10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/1

1.1.1

considers that the Commission proposals do not make specific reference to differing regional and local features;

1.1.2

supports the Commission's decision to reform the wine sector in the light of falling consumption, structural imbalances in production and marketing, and intensifying competition on global markets;

1.1.3

regrets that the focus of the Commission's proposal tends to obscure the role of wine production in upholding agriculture and man-made landscapes, the rural environment and sound spatial planning, by giving priority in the proposal to purely economic criteria, and lacking the sensitivity which the farm sector in general, and wine in particular, require;

1.1.4

agrees that the wine sector should continue to have its own specific market organisation (CMO);

1.1.5

draws attention to the lack of social and socio-economic vision in the Commission proposal;

1.1.6

shares the Commission's view that the Member States should be given the greatest possible flexibility, so they can propose solutions suited to particular local and regional circumstances;

1.1.7

consequently endorses the Commission proposal to foster greater subsidiarity for the Member States and, within them, for the regions;

1.1.8

emphasises, nevertheless, the need to establish horizontal criteria for Community policies based on a comprehensive view of the European wine sector;

1.1.9

is critical of the Commission's approach of seeking to restore balance by grubbing up 400 000 ha. The declarations made in the Commission document regarding the importance of the European wine sector, the quality of our wines and their significance to the economic sector are contradicted by its approach of reducing production through grubbing up vines, while ignoring more constructive proposals such as winning new markets or competing with New World wines;

1.1.10

points to the need to step up communication/information to the general public recommending an increase in moderate wine consumption;

1.1.11

highlights the need for wine-related communication and promotion to touch upon the potential qualitative health benefits of moderate wine consumption and its contribution to good land use, together with the environmental advantages of wine production;

1.1.12

underlines the need to avoid a breakdown of the European socio-economic wine making system when implementing reform of the wine CMO;

1.2.1

points out that the existing CMO has failed to provide an adequate response in terms of the organisation, structure, development or competitiveness of the wine sector against the backdrop of a globalised economy in areas such as the market, regulation of production potential, wine making practices, geographical indication, labelling, health and communication;

1.2.2

agrees with the figures provided by the Commission on the decline in wine consumption in Europe and the current structural production surplus, and that imports are growing faster than exports;

1.2.3

agrees that Community producers must be more competitive on a globalised market;

1.2.4

agrees with the Commission that production potential must be regulated in the light of the increased yields in some Member States;

1.2.5

is concerned that in some cases, the restructuring and reconversion schemes have undermined the objective of pursuing quality in favour of increasing production;

1.2.6

notes the continued existence of irregular vineyards in some Member States, aggravating imbalances between supply and demand and favouring some producers to the detriment of others;

1.2.7

agrees with the Commission that market support measures in the form of crisis distillation have not been sufficiently effective in guaranteeing producers' income;

1.2.8

voices its concern at the conversion of a measure such as crisis distillation, which should be of a short-term nature, into a structural measure, becoming one of the main objectives of the current financial statement, thereby drawing resources away from quality and marketing/consumption measures. It considers that distillation of potable alcohol should also be covered, together with distillation of by-products. It is emphasised that distillation of by-products should account for a minimum of 15 % of the alcohol from raw materials;

1.2.9

welcomes the retention of private storage as an effective market regulation tool, and proposes that greater flexibility be introduced in order to make it more accessible;

1.2.10

agrees that all wine making practices should be covered by the OIV, and that they should be based on scientific and technical studies. They must, of course, provide full food safety guarantees;

1.2.11

warns that under no circumstances should such wine making practices lead to confusion among consumers, by undermining the current practices on which the quality they appreciate is grounded. This would be harmful for those European regions which produce their wines by using traditional practices which are geared to final product quality or, as the Commission document puts it in the third point of the section Objectives for a new EU wine policy, ‘… that preserve the best traditions of EU wine production …’;

1.2.12

is aware of the confusion caused to consumers by the excessively complicated rules governing definitions, wine making practices and classification of wines, and therefore proposes that they be simplified;

1.2.13

accepts that simpler labelling may be of benefit for lower quality wines which have no other means of making themselves distinctive and therefore more competitive on the markets, but is opposed to the option of using terms so far allowed only for QWpsr having a clearly prejudicial impact on highly successful wines, produced under the traditional European quality model;

1.2.14

welcomes the concern at rising alcohol consumption among young people and, while it is true that wine consumption by this group has fallen substantially in recent years, recognises that any information initiative on the potential beneficial effects of wine must also make clear that young people are particularly susceptible to imitating adult alcohol habits, and must indicate the recommended limits for alcohol consumption that specifically apply to young people;

1.3.1

supports the continuation of a competitive and sustainable European wine sector;

1.3.2

supports the establishment of a wine regime based on clear and straightforward standards, and on effective rules enabling supply and demand to be matched;

1.3.3

congratulates the Commission on its aim of creating a wine regime that preserves the best traditions of EU wine production, reinforces the social fabric of rural areas and ensures respect for the environment, although some of the measures proposed in the document contradict these good intentions, especially that of grubbing up vineyards located mainly in lower-yield areas;

1.3.4

advocates CMO reform based on two pillars: quality and communication, in order to secure bigger markets for European wines;

1.4.1

agrees with the Commission's view that the options of maintaining the status quo, reforming the wine CMO along the lines of CAP reform and deregulating the wine market should be ruled out;

1.5.1

acknowledges the challenge of adapting the regulatory framework and the production structure to obtain a sustainable and competitive European wine industry with long-term prospects;

1.5.2

is pleased to see that GIs are not included in the measure to liberalise planting rights under Variant A, and assumes that the exclusion of such indications will be permanent, and similarly in the rest of the sector, since liberalisation would seriously damage the European production model;

1.5.3

disagrees with the proposal to restore a balance between supply and demand by providing incentives for the grubbing-up of vineyards and subsequently liberalising planting rights;

1.5.4

is critical of this rather timid-looking approach, as it resolves the market imbalance by encourage grubbing-up of vines without even mentioning the possibility of stepping up marketing;

1.5.5

rejects the view that liberalising planting rights would provide a direct boost to the sector's competitiveness by reducing production costs, since it fails to acknowledge that planting costs are directly linked to the commercial success of products from the areas concerned and are in themselves a tool for achieving a supply/demand balance within them;

1.5.6

takes a negative view of the idea of applying the sugar sector reform model to the wine CMO, as this would entail the disappearance of a large proportion of producers in order to guarantee the continuity of production and would, moreover, boost imports of wines into the EU;

1.5.7

does not accept that one of the objectives of CMO reform, particularly in the wine sector, should depend on grubbing up 400 000 ha, especially when the amount earmarked for this purpose accounts for some 40 % of the overall financial package for reform and the effect on reducing production would certainly be much more limited than originally expected;

1.5.8

rejects the abolition ‘… from day one …’ of market management tools which, although clearly leaving room for improvement in the way they are both designed and applied, should not be abolished without a transitional period, so that the good points of some of them can be harnessed. During this transitional period, the amounts allocated to market measures should be gradually reduced, with measures geared to improving quality, promotion and marketing being increased in parallel;

1.5.9

accepts the introduction of the ‘national envelope’ mechanism provided it does not lead to renationalisation of the CAP, insists on a full and practical definition of the list of measures for which the EU authorises funding from this national envelope, and calls for application of the subsidiarity principle in the regions for the management of such funds;

1.5.10

welcomes the plan for certain crisis management measures to be implemented by the Member States;

1.5.11

welcomes the fact that these measures would be subject to certain common rules, in order to prevent any of them constituting hidden aid through measures which might distort competition between Member State producers, such as market aid;

1.5.12

rejects the Commission's approach to rural development, which consists primarily of incentives for farmers to stop farming, in the form of highly specific economic measures, rather than opting to uphold farming as a key component of development in rural areas, and would also refer in general terms to the Committee of the Regions' opinion and declaration on this subject;

1.5.13

does not agree with the absence of any explicit reference to winemaking in very steep areas, which incurs higher costs, because of the contribution this form of farming makes to conserving the environment, shaping the landscape and boosting rural tourism, and because it helps to support sustainable rural development;

1.5.14

opposes the transfer of funds from the first pillar to the second to finance the European wine sector, and advocates retaining the CMO's financial statement;

1.5.15

welcomes the emphasis the communication lays on simplifying the rules and making them clearer and more transparent and effective;

1.5.16

disagrees, however, with the priority given to profound reform of the existing regulatory framework on quality, with a view to enhancing the compliance of EC quality policy with the international rules: although it is accepted that this adjustment is necessary, it does not by itself constitute an adequate quality-related objective;

1.5.17

supports application at international level of the European concept of quality wines, based on geographical origin (QWpsr — ‘quality wine’ produced in specified regions). The concept should be reinforced, confirmed, promoted and enhanced;

1.5.18

welcomes the proposal to expand the role of the interprofessional organisations so they can control and manage the quality of the wine produced in their territories. To this end, the most effective experiences thus far should be catalogued, disseminated and put into practice;

1.5.19

agrees that control systems and instruments, which should provide consumers with appropriate guarantees, ought to be reinforced;

1.5.20

is critical of the review of responsibilities, particularly the transfer of Council competences to the European Commission, and feels that these changes are unnecessary;

1.5.21

agrees that OIV practices should be recognised and that they should be examined, such examinations to be systematically based on scientifically-grounded reports, and backed by the results of research projects carried out in the EU;

1.5.22

calls for the maximum 2 % volume increase to be maintained, using only must for enrichment;

1.5.23

disagrees with automatic authorisation of the use of OIV wine making practices in the EU, even in cases where the wines concerned are to be exported to regions in which such practices have been approved. The practices must be subjected to the procedure mentioned in the previous point;

1.5.24

welcomes the assurance of an acceptable minimum level of environmental care in the wine making and ageing process. It should be pointed out, in this regard, that experiments in this area have been funded under the LIFE Initiative, which could provide highly valuable, relevant information;

1.5.25

welcomes the proposal to simplify labelling provisions by setting up a single legal framework applying to all the different categories of wine, while repeating that there must be guarantees that consumers will not be confused: labelling must therefore be simple and uphold consumers' interests as well as being clear;

1.5.26

warns of the risk that might ensue from the removal of the distinction between the rules on labelling wines with and without GIs, all the more since it is envisaged to facilitate the indication of vintage and vine variety for wines without GIs;

1.5.27

is therefore opposed to the appearance of information such as variety and vintage for wines without GIs;

1.5.28

welcomes the proposal to maintain and improve traditional terms;

1.5.29

welcomes the proposal to adapt the policy on trademarks and amend the language rules in the wine sector;

1.5.30

confirms that quality, marketing and promotion policy must be one of the main recipients of the resources earmarked by the financial statement for the wine CMO;

1.5.31

agrees that the strongest possible guarantees must be provided regarding health and consumer information and protection, which could moreover have positive effects on consumption, in view of the health-giving properties of modest consumption of wine for certain categories of people, at the same time as it can have more damaging effects for other categories and if consumed to excess;

1.5.32

welcomes the concern to provide consumers with the fullest and most accurate information about the origin of the product through appropriate labelling rules on traceability;

1.5.33

welcomes the proposal to inform consumers on the environmental aspects of wine making and production practices;

1.5.34

welcomes the Commission's determination to pursue a responsible promotion and information policy. This should not however be restricted to promotion projects outside the EU;

1.5.35

strongly supports the idea of carrying out information campaigns within the EU on responsible and moderate wine consumption, emphasising the concept of moderate wine consumption and, in consequence, clearly separating this practice from the harmful effects of excessive consumption;

1.5.36

believes that it is necessary for the Commission, in the context of its health and youth policies, to earmark sufficient funds for information campaigns on responsible moderate consumption of wine, to be carried out also at local level with the involvement of local and regional authorities, schools, universities and associations;

1.5.37

agrees that minimum environmental requirements must be included for the wine sector regarding soil erosion and contamination, use of plant protection products, and waste management;

1.5.38

warns that EU concessions in WTO negotiations must not involve using the European wine sector as a bargaining chip in order to secure advantages in other sectors, agricultural or otherwise;

1.5.39

welcomes the Commission's intention to ensure compliance with the legislation on irregular and illicit vineyards and, in the event that it is not observed, to take appropriate measures under the clearance of accounts procedures or infringement procedures;

1.5.40

opposes the idea of taking the current financial statement as a ceiling when putting the legislative proposals for the future CMO into practice, given the Commission's ambitions regarding the competitiveness of the European wine sector;

1.5.41

shares the Commission's concern to make best use of the financial resources and good management, but again insists that the financial statement should be adjusted to meet any new needs arising from the reform;

1.5.42

welcomes the savings which the Commission intends to achieve with this reform, due to ‘simplification and better regulation, with positive consequences on limiting the management and statistical monitoring costs, on easing implementation and controls, hence on limiting the risk of fraud and misuse of public funds. In addition it would increase management efficiency through a higher level of subsidiarity given to Member States for the determination of the type of measures they need to respond to their specific situation’. It would however point to the increased work arising from labelling controls for wines without GIs, and to the transfer of some control tasks so far carried out by the European Commission to the Member States by virtue of subsidiarity, in such a way that the final outcome is likely to be invariable;

1.5.43

in order to deal with the risk of adulterated wines, distortions to trade and growing production surpluses, is opposed to lifting the ban on producing wine from imported grape must. As well as denaturing the quality of the wine, this could create problems as regards the origin, provenance and identification of the product on the part of the consumer;

1.5.44

argues that, as at present, new vineyards should only be permitted in future on the basis of planting rights, in order to prevent the negative repercussions on the market of an expansion of EU wine producing potential;

1.5.45

considers that when recognising OIV-approved wine-making practices, attention must be paid to safeguarding well-established European wine-making traditions;

1.5.46

is opposed to removal of the requirement for a minimum natural alcoholic strength for wine;

2.1

advocates a European wine making model that sets out to make the sector sustainable through access to markets and by consolidating and boosting its presence on world markets; this should be underpinned by the three pillars of Quality, Competitiveness and the Market;

2.2

upholds a model of moderate wine consumption, giving priority to communication and promotion of its health-giving and cultural characteristics, and a European agri-food production model linked to quality, tradition, the land and traditional cultural practices;

2.3

calls for harmonisation and consistency between all the Community policies affecting the sector: agriculture, health, tax, budget and trade;

2.4

believes that, in order to put these principles into practice, the wine CMO reform legislation and its financial statement should concentrate primarily on achieving quality, improved marketing and communication/promotion and on ensuring the survival of traditional European winemakers, of farming in rural areas, of this form of land-use and of the essential role that winemaking plays in protecting the environment in certain regions;

2.5

points out that the financial resources must focus significantly and primarily on these principles, under a horizontal approach (European policy);

2.6

considers reform of the wine sector to be essential, in the form of a specific CMO for the sector, in the light of falling consumption, structural imbalances in production and marketing, and Europe's relative loss of position on the world stage over recent years;

2.7

is of the view that the wine sector's role in upholding agriculture, the rural environment, landscape, culture and good land use must never be overlooked. Similarly, the farmers' role in European integration must not be forgotten: consequently the reform proposals must not have an excessively economic focus, given the fragile nature of the European farm sector in general. The Commission's proposal must therefore retain a social and socio-economic vision. But this economy-focused and free-market driven proposal for the large-scale grubbing-up of vineyards and their liberalisation as of 2013 clearly runs counter to the principles of maintaining farming and land use, because it will lead to farmers ceasing activity;

2.8

hopes to secure greater support from the European Commission for encouraging higher quality wines in disadvantaged upland regions and regions which suffer discrimination as a result of funding through national financial frameworks;

2.9

proposes that given the present urgent need to introduce measures to resolve the problems of the European wine sector, all proposals included in the final reform document should be implemented from the outset, with some (promotion/marketing) being stepped up while others (market measures) are wound down, and using the current financial statement or, if necessary, an increased budget;

2.10

suggests that a proposal must be formulated which seeks to boost the presence of European wine production on world markets in the medium and long term;

2.11

points to the need to maintain the overall amount of the financial statement;

2.12

proposes joint, coordinated action that is in keeping with the Community policies affecting the sector: agriculture, tax, trade, health and budget;

2.13

warns that under no circumstances should wine making practices lead to confusion among consumers, by undermining the current practices on which the quality they appreciate is grounded. This would be harmful for those European regions which produce their wines by using traditional practices that are geared to final product quality — in other words, that preserve proven traditions of EU wine production;

2.14

accepts the introduction of the ‘national envelope’ mechanism provided it does not lead to renationalisation of the CAP, insists on a full and practical definition of the list of measures for which the EU authorises funding from this national envelope, and calls for application of the subsidiarity principle in the regions for the management of such funds;

2.15

proposes that the European Commission should, with a view to the international recognition of the ‘Geographical Indication’ concept, step up its backing and promotion for the distinctiveness of these wines, under the intellectual property aspects of WTO agreements (TRIPs);

2.16

suggests that the purpose of labelling should be to provide clear and accurate information for consumers, prioritising differentiation, without sacrificing aspects such as guarantees of authenticity in the production of certain wines of higher quality than others. Such guarantees should be backed by appropriate control arrangements. The ultimate aim of clear labelling must be to inform the consumer about the product, using terms which clearly distinguish between different practices;

2.17

proposes retaining vineyard restructuring and reconversion programmes under the ‘national envelope’, and that these programmes should reflect the most efficient vineyard models from the point of view of control and achievement of the programmes' objectives;

2.18

emphasises the need to influence how the European concept of quality wines based on geographical origin (QWpsr) is applied at international level. The concept must be reinforced, confirmed, promoted and enhanced;

2.19

considers that OIV wine making practices should not be authorised automatically for use in the EU without the necessary research and experiments, based on purely scientific criteria;

2.20

argues that quality, marketing and promotion policy must be one of the main recipients of the financial resources earmarked for the wine CMO;

2.21

strongly advocates a promotion policy including information campaigns in favour of moderate, responsible consumption, as well as a European agri-food model focusing on quality, its specific characteristics, and its links to the land, culture, history and traditions of its peoples, and to this end having a system of economic support provided by the CMO itself, in addition to other agri-food promotional instruments that the European Union might have already or implement in the future;

2.22

warmly welcomes the idea of carrying out information campaigns within the European Union on responsible and moderate wine consumption, and calls for initiatives in this field, inter alia at local level, involving local authorities, schools, universities and associations.

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/7

1.1

welcomes the Communication and the proposed Action Plan which provide an accurate assessment of the situation and highlight the measures to be taken in order to help achieve the 2010 objectives; agrees with the Commission's evaluation but regrets the delay in its publication;

1.2

believes that biodiversity to a large extent determines the identity of the region; stresses that biodiversity is an important basis for quality of life, health, recreation and tourism and the production of regional products and services;

1.3

points out that the number of species and high-value ecosystems has increased with the advent of the ten new Member States of the European Union;

1.4

welcomes the Council Conclusions of 23-24 March 2006 calling for the integration of the 2010 objectives into all relevant Lisbon agenda policies. The regional development plans implemented in many regions show that the tension between economics and biodiversity can be resolved;

1.5

points out that, in contrast to the general acknowledgement of the intrinsic value of biodiversity, its economic value is underestimated; in the long run biodiversity is a prerequisite for health, a high standard of living and employment;

1.6

underlines the need to build partnerships between all stakeholders in order to raise awareness amongst citizens (especially children) and the public and private sectors of the importance of biodiversity, so that a common effort is made to preserve biodiversity and sustainable ecosystem services;

1.7

regrets that, in spite of the political commitments made by all the Member States, the 2010 objectives are still a long way off and calls for biodiversity to be placed high on the political agenda by all levels of government;

1.8

is pleased that there are many examples at local and regional level that show that the loss of biodiversity can be stemmed and the restoration of habitats achieved (see CdR 159/2006 appendix);

2.1

deplores the insufficient allocation of EU funds for financing the 2010 objectives in the 2007-2013 financial perspective, especially for the Natura 2000 initiative and rural development; calls therefore for Member States to provide their regions and municipalities with the means to preserve and restore biodiversity on their territory, in particular in order to maintain Natura 2000 sites; and urges the greater use of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for projects with special benefit to biodiversity;

2.2

points out that for optimal realisation and conservation of the Natura 2000 ecological network, it is essential for the regions to strike the right balance between the top-down approach and the flexibility needed to establish this network. Uniform management criteria must adopted for all sites included in the network;

2.3

stresses that a denser network is essential in order to ensure sustainable ecosystems, also in the marine environment, and is pleased with the emphasis placed on network density in the light of the consequences of climate change for habitats and species; also suggests to implement conservation measures for buffer zones and ecological corridors which guarantee the viability of sites included in the network;

2.4

points out that while the policy framework established by the EU provides for a high level of biodiversity protection, implementation and monitoring are still inadequate in many Member States, and that when new biodiversity protection areas are being set up, insufficient thought is given to the conditions needed for harmonious development of the ecosystem;

2.5

recommends that biodiversity plans at EU, national, regional and local level be coordinated;

2.6

stresses that as many measures provided for in the Action Plan for the Member States cannot be implemented effectively without the assistance and participation of the regional and local authorities, representatives from the regional and local level must be actively involved with all new biodiversity policy developments and be provided with the necessary resources;

2.7

is conscious of the considerable impact of agriculture on biodiversity in the EU: depending on the way land is farmed, agriculture can either be of great benefit to biodiversity and create safe havens for a large variety of species, or it can cause serious harm by destroying habitats and by polluting the environment; notes that agriculture is still a major beneficiary of the EU budget, and that the EU therefore has a strong leverage for influencing farming methods; argues, therefore, in the framework of the 2008 review of the 2007-2013 financial perspective, for a substantial shift of funding towards sustainable forms of farming and landscape preservation;

2.8

calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess the impact of current subsidies on biodiversity, to abolish incentives that are detrimental to biodiversity and ecosystem services and to encourage the greater use of economic instruments for the protection of biodiversity;

2.9

considers it advisable to deal with biodiversity concerns not only in the field of environment policy, but also to mainstream them into other policy areas at EU and Member State level, especially transport, energy, industry, agriculture, fisheries, regional policy, tourism and research policy;

2.10

fully recognises the importance of sea and coastal waters as the basis of almost half of Europe's biodiversity and calls for a greater awareness of marine biodiversity policy on the part of governments and other stakeholders; points out the importance of an accelerated implementation of the Habitats Directive for the marine environment, the stopping of overfishing in both European and non-European waters and the complete integration of biodiversity into the future European maritime policy;

2.11

notes the limited scope for spatial planning action at EU level, since this policy area — of key importance for biodiversity preservation and restoration — falls within the responsibility of the Member States; urges that biodiversity issues be given a prominent place in spatial planning decisions at national, regional and local level, in particular by means of the Strategic Environmental Assessment;

2.12

is convinced that, in the development and implementation of the policy of combating invasive alien species, the present rules should be more effectively used and implemented and calls for greater involvement of the regions in this matter;

2.13

welcomes the plans to develop a comprehensive EU strategy for the prevention and control of invasive alien species including the setting up of an early warning system; however points out that, bearing in mind the scarce financial and human resources, new administrative burdens must not be created;

2.14

recommends that basic legislation and lists of alien species be drawn up, laying down rules for importing, trading in and keeping such species, to ensure that European action is coordinated and concerted; also underlines the necessity to examine, in the framework of environmental impact assessments, the impact of projects which introduce or work with potentially invasive alien species;

2.15

points out that conserving biodiversity, and especially flora and fauna species, should not prevent their use and exploitation, provided that this is duly regulated, monitored and done in a sustainable way;

2.16

recommends strict application of the precautionary principle for the admission and introduction of GMOs;

3.1

notes that the decisions taken at the 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Curitiba, Brazil, in March 2006 constitute an important step forward; and aware that the 9th Conference of Parties will be held in Bonn in early 2008 under German chairmanship, urges the EU and its Member States to use this event to present an assessment of the Commission Biodiversity Communication and also to prepare for an event with stronger regional and local authority involvement, inter alia via the respective national associations;

3.2

welcomes the good example set by regions which, in the context of development aid, share their experience of biodiversity issues with their partner regions and support their partner regions' measures to promote biodiversity (see appendix);

3.3

notes the responsibility of the European Union for biodiversity preservation worldwide; is aware of this fact and recommends that greater account be taken of this in trade and development policy;

4.1

realises that biodiversity preservation policy can only be successful if ambitious policies are put in place on a global scale to halt climate change; considers it essential that Member States which are not yet meeting their obligations under the Kyoto protocol should catch up; calls for the conclusion of an ambitious global climate change convention including all major industrial countries and sectors;

4.2

recommends that regional research be carried out on the effects of climate change;

4.3

adds that, although the development of policies on bio-fuel can be important in combating climate change, this will only be effective if it goes hand in hand with measures for substantial reductions in total fuel use, and provided that only raw materials, technologies and crops are used which do not have a negative impact on biodiversity both nationally and internationally, and that does not result in farming expanding into biologically valuable ecosystems;

5.1

points out the need for greater knowledge of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Europe and throughout the world, and the accessibility of such knowledge. This also includes the exchange of best practice between the Member States and regions (see appendix); the interoperability of biodiversity data at different levels must consequently be improved, taking account in particular of regional and local data and making use of GIS (Geographical Information System) tools and Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI);

5.2

stresses that knowledge of biodiversity in the marine environment is particularly inadequate and recommends that this be developed;

5.3

adds that, in addition to the scientific knowledge mentioned by the Commission, more attention should be paid to the knowledge and experience of local residents and recommends that the volunteers' knowledge be pooled with that of scientists; urges that children be involved;

5.4

recommends defining communication strategies, in order to raise awareness and to develop the sense of responsibility at all levels and in all spheres that society as a whole should feel for protecting and conserving biodiversity and also to enhance exchanges of information between the scientific community and administrations;

6.1

notes that little money is likely to be available for biodiversity via LIFE+ and the research budget and that, furthermore, there is a danger that the Member States will not give sufficient consideration to the importance of biodiversity in the current Structural Funds;

6.2

notes a divergence between the considerable ambitions of the Communication and the resources made available to achieve these goals;

6.3

endorses the ideas being put forward to strengthen biodiversity in European decision-making; recommends the obligatory integration of biodiversity into other fields of policy; supports the idea put forward in the Action Plan of involving the regions as well as the Member States;

6.4

trusts that the formation of partnerships will be encouraged in the EU. The regions are extremely well equipped to take on a facilitating role; points to successful cooperation in the context of EU programmes and its results (appendix);

6.5

underlines the need to involve private land-owners, in order to ensure that biodiversity is preserved, by means of instruments such as cooperation agreements;

6.6

emphasises the importance of greater public involvement. If ordinary people do not appreciate the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services, projects will have less chance of success; recommends that European and national money be made available for Community projects;

6.7

recommends the development, in close cooperation with the Countdown 2010 initiative and the Beautiful Europe initiative, of a communications strategy involving Member States, NGOs, and regional and local authorities with the aim of promoting the 2010 goals;

7.1

supports the cooperation between the Member States and the private sector and emphasises that citizens and volunteers are heavily involved throughout Europe in monitoring biodiversity;

7.2

calls for Member States to be encouraged to present the results of their policies in a way that ordinary people can recognise and relate to, and which highlights the regional dimension;

7.3

points out that regional monitoring must form a basis for national and international monitoring and evaluation. To this end, effective monitoring systems based on indicators and periodical reports have to be put in place.

8.1

welcomes the proposal for an EU-wide vision of the future of European biodiversity and underlines the great importance of involving the regions;

8.2

calls for a renewed vision for the approach to biodiversity going beyond 2010, with the emphasis on the positive contribution of ecosystem services related to the environment (landscape).

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/11

1.1

Generally speaking, the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming COM(2006) 104 final (hereinafter ‘the report’) distinguishes between, on the one hand, the environmental and health aspects and, on the other, the economic aspects of coexistence between GM, conventional and organic farming.

1.2

Ascertaining the lack of risks to human health and the environment is merely one stage in the procedure envisaged for authorising a GM product under Directive 2001/18/EC. Specific mandatory measures on coexistence are also part of the same procedure.

1.3

The present opinion seeks to bring the debate on coexistence, focused only on the economic aspects, back to the issues of care imposed by the precautionary principle. Conventional and organic crops, too, are part of the environment and are therefore to be protected under the precautionary principle. Now that the European moratorium on GMOs has expired (in 2004), authorisations of GM products in the European Union will in reality increase and for this reason irreversible consequences and speculation must be averted.

1.4

Correct implementation of coexistence requires reconciling health and environmental aspects with economic ones. If ‘coexistence’ between types of farming — in other words, guaranteeing the viability of each type (conventional, organic and GMO) — is to be implemented, it must safeguard each of these methods. Every form of agriculture — conventional, organic and GMO — must be accorded equal respect for its intrinsic rather than economic value, otherwise the very concept of ‘coexistence’ would be negated.

1.5

At the Vienna conference on 4-6 April 2006, the EU chose not to adopt a firm stance on coexistence and to leave farmers free to choose for themselves between traditional, organic or GM farming. The reasons were twofold: firstly, the territorial diversity of individual Member States and, secondly, the inconsistent results from the very few trials carried out so far.

1.6

The market is thus left to find its own dynamics, aided by the choice of consumers, who remain free to choose whether or not to purchase GM products.

1.7

The national competent authorities on the matter took part in a technical meeting on 19 June 2006 and in a meeting of national competent authorities within the terms of Directive 2001/18/EC on 3 July 2006; the next meeting is scheduled for January 2007 to continue the discussion and address potato, maize Bt11 and maize 1570.

1.8

The stances emerging from these meetings have displayed a continuing concern for health and environmental protection aspects: seven out of eight Member States have restated the crucial role of the precautionary principle; eight out of nine countries have made comments concerning Bt11 maize which the European Food Safety Authority has ignored; eight out of nine countries have lamented the insufficient scientific data on the environmental effects of maize 1570; critical comments made in seven out of nine cases on monitoring plans have not been considered by the EFSA.

1.9

European legislation consistently aims to impose constant vigilance regarding the potential risk to human health and the environment, and so an approach which bases the method of coexistence exclusively on economic aspects appears contradictory.

1.10

The precautionary principle, as defined in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, provides the basis for an operational analysis of risk, and can be invoked when danger threatens and scientific knowledge is insufficient for a full a priori safety assessment to be made. (Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 9 September 2003, case C-236/01.)

1.11

The precautionary principle has its origins in that of sustainable development.

1.12

The sustainable development principle can be defined as the interaction between human activity and the global biophysical context; this relationship must be managed in such a way as to allow, on the one hand, human progress and, on the other, the preservation of the global biophysical balance, maintaining a proper equilibrium between the two.

1.13

It is worth briefly restating the definitions of these two principles, as they are essential to correct implementation of coexistence between agricultural systems.

1.14

Taken together, the regulation on unique identifiers (5), the decision on registers (6), and the regulation implementing Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provide for the correct empirical application of the criterion of coexistence of agricultural systems and ensure transparency and traceability.

1.15

This legislation is complemented by the requirement of labelling and traceability of food and feed which contain quantities of GMOs above the tolerance level as a result of technically unavoidable contamination.

1.16

A precautionary approach, which is to include a careful assessment and monitoring of risks, is thus to be taken before products obtained using GMOs are researched, produced and marketed.

1.17

The risk to human and animal health, as well as to the environment, is mentioned systematically in the recitals of each piece of Community legislation.

1.18

The risks of accidental genetic contamination in agriculture and the economic impact of mixing of GM and non-GM crops must be addressed and taken on board if new genetically modified products are to be marketed in the Union.

1.19

To date, the Union has authorised and provided for the introduction of a small number of GMO varieties in the Member States.

1.20

This has, in effect, lent legitimacy to the incremental entry of genetically modified crops into Europe and provoked sharp criticism on the grounds that such crops are incompatible with other crops and there is no proof that they are innocuous for the environment and the very varied genetic heritage that it represents, and for human health.

1.21

Community legislation reflects concern at the risk of accidental contamination: the adventitious introduction of GMOs into organic or conventional crops has been recognised as ‘technically unavoidable’, in effect discounting the possibility of attaining zero tolerance.

1.22

Accidental contamination incurs additional costs for conventional and organic farmers in taking appropriate measures to avoid contamination and the loss of organic status, the very essence of which is purity of cultivation method and result.

1.23

The principle that every farmer is free to exercise economic initiative must be upheld, which includes not only the freedom to choose the most economically viable system of production, but also the need to keep the crops he chooses to produce separate in order to avoid mutual contamination.

1.24

At the same time, consumer choice must also be protected with regard to the product purchased, whose integrity must be maintained not only when it is put on the market, but also in the preceding phase of cultivation, by ensuring traceability and freedom from contamination in the systems of agricultural production.

1.25

GMOs can only be grown or placed on the market in the Union if they are authorised and if health and environmental aspects comply with Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed.

1.26

Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, as inserted via the amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, states that Member States may take appropriate national coexistence measures to prevent the unintended presence of GMOs in other products, but does not make this compulsory.

1.27

Article 22 of the same directive prevents Member States from prohibiting, restricting or impeding the placing on the market of authorised GMOs.

1.28

In its Recommendation 2003/556/EC of 23 July 2003, the Commission provides crucially important guidelines. The recommendation's recitals:

1.29

The ‘zero tolerance’ option is thus ruled out because it is not practicable; nevertheless, coexistence must be implemented with due care, using ‘best practices’ in order to prevent ‘irreversible consequences’.

a.

considers the current system of monitoring inadequate and notes the outcome of the policy debate held in the Council on 9 March 2006, during which the greater part of the Member States called for improvement of the system of scientific assessment performed by EFSA in the procedures for GMO authorisation, regretting the limited nature of EFSA actions and the fact that its decisions often ignore the scientific assessments of the Member States.

a.

stresses that the risk assessment provided for by Directive 2001/18/EC is carried out by the entity which wishes to market the GM product, while the competent authorities of the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) merely assess the accuracy of the data submitted;

b.

calls for the procedure for amending or withdrawing authorisation where risks arise to be made simpler and more rigorous in order to prevent continuing deliberate release for business or contained use while awaiting the withdrawal or amendment of authorisation;

c.

calls for a different monitoring system throughout product introduction and marketing, with a dual monitoring procedure and a reduction in the number of cases where the ‘simplified’ procedure under Directive 2001/18/EC is used.

a.

maintains that setting a threshold for seeds is a crucial issue in the debate and that coexistence of systems cannot work if the seeds used are not pure;

b.

at the same time, characterises coexistence as the method which allows every type of farming to be respected and which would be invalidated ab origine if impure seeds were allowed to be introduced into cultivation.

a.

maintains that the 0.9 % reduces the purity of the organic method;

b.

maintains, therefore, that if implementing zero tolerance is impossible, the percentage threshold for organic farming must be very close to zero, reducing the presence of GMOs to the level of the technically unavoidable by adopting appropriate measures to prevent accidental contamination;

c.

considers that the 0.9 % threshold is also too high for conventional farming, since recurrent contamination year after year can very quickly result in high pollution levels in the environment and in the food production chain.

a.

recalls that in Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC, European legislation provides a safeguard clause as a preventive method for directly applying the precautionary principle, based on recitals 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 56 of the Directive's preamble;

b.

regrets that the procedure is overly complicated and hopes that the possibility of invoking the safeguard clause presently enjoyed only by Member States can also be extended, using domestic legislation, to local and regional authorities through decentralisation or delegation;

c.

points out that Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty would permit further safeguard measures and regrets the Commission's restrictive decision-making on measures taken by Member States under this provision.

2.2.1

stresses the importance of close cooperation between the Member States and the exchange of research findings pertaining to coexistence;

2.2.2

considers it vital that coexistence measures maintain the diversity of types and methods of agricultural production and hence the freedom of choice for farmers and consumers;

2.2.3

stresses the need to provide full, objective information regarding GMOs and coexistence to interested parties and the public;

2.2.4

stresses the fact that experience of genetically modified crops in the EU is very limited;

2.2.5

supports the Commission's intention to find out more about national systems of responsibility and the bearing they have on coexistence standards;

2.2.6

stresses the fact that in four Member States, regions are also responsible for legislating on coexistence, while in other cases regional and/or local authorities bear responsibility for implementing coexistence measures;

2.2.7

recalls and endorses the view of the European Economic and Social Committee in its opinion on coexistence, which stated that measures to protect nature conservation areas in line with Directive 92/43/EEC on habitats, flora and fauna and Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of birds, and other ecologically sensitive areas, should be regulated at national and local level;

2.2.8

stresses that public studies carried out in parts of Lazio involved in GMO trials have shown that GMOs may remain in the soil, especially in certain pedoclimatic conditions, and may seep from the soil into water;

2.2.9

considers that the only way of conducting a truly in-depth and independent assessment of risks involved in cultivating a particular GMO is at local level and through specific studies;

2.2.10

stresses the fact that many local and regional authorities have come out against the growing of GM crops in their territory, proclaimed themselves GMO-free areas and come together to form networks, e.g. the network of 40 GMO-free regions and local authorities. Individual regional authorities have even attempted to have their status as GMO-free areas enshrined in law. The legality of such a step is currently the subject of a dispute at the European Court of Justice between the European Commission and the Land of Upper Austria.

2.3.1

notes that the Commission's communication highlights the ‘limited practical experience with GM crops’;

2.3.2

stresses, therefore, that there are no practices and methods of segregation that have been approved without reservation and which could be followed to ensure risk-free coexistence.

2.4.1

points out that Commission Recommendation 2003/556/EC introduced the criterion of proportionality as a principle under which coexistence measures must be efficient, cost-effective and proportionate;

2.4.2

points out, however, that the purpose of the tolerance thresholds imposed by legislation for ‘technically unavoidable’ contamination is merely to determine the point at which labelling becomes compulsory and not to establish a limit for coexistence.

2.5.1

notes that, according to the report, the Member States' approaches to coexistence have tended not to apply it at the regional level, but on the smallest possible scale and, at most, spanning neighbouring farms;

2.5.2

considers, therefore, that any idea of implementing coexistence on the basis of measures that have not yet been tested on a large scale or over an extended period is a distant prospect;

2.5.3

stresses that, in the light of current scientific knowledge and the existing legislative framework, it is not the individual farm but rather the region or local authority which is the most appropriate level for the implementation of coexistence.

2.6.1

notes the Commission's statement that in many Member States, the economic loss that may result from accidental contamination by GMOs falls within the scope of civil liability laws;

2.6.2

stresses, nonetheless, that this is not the only approach they can take, as the recommendation gives each and every Member State freedom of choice; and that criminal or administrative sanctions can also be invoked;

2.6.3

also notes that Directive 2001/18/EC stipulates that its provisions are without prejudice to national legislation in the field of environmental liability.

2.7.1

highlights the fact that the Commission's recommendation stated that the management measures and instruments adopted on coexistence should be subject to ongoing monitoring and evaluation, and called on Member States to establish adequate control and inspection systems;

2.7.2

notes that, as the Commission points out, given the paucity of GM cultivation, many Member States have yet to put together monitoring and evaluation programmes;

2.7.3

notes with some concern that in Member States where there is a difference in market value between GM and non-GM feed and/or where products protected on the grounds of their typically local nature or origin are a source of national pride and added value, the identification of GM and non-GM markets would lead to a drop in consumer interest and hence in market price, with possible adverse economic effects.

2.8.1

notes but disagrees with the fact that the thresholds of adventitious presence enshrined in Community legislation governing products containing GMOs are equally applicable to conventional and organic produce;

2.8.2

stresses that a ban on using GMOs in organic farming is implicit in the regulation on organic production and that, for this reason, materials, including seeds, whose label indicates the presence of GMOs cannot be used in the production process;

2.8.3

adds that the Commission says nothing about organic production;

2.8.4

asserts the need to apply a threshold as close as possible to zero tolerance in the case of organic production.

2.9.1

observes that seeds are a medium which, intentionally or otherwise, spreads biotechnological innovation among crops and in the environment and for this reason they are a key variable in coexistence;

2.9.2

notes the position expressed by the European Parliament in Resolution 2003/2098 (INI) that information on the presence of GMOs in seed is essential for proper implementation of Directive 2001/18/EC, particularly as regards monitoring of the adverse effects of GMOs on human health and the environment, traceability and emergency measures.

2.10.1

supports the need to identify the most appropriate measures to ensure coexistence in which the risk is infinitesimal or as low as possible;

2.10.2

stresses that ‘best practices’ means those methods of separate cultivation which ontologically respect coexistence;

2.10.3

agrees with the observation that there is limited scientific knowledge and practical experience regarding identifying and applying best practices and measures and that for this reason measures should be limited and selective;

2.10.4

highlights the Commission's precise indication of the measures to be adopted to prevent frustration of the precautionary principle in implementing coexistence and infers that the detailed action required could impede the implementation of coexistence or make it so arduous and costly as to become uneconomic;

2.10.5

recalls that in its abovementioned opinion on coexistence, the European Economic and Social Committee recommended that the growing of GM crops be banned when it makes traditional production of plants of the same or related cultures impossible or unduly difficult;

2.10.6

shares the position taken by the European Parliament in Resolution 2003/2098 (INI), which states that a voluntary or regionally restricted renunciation of GMO cultivation may be the most effective and least costly measure for guaranteeing coexistence;

2.10.7

considers the Commission's approach reticent when compared with Recommendation 2003/556/EC, especially as scientific research has produced very few new findings since 2003 and the body of evidence remains small; therefore considers it necessary to wait for more telling scientific results in the medium and long term, since trials in many Member States have stopped;

2.10.8

underscores, in this context, the need for the European Commission to define special instruments for funding research in order to make it possible to assess the socio-economic impact of GMOs at regional and local level;

2.10.9

stresses that, as homogeneous administrative areas, local and regional authorities are the most appropriate level for assessing the impact of the introduction of GM crops in each territorial context, for devising coexistence measures compatible with the principle of sustainable development and for reconciling local interests and managing possible solutions.

2.11.1

notes that, while authorised GMO products can only be banned in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC or Article 95(4) and (5) of the EC Treaty, they have to comply with the precautionary principles which must guide the safe application of coexistence;

2.11.2

points out that when an environmental or health risk is discovered after authorisation has been granted, a procedure for withdrawing the authorisation or for modifying the conditions for its issue can be initiated; and stresses that, given the continuous progress in scientific research, risk profiles which are not scientifically proven today could be identified in the future;

2.11.3

considers that the procedure for amending or withdrawing authorisation where risks arise is too long and complex, and that the monitoring system in force is inadequate; notes the dangers of continuing deliberate release for business or contained use while awaiting the withdrawal or amendment of authorisation;

2.11.4

highlights the tendency among some countries which have been growing GM crops for a number of years to review their positions with a view to restoring certain environments and crops, which have been jeopardised by the presence of parasites displaying forms of resistance to genetic modifications.

3.1

requests that first and foremost, remedies be found to the preliminary questions raised in point 2.1. The following should be addressed as a first step towards correct implementation of coexistence between systems: new monitoring procedures, risk assessment for health and the environment, seed purity, extending the right to invoke the safeguard clause, the possibility of applying ‘best practices’ that emerge from the scientific research in the medium and long term, and the redefinition of the percentage tolerance thresholds; until such time as the abovementioned remedies come into effect, the existing bans on the use of particular GMO products, imposed by the Member States in pursuance of the precautionary principle, will remain in force;

3.2

supports the need for measures to protect nature conservation areas and other ecologically sensitive areas to be regulated at national and local level, as stated by the European Economic and Social Committee in its opinion on coexistence (CESE 1656/2004);

3.3

considers that closer collaboration on coexistence is needed between the EFSA and the relevant national authorities, and asks the Commission to pursue the course it has already embarked upon in this matter;

3.4

affirms the need for regional and local authorities to play an active part in the consultation process on coexistence, and asks the Commission to take greater and more systematic account of the regional and local dimension in the report on coexistence which it is to present in 2008;

3.5

requests to be involved in the drafting of Community legislation that helps to address preliminary questions for coexistence implementation in order to arrive at independent but coordinated standpoints and avoid the kind of glaring inconsistency that can trigger abnormal flows of investment capital to places where legislation is more permissive;

3.6

calls on Member States to draw up appropriate monitoring and evaluation programmes on management measures and instruments to be adopted;

3.7

calls for the introduction of GMOs in a given area to be preceded by concrete studies and invites the Commission and the Member States to set out programmes and resources with a view to giving the utmost technical and financial support to scientific research, including at regional and local level;

3.8

underlines the need for national and regional legislation on coexistence to refer explicitly to the precautionary principle;

3.9

requests the Commission, when drafting its own proposals for legislation, to take appropriate account of:

3.10

calls on the Member States and regions to ensure cross-border cooperation with neighbouring areas to guarantee the efficient functioning of co-existence measures in border parts;

3.11

in this context, recommends that the Commission set up a website containing links to the existing national location registers in Europe.

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/18

1)

vast areas of the Member States of the European Union are represented by rural municipalities. The number of rural municipalities increased following the last EU enlargement, and is likely to grow further with the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania. For this reason, rural development policies deserve ever greater attention, at Community as well as national level;

2)

the European institutions are taking a very serious look at the issue of tailoring Community policies to the public's real interests. In this context, it makes sense for the EU to give greater consideration to the interests of its many constituent local authorities, including those with smaller populations and less economic clout;

3)

against the current economic backdrop of tough competition between production systems and between regions, rural municipalities and their populations are particularly vulnerable and are in danger of being left behind when it comes to the challenges of competitiveness;

4)

rural municipalities play an important role in protecting the land, combating the depopulation of rural and geographically disadvantaged areas and reducing the risk of hydrogeological imbalance;

5)

rural municipalities can be key in making the most of the region's resources, protecting and promoting the gamut of cultural values, traditions and local characteristics, carrying out wealth-generating activities that make the most of local conditions while also boosting economic growth and employment;

6)

in order to address problems associated with poorly resourced administrative structures in areas with lower populations, rural municipalities have developed their own forms of organisation, management, partnership and inter-municipal cooperation, and these ought to be supported and practices disseminated, not least using appropriate legislative and financial instruments;

7)

the concept of the ‘sustainable community’ (8) is currently central to a new debate on the strategic objectives of balanced and sustainable economic and social growth in the rural environment; it is above all in this setting that such a concept can come into its own;

1.1.1

notes the difficulties inherent in defining a rural area or a rural municipality and highlights the fact that all the Member States use different definitions that often have nothing in common but a reference to the contrast with urban areas, some using population density or a specific percentage of economic activity devoted to farming in a given area as objective criteria;

1.1.2

refers to the definition of rural area already contained in a previous opinion (9), which in turn quoted the European Charter of Rural Areas: ‘… the term “rural area” denotes a stretch of inland or coastal countryside, including small towns and villages, where the main part of the area is used for: agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries; (…). The agricultural (…) and non-agricultural parts of a rural area form a whole distinguishable from an urban area, which is characterised by a high concentration of inhabitants and of vertical or horizontal structures’;

1.1.3

takes note of the fact that the EU uses the criterion established by the OECD to define rural municipalities, namely: municipalities with fewer than 150 inhabitants per km2. This definition excludes peri-urban areas, however, where the population density is higher;

1.1.4

points out that this opinion aims to examine rural municipalities in the widest meaning of the term, thus including peri-urban areas whose economies are predominantly rural;

1.1.5

highlights the fact that according to the European Commission, rural areas account for approximately 90 % of the area of the EU and 25 % of its population. What is more, in the new Member States, the farming sector's share of employment is three times higher than in the 15 pre-enlargement Member States and is even greater in the applicant countries;

1.1.6

notes, however, that in these areas per-capita income is approximately one-third lower than the European average and services are less-developed, and stresses in this respect that many rural communities are marked by a high level of structural unemployment, low per-capita income, strong depopulation trends and a low level of development in the commercial, industrial and tourism sectors;

1.1.7

maintains that although rural municipalities are weak in GDP terms, recognition must be given to the strengths of rural economies, which lie in keeping these areas alive, attracting investment and tourism and taking initiatives to conserve and protect the environment;

1.1.8

underlines the fact that the EU's rural areas are under great pressure to change: globalisation and the resulting developments in agreements under the WTO will inevitably lead to a heavy and steady reduction in subsidies for the farming sector, rendering the CAP inadequate in its current form;

1.1.9

also fears that, in the context of international competition, investors will tend to direct their resources toward the areas from which they expect the greatest financial returns; this means that they will tend to favour densely populated and urban areas, to the detriment of rural areas.

2.1.1

believes that investing in rural development is not simply about securing immediate profit in economic terms, but rather about securing a ‘public asset’ that comes without a price-tag and that involves optimising historical and cultural heritage, maintaining the landscape, preserving biodiversity and protecting the wellbeing of flora and fauna;

2.1.2

maintains in this respect that the social structures of rural centres must be preserved so that cultural heritage is not lost but is nurtured and passed on to new generations;

2.2.1

stresses that promoting entrepreneurship of a kind that is suited to rural areas and that does not lead in the long term to the urbanisation of peri-urban areas is vital to prevent depopulation and to help the countryside flourish;

2.2.2

points out that support must be given for locally-available vocational training, retraining and specialisation, as well as business diversification using local potential, so as to address the ageing of the rural workforce by creating new jobs and employment opportunities for young people locally and staving off rural depopulation;

2.3.1

believes that improving the competitiveness of rural areas means investing in the modernisation and promotion of quality while also protecting the environment and cultural and architectural heritage in a way that complements urban development;

2.3.2

stresses that economic growth in rural areas requires investment in research and development so as to apply new technologies and processes, while also pooling positive experiences;

2.3.3

believes it is necessary to help rural areas to achieve the Lisbon strategy objectives by promoting innovation in small and medium-sized businesses, investing in equipment, machinery and training, and thus modernising the entire production chain and generating knock-on effects;

2.3.4

considers it would also be useful to continue along the path opened up by the LEADER programme, which has enabled cooperation between public and private sectors for local development in rural areas;

2.3.5

believes that rural municipalities should support local entrepreneurship that assists with rural development but that does not lead in the long term to urbanisation;

2.4.1

stresses the usefulness of developing a fully diversified local economy;

2.4.2

believes it is necessary, to this end, to encourage farmers to adopt management systems that enable them to respond more effectively to market trends, to foster entrepreneurship and to make farms and related businesses more dynamic by framing new commercial strategies, while encouraging the pooling of good practice and promoting business assistance and benchmarking schemes;

2.4.3

believes it essential to facilitate access to credit for farming businesses, including by means of special revolving funds;

2.5.1

judges food quality to be an important factor in job creation, given the major growth potential of high-quality processed and non-processed farm products;

2.5.2

considers that it is necessary to improve information on product quality and to invest in quality labels, organic farming and production methods that are respectful to the environment and animal welfare, in order for the agri-food sector to seize the development opportunities offered by new technologies;

2.5.3

recognises that organic farming is one of the most dynamic sectors in Community farming and that more and more farms are planning to switch to organic production, which is why incentives should be used to promote this type of farming;

2.5.4

believes that conventional crops must be protected and promoted and income sources boosted by making the most of local specialities to produce and market quality products;

2.5.5

points out that rural municipalities can play a major role in promoting typical local products, by planning initiatives and events focusing on the quality of products and their dissemination on the market, starting at local and regional level;

2.6.1

is of the opinion that the new technologies must be harnessed to further rural development;

2.6.2

believes that little use is made of these technologies as yet in rural communities, either by public authorities or business;

2.6.3

notes that private operators, put off by low population levels that might mean investment shows little return in the short and medium term, are not keen to invest in advanced technologies in rural areas;

2.6.4

for that reason believes it is necessary to prepare Community framework policies and national and regional support policies for the dissemination of modern communications and technologies that can bring the more remote areas closer to the rest of the economic system;

2.6.5

considers, therefore, that investment is needed to extend broadband cover, and to provide the rural population with access to IT equipment and facilities and the necessary training to be able to use it fully, and believes that information technology can assist with local marketing and with nurturing new business activities and distance selling of rural products;

2.7.1

is aware that the conservation of natural resources and their proper use and reuse can hold out considerable potential for the development of rural areas;

2.7.2

believes, in this context, that water, wind and biomass are strategic resources and that setting up systems for the supply of alternative non-fossil fuel sources of energy can provide opportunities for many public authorities responsible for energy supply and management to manage facilities directly or in partnership;

2.7.3

stresses that the use of local energy sources would make local communities more self-sufficient and safe in terms of energy supply;

2.7.4

stresses the vital need to address these issues seriously in rural areas, as they could generate innovative growth in terms of safeguarding the environment, using and reusing farm waste and creating new jobs;

2.7.5

draws attention to recent studies which show that in addition to well-established alternative fuels derived from the direct cultivation of products such as colza or maize, it can also be profitable to produce fuel from farm and forestry waste and other energy crops; and stresses that the best results in terms of economic and social knock-on effects are achieved when collection, processing and use are kept local;

2.8.1

refers to the European Landscape Convention and stresses that the rural landscape is a fundamental part of the European Union's heritage;

2.8.2

recalls that the Convention's self-appointed aim is ‘to promote landscape protection, management and planning, and to organise European cooperation on landscape issues’, so as ‘to achieve sustainable development based on a balanced and harmonious relationship between social needs, economic activity and the environment’;

2.8.3

emphasises that the landscape is not just part of local culture but is also an important economic resource contributing to the creation of jobs, as natural and cultural attractions can be promoted through activities that develop sustainable tourism;

2.8.4

reiterates the role which local communities play as custodians of the landscape and in warding off the risks of erosion, and stresses the need to disseminate a risk-aware and proactive culture of land management;

2.8.5

believes that — given the growing importance of initiatives designed to harness the landscape and the land with a view to supporting the rural tourism and agri-tourism sector as a whole, as stressed in the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Tourism and Culture: two forces for growth’ — local authorities can work on regional marketing campaigns, encouraging a sustainable level of tourism as a resource that can boost the local economy while respecting the environment;

2.8.6

believes that incentives should be used to encourage the renovation of abandoned houses. Rural depopulation has in recent decades led to the desertion of entire villages. If these are to be repopulated and gain new life, massive redevelopment of their housing stock and historical buildings will be required;

2.9.1

notes that, in many parts of Europe, shrinking populations make it difficult to maintain a sufficient supply of services for rural municipalities. Infrastructure networks — for water supply in particular, but also for waste disposal and recycling, and for public transport — require a sufficiently large number of users. If people move away, it is likely that demand will fall and the cost for users will increase. Realistic solutions based on the subsidiarity principle must be sought, to maintain the viability of rural areas as places in which to live and work;

2.9.2

points out that public-private partnerships between local authorities and economic players may be a way to develop the infrastructure and links to energy and IT networks, thereby raising the standard of living in rural areas;

2.9.3

believes that the existence of adequate public, social and neighbourhood services can spur new families to set up home in the country although they work in town, thus reversing the rural exodus that has gone hand in hand with the gradual reduction of essential services such as schools, post offices and doctors' surgeries;

2.9.4

draws attention to the key role of education and stresses that the presence of high-quality human resources, providing rural areas with under-estimated potential, is a necessary precondition for development; to this end, considers it necessary to maintain local secondary schools and facilitate access to establishments further afield;

2.9.5

believes it is essential to assist with the development of early childhood services: the lack of childcare facilities can prevent women from working and can be a reason for the poor development of the labour market in rural areas;

2.9.6

considers local public transport to be of strategic importance: rural communities that are served by efficient public transport to and from neighbouring urban areas can resist depopulation and even encourage a reverse trend;

2.9.7

considers services for senior citizens to be a key factor in encouraging retired people to move to the country, where they can enjoy a better quality of life and health and bring additional income to rural areas, and believes that older people should be encouraged to stay in rural communities by developing an infrastructure including health centres, meeting and recreation places and support services;

2.9.8

believes that all necessary means should be used to develop and improve access to culture in rural municipalities;

2.10.1

believes that a debate on the development of local government in rural areas would be useful;

2.10.2

notes that, in many Member States, the organisational structures of local authorities, which tended to be rather small and rudimentary, have evolved in recent decades in order to increase their clout and capacity for governance, not least by setting up inter-municipal associations of various kinds; also considers that this phenomenon, which in institutional terms implies administrative decentralisation, should be monitored closely and on a permanent basis in cooperation with national associations of local authorities;

2.10.3

points out that this phenomenon has resulted increasingly in administration and management involving inter-municipal cooperation and associations. These include associations of municipalities, partnerships, consortia and other forms of theme-based network;

2.10.4

stresses that in some cases this can provide a way of supplying high-quality basic services: new joint bodies can create the preconditions for optimising resources and services that were previously managed by individual organisations on a tight budget;

2.10.5

highlights the fact that new organisations already exist in almost all the Member States, established by the State or in partnership with private institutions, for the joint management of general interest services in the field of energy or water supply, transport, waste, education, health care and social welfare, environmental protection, sports facilities or land-use management;

2.10.6

also notes the creation of organisations that focus on pooling resources, solidarity and inter-municipal partnership as part of a regional dynamic, and encourages such forms of (inter-municipal) cooperation, not least through Community programmes and benchmarking initiatives.

3.1

considers the establishment of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to be a very positive step for the future development of rural areas and in particular of rural municipalities, although its funding has been far below what was anticipated, and it does not believe it to be the definitive answer to the formation of the EU's rural development policy; with a view to securing practical and lasting results, calls on the European Commission to tie the rural development strategy and the EAFRD in with the investment in research, culture and the environment in rural areas, that is already supported by the other Structural Funds and other Community policies; calls for further emphasis to be put on the European Social Fund, education and employment;

3.2

recommends that cohesion policy measures complement actions supported by the EAFRD, in particular regarding the third axis, which relates to quality of life and economic diversification, and the LEADER axis. The European Commission has stipulated that Member States and regions must ensure that Structural Fund measures are coherent with those of the EAFRD's three axes. Rural municipalities have few resources and a limited number of staff: Community, national and regional funding should offer them financial instruments and measures to help them survive and prosper;

3.3

hopes to see increased cooperation between the two Commission directorates-general responsible for regional policy and agricultural policy, so as to maximise the impact of the Union's financial measures for the development of rural areas and towns. As mentioned above, the EAFRD cannot solve all the problems facing rural areas on its own; that is why the involvement of other funds must be secured;

3.4

hopes for a further general streamlining of rural financing;

3.5

calls on the Commission to recognise the associations that represent municipalities as active partners in the setting of new priorities, to promote awareness of EAFRD and Structural Fund programmes and to promote their practical implementation in rural areas, including outlying areas and those with a low population density;

3.6

hopes that the present opinion will contribute to the formulation of a strategy to make Europe's rural municipalities into modern ‘sustainable communities’, thereby securing for them the profile that is rightfully theirs, recognition for their role and support for their growth in the European context. As well as strengthening their role in protecting the local environment and creating prosperity by increasing employment and entrepreneurship opportunities in the countryside, this approach would buttress their cultural values, traditions and local characteristics in general, while also preserving a healthier quality of life;

3.7

recalls that the European Union, whose work is based on the principle of territorial and social cohesion, cannot ignore the challenges which small municipalities face to secure for their citizens a level of income that can keep present and future generations in the area and provide them with adequate services;

3.8

points out that there are considerable differences in prosperity between rural municipalities themselves, and believes it is necessary for the funds to generate a maximum of added value so as to raise the standard of living of people in rural areas;

3.9

with a view to more decentralised implementation of the Lisbon strategy, hopes that greater consideration will be given to the needs of rural areas and that there will be a better policy balance between urban and rural areas when future programmes are framed for them (10);

3.10

points out the extent to which the outskirts of towns in Europe exert excessive pressure on rural areas and would like to see a balance between sustainable agriculture and the economic dynamics of towns;

3.11

calls for instruments and mechanisms for comparison and cooperation between small municipalities and regional capitals, in order to arrive at jointly agreed arrangements for governing relations between areas, particularly when big cities are also concerned, while also strengthening the networks of small urban centres that structure the rural world;

3.12

believes it would also be useful to improve links between urban centres and surrounding areas so as to relieve congestion in big cities and offer people the chance to live outside urban centres; this would also facilitate the marketing of products from rural areas;

3.13

reiterates the need for open dialogue between rural stakeholders when it comes to preparing, implementing, monitoring and assessing programmes and believes that local authorities should be given a greater say in structural policy, as they are in the best position to identify and assess the problems and expectations of their regions;

3.14

takes the view that rural municipalities should play an active part in the partnership organised at local level by both Member States and regions in order to define national strategic plans and national rural development programmes; feels therefore, that a bottom-up approach is required, to allow all the players involved to exercise a strong influence on their preparation;

3.15

hopes that the trend towards exchanges and twinning arrangements between Europe's rural areas will continue to increase. Initiatives of this kind will provide important opportunities to acquire new knowledge, exchange best practice and experience and achieve greater cultural integration. Cultural tourism in rural areas should certainly be promoted by improving the skills of local people to develop the tourist industry and by publicising the unique tourist attractions across the EU;

3.16

points out that many Community cooperation programmes have to date been directed largely at urban areas, and hopes that regional and local authorities will encourage the creation of more rural partnerships so that a growing number of innovative examples of cooperation will involve rural areas too;

3.17

points out that rural municipalities are particularly well placed to try out innovative policies in the field of renewable energy sources; and hopes that rural municipalities will obtain financing and assistance to enable them to invest in renewable energy, in particular solar panels, biomass and wind power, with a view to achieving energy self-sufficiency while also increasing the income of rural communities;

3.18

hopes that the Commission will launch a programme for the exchange of innovative best practice in economic matters between rural areas in the EU;

3.19

asks that Community policies refrain from imposing unsustainable standards on local speciality products made by crafts people and small businesses;

3.20

calls on the European Union to support the creation and development of micro-enterprises that use or make traditional products, and to encourage equality between men and women and job openings for young people;

3.21

considers 2008 to be a crucial year for decisions on the future of the CAP, particularly those relating to the transfer of resources from the first pillar to the second; invites, for that reason, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to consider the needs of rural areas when framing their future proposals;

3.22

calls on the Commission to devise appropriate policies to support rural areas in their efforts to combine growth and sustainability and to harness potential that will enable them to create their own development systems, so as not to be simply trailing behind urban areas;

3.23

hopes that the future of rural areas will be given full consideration in the on-going debate on shaping the EU's regional agenda, most especially by taking a practical look at partnership between rural and urban areas, taking into account the balancing role played by small towns.

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/25

Implementing the Hague Programme: the way forward

Evaluation of EU policies on freedom, security and justice

Report on the implementation of the Hague Programme for 2005

1.

the extent to which European policy on freedom, security and justice proves to be successful over the next few years will be of decisive importance to the judgement of European citizens as to the added value provided by the European Union;

2.

regional and local authorities have responsibilities in the field of public order and security and the effectiveness and efficiency of EU policy is thus also determined to a considerable extent by the involvement of these bodies;

3.

the policy on freedom, security and justice has made a ‘step forward towards achieving greater maturity’, thereby providing the ideal opportunity to make it tie in more effectively with the role of regional and local authorities;

1.1

believes that regional and local authorities have a key role to play in the policy area of freedom, security and justice; draws attention to the fact that, in its earlier opinion (CdR 122/2005), it set out concrete recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of EU policy in this field by paying more attention to the experience of regional and local authorities in the preparation, implementation and evaluation of the policy;

1.2

greatly appreciates the efforts made by the Commission in the field of freedom, security and justice; the Communications under review reveal an ambition and bold determination to achieve these objectives; does, however, express its concern over the considerable discrepancies with regard to the implementation of the Hague Programme measures in the EU Member States;

1.3

has understanding, in view of the complex nature of this policy area and the time constraints to which the drawing-up of these Communications was subject, for the fact that it is no easy task to achieve more direct involvement of regional and local authorities; does, however, deplore the fact that the Commission's intention in the short term, to develop a way of working which takes account of the recommendations put forward by the CoR is not mentioned in the Communications under review;

1.4

believes that such a way of working still can and will be developed inter alia, on the basis of the discussion announced by the Commission in the conclusions to Communication COM(2006) 331;

1.5

endorses the choice of policy areas requiring closer attention during the period of operation of the Hague Programme; and appreciates the efforts made by the Commission to streamline and speed up the decision-making process as much as possible by making use of legal mechanisms provided for under existing European treaties;

1.6

regrets the absence as yet of sufficient support for actually adopting a better approach in the short term;

1.7

endorses the need to improve monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and notes that the proposals put forward by the Commission are in line with its recommendations. This represents a step in the right direction towards the adoption of a more systematic, structured and integrated approach. This will make it possible to render the policy more readily comprehensible, more identifiable and more feasible. By building on the knowledge and experience of national, regional and local authorities, a coherent and targeted set of indicators can be developed which provides valuable information and prevents unnecessary duplication;

1.8

wishes to do its utmost to bring about close involvement of regional and local authorities in the organisation and implementation of the evaluations, and supports the proposal to designate contact points in the EU Institutions, too, for the dialogue with the Commission with a view, also, to improving the quality and effectiveness of the evaluation reports;

1.9

underlines the importance of carrying out thorough strategic policy evaluations in respect of a number of parts of the policy and expects that this will make it possible to pay more attention to the consequences in respect of implementation practice at regional and local level.

2.1

calls for clearer agreements with regard to cooperation between the European Institutions and regional and local authorities in the field of freedom, security and justice;

2.2

urges that steps be taken in the short term to demonstrate how its earlier proposals have been taken into account in the elaboration of the Communications under review;

2.3

urgently recommends that the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament seek practical, feasible and workable solutions in the short term to the shortcomings which have been highlighted in the implementation at national level of the mechanisms defined in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union;

2.4

urges, in line with the view set out in its earlier opinion, that regional and local authorities be more directly involved in the establishment of the annual scoreboard, for example by holding hearings with teams of experts. There is bound to be interest not only in what has been achieved on paper but also, and above all, in the practical consequences, which are closely linked to the development of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;

2.5

notes that this evaluation process clearly reveals the scant progress made on combating illegal immigration. It therefore urges the EU to engage fully in developing a common immigration policy that addresses the various complex aspects relating to irregular immigrants;

2.6

calls for the common underlying principles for the establishment of a coherent European framework for integration in the short term to be further developed into a practical ‘toolbox’ for regional and local authorities, with a view to stimulating the integration process at regional and local level and rendering it more professional;

2.7

proposes, in line with the views set out in its earlier opinion, that steps be taken to promote the development of a situation whereby, at local level too, the integration process clearly forms an integral part of the various strands of government policy;

2.8

urges that regional and local authorities be involved in the drawing up of draft legislation in respect of the establishment of an early warning and information network covering infrastructure of critical importance;

2.9

advises the Commission, in the context of the debate on how to do (more) justice to the expectations of Community citizens in respect of EU policy in the fields of freedom, security and justice and how to make this policy more effective, to make provision also for direct discussions with regional and local authorities, NGOs, the business community, etc.;

2.10

recommends the Commission to pay considerable attention to preventing the proposed monitoring and evaluation mechanisms from being organised in a bureaucratic way and ensuring that they are geared to implementation procedures;

2.11

urges that, when the proposed measures for providing information for all ‘stakeholders’ are being implemented, steps be taken to ensure that the knowledge and experience of regional and local authorities play an important role in this context;

2.12

requests the Commission also to take account of the CoR's earlier recommendations when it implements the proposals with regard to the national reporting mechanisms. National reports should also, as a rule, explicitly indicate how regional and local authorities are involved in the implementation of the policy. A simple statement to the effect that consultations are carried out with some degree of regularity is unsatisfactory.

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/27

1.1

notes that whilst growth rates have been slower across the EU during 2005, the presence of Convergence Programmes has been beneficial to those regions concerned in terms of leverage and additionality;

1.2

welcomes, therefore, the Communication's finding that the present level of disparities in the EU makes clear the need for a pan EU regional policy that promotes growth and reduces disparities across the European Union;

1.3

stresses that Cohesion Policy plays a key role in all EU regions, given the importance that EU multi annual programming of the Structural Funds has in maintaining planned levels of public investment throughout periods of economic downturn in the Member States. In addition, EU funding provides a stable planning process, an external stimulus and leverage effects which are essential to sustainable regional development;

1.4

welcomes the fact that the final regulations allow for private funding to co finance Structural Fund expenditure in order to avoid greater pressure on regional and local budgets.

2.1

welcomes the European Commission's performance in terms of Budget Execution in 2005;

2.2

supports the more strategic approach being taken by the European Commission through the Community Strategic Guidelines;

2.3

underlines that the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) and the elaboration of Operation Programmes should be guided by the partnership approach as defined in the General regulation on Structural Funds. The principle of partnership is essential for the efficiency and success of Cohesion Policy;

2.4

reiterates the importance of both regional and local levels being associated in the elaboration of the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and Operational Programmes. This process should be guided by the good principles of ‘multi-level governance’ of Cohesion Policy, involving local and regional authorities as well as economic and social actors;

2.5

believes that in order to tackle significant variations in growth rates between regions, the new ‘Territorial Cooperation’ Objective merits greater reference in the Report, given the added value that exchanging best practice between performing regions and those with lower growth rates can have for EU Cohesion Policy as a whole;

2.6

remains concerned that the target of 24 million new jobs needed for the EU to hit the 70 % Lisbon employment rate by 2010 will be unachievable unless Member States make significant efforts to achieve job related growth;

2.7

acknowledges the need for Cohesion Policy to deliver increases in growth and employment through the ‘Earmarking Process’. The Cur welcomes the final inclusive list which will allow a wider range of basic actions like transport, telecoms, social inclusion relevant to local and regional authorities whose primary concern is to reduce regional disparities;

2.8

notes that the earmarking process will entail substantial changes for all regions across the EU-15 where earmarking is obligatory. The earmarking process must therefore take into account the particular needs and situations arising in EU regions;

2.9

considers that Growth and Jobs strategies supported by the Structural Funds clearly need to be designed with greater input from local and regional authorities. The successful preparation of National Reform Programmes and the new generation of Cohesion Policy programmes for 2007-2013 strongly depends on the quality of coordination between Member States and the local and regional level;

2.10

underlines the policy set out in the Lisbon Annual Progress Report (APR) to develop stronger and systematic coordination mechanisms between those responsible for the National Reform Programmes and those preparing the Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013;

2.11

underlines the important contribution that local and regional authorities can make to the Lisbon process through their education and skills agendas given the importance of increasing skill levels as part of economic development;

2.12

is conscious of the benefits that the alignment of EU regional funding with domestic funds can have in terms of leverage and efficiency, but urges the European Commission to be vigilant, notwithstanding the new definition of additionality, to ensure that Structural Funds remain clearly visible at local and regional level;

2.13

welcomes the initiative taken by the European Commission in conjunction with the EIB in favour of innovation and sustainability in regional policy including more innovative forms of financial engineering in the regions such as JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) and JEREMIE (support for Sees in the area of financial engineering);

2.14

urges that local and regional authorities, together with the European Commission identify and target needs for additional capacity building at the local and regional level taking account of progress made in previous programmes;

2.15

underlines the essential interrelationship that exists between urban and rural areas across the European Union and is concerned by the continuing lack of synergy and demarcation between the emerging Structural, Rural Development and Fisheries programmes for the 2007-13 period;

2.16

looks forward, as the representative body of local and regional governments, to a productive dialogue with the European Commission on the Fourth Cohesion Report, expected in spring 2007.

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/29

1.1

The Committee of the Regions has identified the issue of gender equality as one of the top priorities for 2006. The launch of a roadmap for gender equality concerns the basis of the European social model. Promoting equal opportunities and combating all forms of discrimination are among the CoR's key policy priorities.

1.2

Concrete proposals should now follow on how to achieve gender equality and improve the situation, particularly of women in the member states, in particular in the context of the year of equal opportunities for all 2007. The gender pact, agreed to by the governments of several member states, like the gender equality road map, sets out a number of targets and aims, but concrete proposals are now urgently needed on how these policies can be implemented. However, the nature and effect of the measures should be sustainable, and, in the context of the gender equality roadmap 2006-2010, should run over a longer period.

1.3

Gender equality has to come to be universally espoused as a desirable objective for citizens using the services provided by local and regional authorities and a central pillar of policy for governments and politicians of all persuasions. Regional and Local authorities have a key role to play in this respect because they are closest to their citizens and to the issues that concern them. Therefore they must help to set a positive example of non-discrimination, in particular also in their role as major employers in the EU and as key providers of services which have a direct impact on gender equality (see below).

1.4

Thus, local and regional authorities should act as catalysts, as supporting and facilitating bodies. Their prime objective is to strike a balance between genders. Therefore all those who need it are to be supported with the necessary means to strengthen their position in society and to gain access to the labour market.

1.5

To adhere to this, the CoR must ensure that there is political commitment for:

The Committee of the Regions, and the local and regional authorities it represents, are ready to make their contribution to realising these objectives through concrete action. This should be done with a view to the year of equal opportunities for all — 2007, but the nature and effect of the measures should be sustainable, and, in the context of the gender equality roadmap 2006-2010, should run over a longer period.

1.6

The CoR welcomes the initiative of the European Commission to launch a new roadmap for equality among genders which follows a series of other documents setting out the general aims of European policy to achieve gender equality. In a previous opinion (1) the CoR has expressed the need for a coherent and inclusive strategy to combat gender inequalities throughout the European Union. Gender equality is a fundamental right and a common value, it is not subject to any negotiations or restrictions. It does require, however, also concrete political action at all levels of governance to be realised.

1.7

It is generally agreed by the European institutions that the success of the European project depends on the ability of the EU and its institutions to address people's concerns at grass-root level. Hence the success of the Roadmap depends greatly on the ability of EU institutions to mobilize to its advantage the intimate expertise and resources of regional and local governments in its implementation. There are a number of examples of successful local and regional level equality initiatives that are worth disseminating. This appears to be lacking from the present Roadmap strategy.

1.8

The CoR welcomes the Roadmap vision to support the European Institute for Gender Equality. The CoR would like to follow the debate on the exact mandate for this new agency and how it is supposed to translate the general policy aims into concrete action. The Committee of the Regions stresses the need for reliable and comparable scientific data on the situation regarding gender equality at the different levels of governance, and believes that the Institute for Gender Equality will have an important function as a tool to create networks for the collection and exchange of such data. It also believes that another important function of this institute would be to monitor gender education policies and practices across the EU and to make recommendations and offer suggestions for improvement.

1.9

The CoR insists that in these efforts, a strong emphasis must be given to involving the regional and local level. Monitoring developments at the levels closest to the citizens and exchanging best practices are key to maximise the impact of the Institute. To this end, the Gender Equality Institute should be looking into ways to de-centralise its activities and should be given the necessary means to do so.

1.10

Another key aspect to improve gender equality policy at EU level is the need to improve governance of the EU institutions working in this field. This concerns in particular the improvement of coordination between different parts of the Commission to strengthen the implementation of gender mainstreaming across policy areas. It also requires efforts to improve training and education for officials as well as for trainers and educators at all levels to sensitise them to gender equality issues. This should include the language used in all documents, particularly that referring to women as minorities, making such documentation more reflective of a gender neutral regime.

1.11

A re-examination of the hierarchy of the priority areas as defined by the Commission should be considered. An effective roadmap focus on both economic and social equality to address the glaring inequalities that still exist today in gender participation in decision making and political life generally. There is a growing understanding across Europe that gender equality is vital for Europe's economic well-being as well as being an important goal in its own right. For example, despite the fact that Europe today boasts a standard of living that is a model for the rest of the world, it is also true that not everywhere in the EU has economic well-being been translated into gender equality or greater well-being for women. For this reason it is important to stress that it does not follow automatically that economic well-being will automatically result in gender equality. A direct route is needed, as well as the necessary means, if Europe is to reach its final destination of gender equality.

1.12

Regional and Local Authorities, being closest to the people and responsible for most of their important social, educational and economic aspects of their daily lives, have the capacity to translate the values and structures inherent in the Roadmap into effective reality. The European Commission, too, recognises this in its endorsement of the European Charter for Equality of Women and Men in Local Life, which was drawn up by the CEMR within the context of the European Commission's Fifth Community Action Programme. The values of the Roadmap must become an integral part of policies being implemented at Regional and Local level. The aim to eliminate gender stereotypes in education, training and culture and the strengthening of governance for gender equality can be best achieved at this level as much as the effective monitoring of the process.

1.13

There is tendency for institutions of the EU, National, Regional and Local level to discuss gender issues merely in terms of statistics. While reliable and comparable statistics are useful and necessary to understand today's situation, there is a danger that statistics may be used to justify policies which are mere ‘tokenism’. It is therefore necessary to ensure the accurate interpretation of statistics in order to translate them into appropriate concrete action. A breakdown of statistics by gender will allow for a better evaluation of data and the current impact, or lack of, gender policies being pursued across the EU and at Regional and Local Government levels.

1.14

It also appears that it would be at the Regional and Local level that new funds and other initiatives can be employed effectively towards the implementation of the values and the provision of the necessary structures for the realization for the Roadmap. The development of ‘Social Community Plans’ can be a management tool to assist Regional and Local authorities to examine the needs of the local community, and based on scientific research, address the needs of targeted disadvantaged groups.

1.15

It is clear that the attainment of the Lisbon objectives required the contribution of both sexes, not least women. This includes their participation in the labour market, greater family responsibility to be assumed by men, and the possibility for both men and women to reconcile family and work commitments, which is likely to have a decisive impact on the future demographic development in the EU.

1.16

In order to achieve this, one crucial aspect is the need for effective measures that would encourage men to assume an equal share of family responsibility, and for better and more childcare facilities which are accessible and affordable for those who need use them. Many EU Member States need to make greater efforts to achieve the Barcelona 2002 targets in this respect and they should work closely with their local and regional authorities towards this goal.

1.17

The value of the long term political objectives would depend on the drawing up of concrete policies, with appropriate funds, where every member of the community would be appreciated and benefits. Alongside, new initiatives to eliminate gender stereotypes in working, private and political life also need to benefit and be encouraged.

1.18

The CoR believes that the fundamental task is to ensure that concrete opportunities exist which would make gender equality a reality. It is the existence of opportunities that will ultimately make the difference. The market is concerned with profits and pricing policies, but also with the quality of provided services. Gender equality can only be achieved when essential services, that is good quality services, are available to all citizens. The social agenda of the EU should consider these aspects.

1.19

It is now several decades ago that Europe agreed on equal pay legislation. Today we are still a long way from equality (2). There must be a strong political commitment by the EU institutions to enforce already existing legislation/directives, even to the extent of taking court action, against Member States which continue to ignore present and future legislation/directives. The EU must take note of present circumstances and work for a firm commitment from EU member states to gender equality. The gender equality has to become a real priority in all Member States. This would also increase EU's position when addressing gender issues in international fora.

1.20

The same is true also for the urgent need to reinforce action against human trafficking. Regional and local authorities must be helped to combat the scourge of human trafficking and the economic abuse of irregular immigrants. Human trafficking has become a problem of vast proportions and must receive attention quickly. Attention is also required to ensure that illegal immigrants, but especially women and children, held in detention have their dignity and their rights respected. The Committee of the Regions will make it its aim to work to encourage and increase greater cooperation among its members in the fight against these abuses. This will increase the effectiveness of EU cooperation against these grievous crimes which inflict extreme suffering and hardship and are an affront to human dignity. It will also provide a stronger base for international cooperation at all levels of governance, which should be increased.

1.21

Sex-related violence is usually a matter of male violence against women. This is a serious societal problem and a threat to women's and children's health, welfare and lives. It is a crime against the fundamental right to life, security, freedom, dignity and physical and emotional integrity. The most important preventive measure involves disseminating expertise and working actively on values and attitudes. By working actively for greater equality we can create societies in which boys and girls are given the same chances and rights, one in which girls and women are not subjected to male violence. Local and regional authorities, which are the level closest to citizens, have a major responsibility in these areas, but they also have a lot of experience, with best practice and programmes targeting both the victims and the perpetrators of crime.

1.22

To achieve genuine gender equality, the problem of under-representation of women in political and economic decision making must be tackled. Local and regional authorities have a key role to play here because gender equality in participation in politics and in economic life should be built from the bottom up. In this context, the CoR suggests that the idea of quota systems should be discussed at the different levels of governance. However quotas by themselves cannot solve the problem of inequality and discrimination, but they may be one element of a broader and integrated strategy to break up existing structures which exclude women from decision making at the moment.

1.23

Considering that the upcoming year is dedicated to ‘Equal Opportunities for All’, the CoR must stress on Members States the obligation to ensure parity in national delegations represented in the CoR.

1.24

The political groups in the CoR are encouraged to take active part in the discussion regarding gender equality. As part of its commitment to the ‘Year’ the CoR itself should draw up a strategy detailing how it will work with national delegations and political groups to address the issue of gender imbalance within the membership of the CoR.

1.25

The CoR, through its commissions, should also commit itself in ensuring that future opinions of this body are based on equal input and participation from both women and men and that parity in all work of the Committee of the Regions should be its aim.

1.26

Local and regional authorities throughout the Member States and non Member States vary in size but not in mission, in their enactment dates but not in principle. Above all, they are a change agent because they have the knowledge about local and regional needs and are in pivotal positions to ensure that services provided are designed around the needs for the enhancement of the well being of their communities.

1.27

A key challenge lies in having an open debate for all citizens, as this concerns both men and women, and in the concrete steps towards gender equality.

1.28

From their end local and regional authorities should seek to promote equality between women and men through projects financed by either themselves or through the availability of funds by the EU at the early stages of primary schools, even by sharing success stories achieved between different countries.

1.29

Political authorities at all levels have the potential to change the dominant discourse and thus the cultural norms. This could be achieved by strategies which would include targeting the community through educators, employers and employees, national and international institutions and above all the media for a more effective realisation of gender equality. In concrete terms, this means for local, regional but also national and EU institutions that gender equality should become an element of all their own communication with the citizens. This in turn requires appropriate education and training of those responsible within the institutions, but also of media representatives to sensitise them to gender issues. In the context of the ongoing debate about the future of Europe under the Commission's plan ‘D’ for democracy, debate and dialogue, to which the Committee of the Regions wishes to add the fourth ‘D’ for decentralisation, gender equality issues should be included as a crucial element of bringing Europe closer to its citizens.

2.1

In addition to an exploration of educational, economic and social factors, the EU would need cooperate closely with the media and show itself willing to establish codes of practice which, while leaving established freedoms and creativity untouched, roots out those elements which defeat the priorities set out in the roadmap. The media may be a means for disseminating the values of the roadmap but entrenched vested interests have the potential of covertly putting obstacles in its path. Thus, fulfilling the objectives of the roadmap may ultimately be a test of the ability of the EU to create a European society which pays more than just lip service to gender equality.

2.2

Democracy, to be effective and meaningful must ensure the possibility of full participation by citizens over the final binding decisions that touch on their everyday life. As long as gender inequality in decision making remains, democracy within the EU will also remain not fully attainable. CoR and EU institutions must engage together to speed up the reform of democratic processes in member states and propose ethical standards of political governance for an increasingly globalised world. Gender equality is one such ethical standard.

2.3

The issue of domestic violence and especially of men against women needs to be addressed also at EU Commission level in an effort that greater cooperation between members will facilitate prosecution of individuals accused of domestic violence even if they have changed their country of residence.

2.4

Gender equality may well be harder to achieve until services which allow women to take their rightful place in decision making structures are made widely available. If the aims of the roadmap are achieved, women will have a better chance of entering the job market and enhancing their chances of being economically independent.

2.5

Regional and local authorities in their role as major employers should lead by setting high standards of gender equality. One way of ensuring this would, in many cases, be to ensure gender equality on recruitment panels. This is very often ignored as a crucial element in decision making.

2.6

A further step in this direction is to seek that the CoR should project itself as a role model to local, regional, national and European institutions, whereby ensuring that recruitment policies take full recognition of the understanding of gender issues by future applicants and in sensitising current employees even through training and retraining.

2.7

The CoR does not have gender balance among its membership and therefore can not be seen as a model of good practice for local and regional government in the EU. Using 2007 ‘The European Year of Equal Opportunities for all’ as the catalyst it should work with National delegations and political groups represented in the CoR to draw up a strategy of how it will work towards achieving gender parity and publish that strategy in 2007.

2.8

Other areas in which gender inequalities have a negative impact on the attainment of agreed objectives by their tendency to delay or obstruct full and equal women participation in every sphere of life need to be addressed firmly. Glaring examples may be found in many areas of social policy, which include health, education, social security and housing, etc., which are not sufficiently sensitive to gender based differences.

2.9

For more family-friendly measures to ensure that women and men alike have equal access to paid employment and services, local and regional authorities can seek to embark on partnership initiatives with private and public entities that would seek to further access childcare facilities, for which funds could be attained through structural funds and/or the new Progress programme. The Committee of the Regions should serve as a role model, both for its political structures and employees. In order to do this it needs to become a leader in the provisions of child care facilities given that its premises are in constant use by its employees, associations of every sort and political people.

2.10

It is for these reasons that great consideration should be given to the potential of local and regional authorities as they are in a better position to implement the roadmap while keeping in full view the cultural and socio-economic milieu in which it has to be implemented. This opinion is of the view that the aims of the Roadmap cannot succeed if the process of gender equality is not worked from the bottom-up with the full participation of citizens at the regional and local level. In this context, a useful reference point for all local and regional authorities is provided by the CEMR's Charter for Equality of Women and Men in Local Life, which gives a concrete structure to the objectives of the Roadmap, in accordance with the competences of local and regional authorities. Indeed, Regional and Local governments should not only be directly involved through a decentralised roadmap. The CoR and its members must promote, support and act as guardians of gender equality.

2.11

If agreed by the CoR's budgetary authorities, the CoR should organise an annual Equality Forum in order to bring together local and regional, public, private and voluntary sector powers to engage in exchanges of methodology, expertise and experience. Costs should be kept down in order to encourage broad participation.

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/34

1.

social services of general interest (SSGI), although developed differently in the Member States, are an essential element of the European social model (7);

2.

a stable, transparent legal framework at EU level is therefore required to develop SSGI in strict accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and in particular the responsibilities of the local and regional authorities in defining the missions, management and financing of these services;

3.

in this context, local administrative freedom and the principle of the Member States' freedom to define the missions and organisation of SSGI must be reaffirmed, especially since the local authorities often have primary responsibility for managing these services in their capacity as solidarity players in local life;

4.

it is important to recall that SSGI are an integral part of the family of services of general interest (SGI) and, as such, play an essential role in ensuring social and human solidarity and protection throughout the European Union;

5.

a link must be established with Article 16 of the Treaty, which stresses the role played by services of general economic interest (SGEI) ‘in promoting social and territorial cohesion’ in the EU, and, consequently, the citizens' right to access SSGI must be recognised and guaranteed as a fundamental right to access SGEI under Article 36 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights;

6.

SSGI, like other SGEI, are also effective tools for implementing the Lisbon Strategy for growth and competitiveness in the EU;

7.

it would therefore be appropriate to establish clearer distinctions between the concepts of SGI and SGEI in order to better identify the specific features of SSGI;

8.

the purpose of this distinction is in particular to highlight the legal consequences of the two concepts and to give local actors legal and financial certainty as to the application of Community law to SSGI and to give them more scope. This should enable the Union to further strengthen the role of local actors in supporting SSGI;

9.

to this end, the Commission should work to support the existing law applicable to SSGI in order to secure greater clarity in relation to these services and avoid any uncertainty with regard to EU law applicable in this area;

10.

it is appropriate to look ahead in order to ensure the necessary consistency between the EU's position when adopting legislation for SSGI and the position it will adopt during WTO negotiations on trade in services (GATS) for social and health policy;

1.1

welcomes the Commission's initiative, following up on to the White Paper on services of general interest, which had announced a systematic approach that focuses on ‘the specific characteristics of social and health services of general interest’ in order to clarify ‘the framework in which they operate’;

1.2

approves the fact that this specific measure is included in the framework for implementing the Lisbon Strategy and the Social Agenda insofar as SSGI, like SGEI, are a source of solidarity and competitiveness for the EU economy as well as a potential source of community-based jobs, a component of the European social model and national social protection and inclusion schemes;

1.3

supports the Communication's approach of recognising social services as services of general interest. Indeed, these essential and vital services fulfil a specific social protection and solidarity mission and are provided directly by the local and regional authorities or delegated to specific operators with responsibility for them. They therefore depend on the Member States' regulatory process regarding the social public policy objectives entrusted to them. The requirement that their missions be fulfilled properly, as set out in Articles 16 and 86(2) of the EC Treaty, should apply to them a priori;

1.4

emphasises, in this context, that SSGI should not be considered as residual services to the population but can, on the contrary, be agents for universal access to quality social services for all citizens;

1.5

recalls that SSGI are meant to guarantee the fulfilment of social policy objectives which are the responsibility of Member States such as social protection, meeting fundamental social needs, i.e. health care, housing, education, care of the elderly and people with disabilities, training and jobs, not to mention solidarity with the vulnerable and the dependent, who rely on the social services;

1.6

recalls that SSGI play an active part in the effective application of human rights and respect for human dignity, as defined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and arising from the common constitutional traditions of all Member States and their international obligations under the Revised Social Charter of the Council of Europe and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

1.7

considers that SSGI contribute to the implementation of the Community's mission, as defined under Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty, and in particular to a high level of social protection, raising the quality of life, the attainment of a high level of health protection, and strengthening economic and social cohesion;

1.8

affirms, in this context, that it is in the interest of the Community that SSGI are developed and modernised in a stable economic and legal framework and regulated by the relevant public authorities at local and regional levels;

1.9

welcomes the steps taken by the Commission to identify the specific characteristics of SSGI and the measures required to modernise them in the light of the stakes involved in meeting existing and future social needs inherent to an ageing population and the exigencies of social cohesion and inclusion in daily life at local and regional levels;

1.10

shares the Commission's views regarding the specific characteristics of these services, especially with regard to the fact that they operate on the basis of the solidarity principle and are personalised. These specificities must be taken into consideration in the application of Community legislation for the internal market and competition, bearing in mind that they have little impact on intra-Community trade and that their development is in the interest of the Community;

1.11

is convinced of the need to overcome existing legal uncertainty regarding the conditions for the application of Community law to arrangements for implementing SSGI. All to often, in the absence of legal certainty in relation to SSGI, the latter tend to fall under the general competition and internal market rules, which may not be appropriate for the specific missions delegated to them by the local and regional authorities. This legal uncertainty became clear during the debate on whether they should be covered by the proposal for a directive on services in the internal market and led to their being excluded from its sphere of application;

1.12

is particularly satisfied that specific reference is made to the principle of subsidiarity, recognising the exclusive responsibility of Member States and their local and regional authorities for identifying the scope, organisational principles, financing methods and regulation of SSGI;

1.13

considers, moreover, that SSGI should in principle be undertaken by the best suited provider. The core values of universality, accessibility, quality and regional programming cannot be met unaided by the market and require structured public intervention, especially for the delivery and payment schemes of the local and regional authorities closest to the citizens;

1.14

considers that the existential nature of the needs to be met (housing, health, jobs), the asymmetry of information between SSGI providers and beneficiaries and, in numerous cases, their extreme vulnerability, requires and justifies a service delivery framework that exempts these services from ‘normal’ supplier/customer relations;

1.15

considers that it is not a matter of bringing fundamental internal market freedoms into conflict with the application of EU fundamental rights or even the obligation to fulfil general interest missions, but rather to reconcile them by adopting a suitable Community Framework for the specific features of these services and the specific missions of public and private operators, always bearing in mind that these grassroots social services generally have little impact on intra-Community trade. This spirit of conciliation should apply to the internal market as well as EU external policy, especially regarding the social and health services aspects of the international negotiations on trade in services (GATS);

1.16

assumes that the Member States and, within them, the relevant public authorities are to retain full responsibility for regulating these services; considers that the conditions for the application of Community rules for the practical implementation of SSGI need to be clarified in the following areas:

In this context, the Committee of the Regions would recall that the fulfilment of SSGI missions should in no way be hindered by the application of the rules of the Treaty;

1.17

stresses that when implementing management principles and procedures for SSGI, the Member States and local and regional authorities must respect the general principles of the EC Treaty, including the principles of equal treatment, free movement, free competition and transparency;

1.18

observes, in this context, that respecting the principle of subsidiarity should not prevent the EC from exercising the responsibility it shares with the Member States to monitor the proper functioning of SSGI in compliance with Article 16 of the Treaty;

1.19

questions the decision not to include health services in the Communication whilst noting the Commission's intention to deal with them in a separate initiative; clear and distinct definitions of social and health services should be put forward;

1.20

regrets that the Commission restricts itself to drawing up a list of ‘organisational characteristics’ for SSGI but does not take this opportunity to define these concepts more precisely, especially with regard to the underlying policy orientations for defining these services in Member States;

1.21

believes that under no circumstance can this list of organisational characteristics be considered exhaustive or restrictive, in deference to the recognised freedom of the Member States and their local authorities to define the organisation of SSGI;

1.22

approves of the Commission's reference to the general need for modernisation and quality in the SSGI sector, a need which is being met by the ongoing decentralisation of services to regional and local levels; in particular with a view to quality, it should be ensured that in future providers of social services continue to be subject to the quality standards and legal conditions of the Member State in which the service is provided;

1.23

shares the Commission's concern to arrange monitoring of the situation regarding social services of general interest and is willing to be fully involved in this process;

1.24

welcomes the link established by the Commission between SSGI and the examination of national action plans for social inclusion, bearing in mind the local dimension of this objective (8), but nevertheless asks the Commission to be more specific about how the open method of coordination, its preferred option, will be applied to the follow-up of its Communication, particularly with regard to what it expects from the various stakeholders in this process;

1.25

supports the Commission's commitment to giving consideration ‘to the need and legal possibility for a legislative proposal’ for SSGI, whereby the Commission aligns itself with the broader position adopted by the Committee of the Regions regarding ‘a proposal for a legal framework which should make possible a definition of positive principles’ for all SGEI (9), whilst affirming that these two initiatives must be complementary and consistent.

2.1

asks the Commission to clarify the nature of the legislative proposals on SSGI as soon as possible and to establish the important monitoring and dialogue procedure and the biennial reports;

2.2

urges the Commission to deliver on its commitment to give consideration to the need and legal possibility for a legislative proposal on SSGI at the end of the open process of consultation;

2.3

also reiterates its recommendation to the Commission (10) to draw up a proposal for legislative regulation which should make possible a definition of certain positive principles for all SGEI, as an ‘umbrella’ initiative for other complementary legislative proposals, and due to their specific features, for SSGI in particular, with a view to providing greater legal certainty for local and regional authorities and service providers;

2.4

asks the Commission to develop more specific and stringent classifications (categories) and definitions (concepts) for the relevant SSGI and to take account of the general interest requirements identified by Member States, and to recognise them as distinct aspects of the definition of these services;

2.5

therefore urges the Commission not to draw up a restrictive list of SSGI concepts, missions and organisational characteristics, in deference to the principle of subsidiarity and the Member States' freedom to define the principles, missions, financing methods and organisation of SSGI;

2.6

suggests that the Commission involve the Committee of the Regions in a permanent monitoring and evaluation process for SSGI (particularly in order to monitor compliance with the right of access to all services, the financial sustainability of services and achieved performance objectives);

2.7

approves the Commission's undertaking to deliver the first biennial report on SSGI by mid-2007 giving the results of its study on the functioning of the sector, its socio-economic importance, as well as the implications of the application of Community law; and finally

2.8

calls for consistency between the Communication's orientations and the EU's external policy for international negotiations on trade in services (GATS).

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/39

1.1

intends, on the occasion of the celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome that it will hold in the Italian capital on 22 and 23 March 2007, to re-affirm the need for a revival of the constitutional process;

1.2

expects, as a consequence of the institutional regulation, to keep the acquired rights granted in the Constitutional Treaty signed by the Heads of State and Government on 29 October 2004, and in particular with regard to the territorial dimension of the European Union;

1.3

reiterates its desire to be involved, together with the European Parliament, the European Commission, the national parliaments and the German presidency, in the preparation of the Berlin Declaration of March 2007 in which it wants to add its voice of support to the renewed commitment to an enlarged, sustainable, open and competitive Europe;

1.4

is aware of the issues at this crucial phase and of the responsibilities which also fall on local and regional elected representatives; is cooperating in the implementation of Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate, particularly as regards its decentralisation in order to encourage an open and direct dialogue with the citizens in Europe's cities and regions on the future of the European Union, and urges reciprocal commitments which will be entered into by the Committee of the Regions and the European Commission with regard to the introduction of a decentralised communication policy;

1.5

believes that an analysis of the costs of not having a Constitution is important for taking the debate forward and showing citizens the benefits of the draft text, and is willing to contribute by identifying such costs from a local and regional authorities' perspective;

2.1

welcomes the new strategy of the European Commission for European citizens which, while resting on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, endeavours to consolidate the Community method by promoting a ‘Europe of projects and results’, in particular with a view to the full completion of an open and efficient single market, the strengthening of solidarity, the implementation of the strategy for sustainable development and the consolidation of security;

2.2

urges the European Commission to make full use of its role as the engine of the European integration process and as guardian of the EU Treaties, and recalls that a coherent long-term political vision which translates into concrete political action is a precondition for ‘better law-making’ and ‘better regulation’;

2.3

welcomes the Commission's commitment to hold a regular dialogue with young people. The EU needs to encourage young people to take part in shaping the future of Europe. Promoting the creation of a citizens' Europe and the integration of young people into society remain priorities for the CoR;

2.4

requests the sustained adoption of European territorial pacts which, in the name of the ‘partnership principle’, will make it possible to increase territorial consistency and the flexibility of policies with a strong territorial impact through structured collaboration between the various levels of governance; therefore calls on the Commission to commit itself to re-launching the test phase for this instrument;

2.5

advocates the strengthening of the Committee of the Regions' commitment at all stages of the Community's decision-making process, and in particular in assessing the territorial impact of major Community policies; stresses, moreover, the decisive role that regional and local authorities, properly involved in the preparation of legislative acts, can play in their transposition and implementation;

2.6

underlines the potential offered by the new European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGCT) Regulation as an innovative legal mechanism for the development of territorial cooperation and looks forward to contributing towards its implementation on the ground by activating concrete initiatives, especially within its cooperation agreement with the European Commission;

2.7

believes that a constant scrutiny should be placed on ensuring proper implementation of EU standards and principles in candidate and pre-candidate countries; stresses that close attention should be paid to genuine decentralisation, respect for cultural and linguistic diversity and the establishment of a modern public administration;

3.1

confirms its commitment to contribute to the review of the EU budgetary framework; announces that a working group has been established for this purpose within the Committee of the Regions Bureau;

4.1

underlines the need for a continuous modernisation of the European economy and the European Social Model through the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs;

4.2

stresses that the results of the Lisbon Monitoring Platform (which has been established by the CoR in 2006) show that the Lisbon governance cycle has to encourage more visible ownership and commitment to delivery at all concerned levels, and greater involvement of local and regional authorities;

4.3

therefore urges the Member States and the European Commission to involve local and regional authorities to a greater extent, as the Lisbon Strategy can only be successfully delivered if all stakeholders are fully involved in the decision-making, implementation and monitoring processes and invites the European Council, the European Commission and the Member States to take part in its Territorial Dialogue 2007, which deals with the contribution of cities and regions to the successful implementation of the Strategy for growth and jobs;

4.4

reiterates its emphasis on the role of regionally and locally anchored services of general interest in delivering the aims of the Lisbon Strategy;

4.5

stresses, through the Lisbon Monitoring Platform results, the great importance of the Cohesion Policy in the funding of Lisbon-related actions at local and regional level. The study that was made in connection with the outlook opinion — Leverage effect of European Cohesion Policy under the Structural Funds — that the CoR will adopt at its plenary session in February 2007 shows that, as a result of its specific features (partnership, additionality, strategic programming and multiannual funding), EU cohesion policy has had a number of significant impacts and leverage effects at the local and regional level. It is visible and perceived to be inclusive by European citizens because of its tangible contribution to improving quality of life;

4.6

welcomes the planned Regions for Economic Change initiative as an opportunity to share experiences between regions, to bridge territorial cooperation with mainstream regional development programmes and to allow closer work between the European Commission, the Member States, and cities and regions; urges the Commission to actively involve local and regional authorities in the process of selecting priority fields for the initiative and expects to be fully involved in the development of this initiative;

4.7

welcomes the European Commission's proposed stocktaking of European society as well as the Single Market review, to which the Committee of the Regions will contribute by adopting an outlook opinion; agrees with the ambition of breaking down barriers to the opportunities offered by the European Single Market, ensuring that citizens effectively reap these benefits; underlines, however, that solidarity and social and territorial cohesion must at the same time remain at the core of European policy-making;

4.8

welcomes the European Commission's aim to take further steps to improve the European Research Area and points out that European research and innovation potential depends on the capacity and specialisation of every European region; will continue to follow closely the setting-up of the European Institute of Technology, highlighting the decisive cluster-forming role which local and regional authorities play in promoting university-enterprise collaboration, in particular with small and medium enterprises, and reiterates that one of the prerequisites for a successful innovative Europe is the introduction of a Community patent;

4.9

stresses that education, training and life-long learning are fundamental to meeting the challenges of globalisation, in particular by promoting a highly qualified workforce that is able to meet the constantly changing labour market demands of the knowledge society; underlines the need to recognise the key competences of local and regional authorities in these fields;

4.10

believes that Europe also needs a strong enterprise culture and will continue to encourage local and regional authorities to promote entrepreneurship in schools as a valuable career choice contributing to Europe's prosperity; encourages the EC to re-start its ‘Young Entrepreneurship’ programme;

4.11

reiterates the importance of promoting information and communication technologies that support a regionally and socially equitable information society which includes all citizens and equips them with the skills they need to live and work in the knowledge society; will continue to ensure that the regional and local dimension is also given focus within the framework of the i2010 initiative;

4.12

welcomes the European Commission proposal to continue, as part of the framing of the EU's future maritime policy, the development of an integrated approach taking into account all the policies that have repercussions on the maritime environment, including measures needed to guarantee the sustainability of the European fisheries sector, and in particular the communication on the ports policy of the European Union; reaffirms its interest in being involved in the framing of this integrated policy and its implementation;

4.13

underlines the importance of the mid-term review of the EU Transport Policy and expresses its intention to highlight those commitments already made by the EU in this area with a view to their full implementation, and its wish to contribute to the debate on the initiatives put forward by the European Commission on urban transport, port policy, air transport and the Trans-European Networks of Transport during the period 2007-2013;

4.14

considers that some serious thinking should be started as of now on producing a quality-based Common Agricultural Policy and on the role of a beefed-up rural development policy after 2013, and asks that a consultation procedure, focused on sustainable development, competitiveness and innovation and involving local authorities should be started from the beginning of the new programming period in 2007;

4.15

considers that coordination at regional and local level between rural development policy and regional policy is essential to ensuring optimum use of the financial resources are allocated to them, and, for this reason, points out how much importance it attaches to local authorities being involved in all the stages of developing and implementing rural development programmes;

4.16

encourages the Commission to stimulate an open debate on the co-existence of genetically modified crops and conventional and biological crops, and, while respecting the powers of local authorities and the options chosen by them, promote transparent solutions that reconcile the interests of consumers and farmers, respect the environment, protect health and promote research and competitiveness;

5.1

recognises that an ageing population is one of the main challenges that the European Union will have to face in the years to come; underlines the necessity of taking into account the issue of ageing in all policy areas and affirms that there need to be regionally diversified approaches since significant differences are apparent in ageing patterns at different territorial scales;

5.2

welcomes the initiative of the European Commission to develop a European framework for economic immigrants with special attention given to highly skilled migrants as one of the responses to increasing demographic pressures, without undermining the development of third countries;

5.3

urges the Commission to come forward with a communication outlining common principles to define and explain ‘flexicurity’, in particular with regard to how this approach could combine labour market flexibility and the development of skills with strong social protection and at the same time taking into account the specific features of different Member States and regions;

5.4

welcomes the ‘European Year of Equal Opportunities — 2007’ as well as the European Commission's ambition to take stock of the social situation in the European Union, with a particular emphasis on questions of access and opportunity, with a view to building a new consensus on the social challenges facing Europe; reiterates the need to take seriously discrimination with regard to age, gender, ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, religion and belief;

5.5

welcomes the forthcoming 4th Report on Economic and Social Cohesion on the progress made towards economic, social and territorial cohesion and the contribution made to cohesion by European and national policies, as well as by the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, other financial instruments and the European Investment Bank, and underlines the important place of cohesion policy in the upcoming mid-term review of the Community budget;

6.1

expects the strategic review of energy policy for Europe to provide a fresh impetus for a common approach to competitiveness, the security of energy supplies, and the challenge of climate change; This must be based on innovation and the use of new technologies, renewable energy and energy efficiency so as to reduce dependence on energy imports from non-EU countries and bring about the internal market in gas and electricity; requests, therefore, that the dialogue between the European Commission and regional and local authorities be stepped up, since the latter are fully involved in the implementation of projects to encourage energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy;

6.2

reiterates its support for the European Commission in its commitment to face up to climate change and feels it essential that the Commission should promote ambitious objectives at international negotiations for the post-2012 period, which involve both the main greenhouse gas-producing countries and the main sectors responsible for climate change; will contribute ideas for the post-2012 targets during the course of 2007;

6.3

welcomes the emphasis placed once again by the European Commission on adapting to climate change, as certain effects of climate change are no longer avoidable; stresses the need to examine Community policies in the light of these changes; considers it a priority to beef up research into the economic, ecological and social effects of climate change in the various regions and to inform citizens of these effects and costs and asks the European Commission to promote an exchange of good practices in this field so that local and regional authorities can develop methods of adaptation that can be applied to the various situations of the cities and regions of Europe;

7.1

recommends recognition of a common European policy on immigration and asylum which is based on five pillars: increased cooperation between the Member States and non-EU countries; securing of external borders and the fight against human trafficking; the development of coherent and effective policies to protect minors; a return policy; an integration of migrants into society. This policy must take account of local authorities' responsibilities in implementing the priorities of the Hague Programme, particularly as regards the integration policy followed with the aim of encouraging access to jobs, the right to education and training, access to social and health services, the participation of immigrants in social, cultural and political life, and access to facilities for learning the official languages of the host country;

7.2

welcomes the new initiative by the European Commission to organise an annual conference on the subject of Integrating Cities, the first one having been held in Rotterdam in October 2006. Confirms its commitment to continue playing an important part in future editions, beginning with the 2007 conference which will take place in Milan;

7.3

asks, therefore, with a view to setting up a systematic and structured institutional partnership, to be involved in the consultation phase on immigration, which will be launched by the European Commission at the beginning of 2007, and in the new method for assessing implementation of the Hague Programme presented by the Commission in June 2006;

7.4

welcomes the initiative of the European Commission to issue a handbook on immigration and integration during 2007, stresses that the Committee of the Regions, through its members, can provide a rich source of information and best practices in this area, and therefore calls on the European Commission to involve the Committee of the Regions as closely as possible in the preparation of this handbook;

7.5

highlights the fact that several regions and cities are particularly affected by immigration influxes and suffer from a lack of means to deal with the masses of immigrants with adequate humanitarian care; therefore requests that Frontex play an increasingly important role in coordinating assistance to the regions concerned;

7.6

recalls the need for a careful balance to be struck between security needs in a globalised world and fundamental individual rights and freedoms;

8.1

encourages the Commission to assess the EU's capacity for integration in cooperation with the other institutions, including the CoR; recognises that a public debate about future enlargements is taking place and welcomes this debate;

8.2

supports the process of EU enlargement to include Croatia, Turkey and the Western Balkans and commits itself to developing dialogue between regional and local authorities in the EU and in countries which are or may be candidates for EU membership; believes that, regardless of Turkey's future status within the European Union, it is in Europe's interest to continue encouraging Turkey down the path of reform. Plans to continue direct contact with Turkish local and regional authorities with the objective of setting up a Joint Consultative Committee at the earliest possible opportunity;

9.1

intends to contribute to the democratic consolidation of the neighbouring countries and the countries of the Western Balkans by taking part in missions to observe regional and local elections and by developing, with this end in view, suitable inter-institutional cooperation at Community and European level;

9.2

strongly encourages implementation of the regional conference Euromed Barcelona + 10 and recalls the importance of institutional dialogue between local authorities in the European Union and the non-EU partner countries of the Mediterranean basin (MPCs) with a view to encouraging the exchange of good practices as regards regional partnership, decentralised cooperation, decentralisation and good governance in the Euro-Mediterranean area; to this end calls for the creation of a Forum for dialogue between regional and local authorities in the EU and the MPCs;

9.3

stresses the need to nurture constructive relations with countries in the Neighbourhood area at a local and regional level, particularly along the newly drawn Eastern borders of the European Union;

9.4

underlines that relations should be developed and reinforced to the extent of creating Strategic Partnerships with Russia and the new Northern Dimension Policy Framework;

9.5

stresses the importance of good governance for implementing the European Consensus for Development and considers that application of the subsidiarity principle as part of decentralised cooperation is a key constituent of good governance and European development policy;

10.

instructs its president to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the presidencies of the European Union in 2007, namely the German and Portuguese presidencies.