal — which the Commission itself considered to be exceptional and which is currently being examined by the European Parliament — does not meet the objectives that it is intended to achieve. The aid does not go far enough — both with regard to financial dimensions and to distribution arrangements envisaged (an advance on allocated resources) — in addressing Greece’s needs in terms of public investment and re-establishing competitiveness and employment levels within its production system. This injection of liquidity resulting from the application of the new regulation is estimated at around EUR 2 billion. This is certainly a significant amount, but it is not additional and will be balanced out by an equal reduction in resources planned for subsequent years (2018 and 2020).

2.3

The EESC has repeatedly stated in its opinions that if the Commission intends to help Greece, the additional resources allocated to the country must be more substantial, whether in the form of new investment programmes or a further reduction in national co-financing quotas required to receive funding for operational programmes financed by the Structural Funds for the period 2014-2020.

2.4

The EESC highlights a second concern related to delays in launching the new Structural Funds programme. In total, around EUR 35 billion have been allocated to Greece by the Cohesion Policy for the period 2014-2020. The dire economic and political situation that Greece is experiencing has led to uncertainty with regard to investment decisions, along with administrative delays that have prevented it from initiating the necessary procedures to access resources for the new 2014-2020 programming period.

2.5

The EESC is concerned that these delays, coupled with austerity measures required by the EU for the approval of the third aid plan — which will inevitably reduce public resources for investment — will also have an impact on the launch of spending programmes set out by the funds for the next year and throughout the entire period until 2020.

2.6

The projects currently being implemented in Greece are largely financed with funds from the 2007-2013 programming period. The most recent analyses of the remaining funds for the period 2007-2013 have indicated that around EUR 1,5-2 million are still available and will be repaid if they are not used by the end of the year. Given the exceptional circumstances in the country, the Commission could have included an extension of the timescales for reporting expenditure (from n+2 to n+3) in its proposal.

3.1

In conclusion, the EESC agrees with and supports the Commission’s proposal, although it thinks it insufficient. As it has proposed in many of its opinions, the Committee believes that the European institutions and Member States should establish an aid programme for euro area countries in difficulty — beginning with Greece — that is more substantial and that has more credibility than what has been proposed up to now. This should involve introducing greater flexibility in the application of the new European governance of tax and budgetary policy, increasing the resources available for financing through the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund (EIF), starting with the Juncker plan, and integrating and coordinating more effectively resources earmarked for financing other EU policies.

3.2

In summary, in addition to what has been outlined, it is necessary (a) to extend the proposal (the removal of co-financing for Greece) to the whole 2014-2020 period; (b) to speed up and bring forward support from the Juncker plan to Greece in order to promote economic recovery, development and employment through both arrangements; (c) to simplify administrative procedures — and not the opposite; (d) for the Commission to establish a joint task force that is able to support and guide Greece at various stages of using the different Structural Funds; and (e) to evaluate the possibility of extending these arrangements or similar measures (accompanied by appropriate checks) to other countries that have been worst affected by the crisis and that have a higher rate of unemployment than the European average.

28.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/23