# EUR-Lex - 52013PC0603 - EN

*|*

# 52013PC0603

**Proposal for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on promoting health-enhancing physical activity across sectors /* COM/2013/0603 final - 2013/0291 (NLE) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

Physical
activity, including regular sporting practice and exercise, is one of the most
effective ways of staying physically and mentally fit, combating overweight and
obesity and preventing related conditions. In addition, participation in sport
and physical activity is correlated with other factors such as social
interaction and inclusion. Physical activity is one of
the most important health determinants in modern society and sport constitutes
a fundamental part of any public policy approach aimed at improving levels of
physical activity.

The
many benefits of physical activity and exercise across the life course are well
recorded[1] and more generally add to quality of life, as confirmed by the
World Health Organization (WHO). Research supports the role that sport and
physical activity has in child and adolescent development[2] and suggests that participation in sport and physical activity in adolescence is
positively associated with physical activity levels in adulthood. There is also
a growing body of evidence on the positive correlation between exercise and
mental health, mental development and cognitive processes.[3] In the Union, physical activity
levels are positively correlated with life expectancy, meaning that those
countries with higher levels of physical activity tend to have a higher life
expectancy.[4]

Conversely,
a number of detriments are caused by the lack of physical activity, including
premature mortality, rising overweight and obesity levels, breast and colon
cancers, diabetes, and ischaemic heart disease. In 2009, physical inactivity was identified as the fourth leading
risk factor for premature mortality and disease in high-income countries
world-wide, accounting for more than 1 million deaths in the European region
alone.[5]
Available evidence shows that health problems caused by the lack of physical
activity have significant direct and indirect economic costs due to illness and
morbidity, sick leave and premature death, especially also in view of Europe's
rapidly ageing societies.[6]
Studies have attempted to monetise these. For instance, one study carried out
for the British government identified costs to England of just over € 3bn per
year, or € 63 per inhabitant[7]. Considering these facts, physical activity has been included in
the goals for global action on the control of non-communicable diseases.[8]

In
the Union, the promotion of health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) is a
matter primarily for Member States. In light of the increasing awareness of the importance and beneficial effects of physical
activity and the growing financial burden of physical inactivity, many public
authorities have stepped up efforts to promote HEPA. As
of 2010, a large majority of Member States reported to have at least some form
of recommendations in place for
physical activity, and many have also developed specific strategies to enable
and encourage their populations to become more physically active.[9] Specific measures for this purpose have been launched in different policy
areas or sectors, in particular sport, health, transport and education and
there are many examples of good practice involving relevant stakeholders.

In
an effort to support the Member States, the Union has been promoting physical
activity through its policies and financial instruments in particular in the
fields of sport and health, and has provided evidence-based guidance to policy
makers in the form of the EU Physical Activity Guidelines[10]. These guidelines, drafted by
a group of 22 experts from around Europe representing various disciplines and
broadly representative of informed scientific opinion, were confirmed by EU
Sport Ministers in 2008. They reiterate WHO Recommendations on the minimum level of physical activity, emphasise the importance
of a cross-sectoral approach to HEPA and provide 41 concrete guidelines for
action. Already the 2007 White Paper on Sport[11]
and the 2007 White Paper on a Strategy for Europe on Nutrition,
Overweight and Obesity-related Health issues[12] underlined the importance of HEPA and have helped strengthen policy
debate and the exchange of good practice.

Despite
the growing profile given to HEPA promotion and the available
tools at national, European and international level, the rates of physical
inactivity in the Union remain unacceptably high (e.g. in 2010, 60% of
Europeans responded that they exercised or played sport seldom or never[13]). According to the WHO, two-thirds
of the adult population in the Union does not reach recommended levels of
activity. As a result, physical inactivity is estimated to deprive Europeans of
over 8 million days of healthy life every year, on average.[14] While evidence demonstrates
vast discrepancies between individual Member States, most countries have not
achieved the principal policy objective, namely to increase the proportion of
citizens who reach the HEPA levels recommended by the WHO and reiterated in the
EU Physical Activity Guidelines. For the Union as a whole, the HEPA promotion
policies of Member States have not been effective. This situation runs not only
counter to the Europe 2020 Strategy[15], which
acknowledges the need to fight health inequalities as a prerequisite for growth
and competitiveness, but is also incompatible with the Union's stated policy
ambitions in the fields of sport and health. Research indeed confirms the
“evidence-policy gap for action” in addressing physical inactivity and has led
to urgent calls for policy action on physical activity as a standalone public
health priority.[16]

The
reasons for the inability to reverse physical inactivity trends consist primarily
in shortcomings in the way HEPA promotion policies are developed and
implemented. Taking account of the criteria for effective HEPA policy laid down in scientific tools, the following
shortcomings are confirmed by evidence, expert opinion and consultation
outcomes: the lack of sufficiently cross-sectoral approaches to HEPA (incl. collaboration among different ministries and bodies
responsible for HEPA); unclear objectives and goals of HEPA policies; and insufficient
provisions for monitoring and evaluation of HEPA rates and policies. Robust data is indeed seldom available, despite its value for
formulating and refining policy.

HEPA
is only starting to become a policy field on its own and to get recognition as
a complex policy area that requires multi-sectoral interventions, such as those
provided for in the EU Physical Activity Guidelines. Physical activity has so
far been lacking advocacy power to ensure that it receives the appropriate
political recognition.[17] Since HEPA as a policy field is a rather new topic on the agenda of
governments[18], there is a need for improved understanding
of the determinants of HEPA, which is essential for designing interventions to
change physical activity levels, as well as for institutional capacity to
promote HEPA.

To
address this situation, and following expert work in
the context of the implementation of the European Union Work Plan for Sport
2011-2014[19]
and input from other fields and
levels of expertise (e.g. health and transport), the Council in its conclusions
on the promotion of HEPA of November 2012 called on the Commission to present a
proposal for a Council Recommendation promoting a cross-sectoral approach based
on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines, including a light monitoring framework.

The success of the initiative will ultimately depend to a
considerable extent on mobilising stakeholders, especially the ones most
directly related to physical activity and with strong assets to reach out to
citizens. The sport sector, in particular through its activities at grassroots
level and with a sport-for-all focus, is therefore a key player in any
successful effort to promote HEPA.

2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

The
proposal is based on the work of the Commission and Member States in the framework of the implementation of the Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014. The
substance of the proposal, including the monitoring framework, has been the
subject of extensive consultations with Member States, experts, stakeholders
and the general public from different backgrounds, including sport, health,
education and transport.
Interested parties have been consulted at different levels on their views
regarding the need for and scope of the promotion of physical activity in a
Union context. Following the Communication on sport in January 2011[20], which included an action
point to consider such a proposal, the Commission has regularly presented its
plans and the work in progress for this initiative to policymakers and
stakeholders and sought feedback in different fora. In its Resolution on the
European dimension in sport of 2 February 2012, the European Parliament called
on the Union and on Member States to facilitate engagement in sport and to
promote a healthy lifestyle, fully exploiting the opportunities of sport,
thereby reducing spending on healthcare.[21]

Member
States have underlined the need for further exchanges of experience and good
practice at Union level on HEPA and have been supportive of a new Union policy
initiative. Member States have confirmed the difficulties in involving relevant
sectors at national level and the lack of solid data, while also highlighting
the need to keep the burden of data collection limited. Sport stakeholders,
including the sport movement but also sport-related organisations, such as the
sporting goods industry, have strongly encouraged further Union action on HEPA.
The view that the Union has a role to play in promoting HEPA is shared not only
by the Union institutions, existing Union level cooperation structures for
sport and health, the expert level and sport stakeholders, but also by a large
segment of Union citizens, as confirmed in an online consultation in 2010.

The
Impact Assessment Board provided its positive opinion on the draft Impact
Assessment on 7 December 2012. The Board's comments are taken into account in
the final version of the Impact Assessment Report.

3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL

Legal basis

The
proposed initiative takes a focused approach on HEPA, a
relatively new discipline under rapid scientific development, combining physical activity, which is closely related to sport and exercise, on the one
hand, and public health on the other. To reach the objectives of the proposal
and to support the Member States in their efforts to promote HEPA, the Union can
act by making use of two legal bases: Articles 165 and 168 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), both of which assign a supporting
competence to the Union. Article 165 stipulates that the Union shall
‘contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues’ and that action shall
be aimed at ‘developing the European dimension in sport’. Article 168
stipulates that ‘Union action [...] shall be directed towards improving public
health [...] and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health’.

In
both areas (sport and public health) the Treaty states that, in pursuit of
these objectives, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt
recommendations. In addition, the Treaty explicitly authorises the Commission
to take ‘any useful initiative’ to promote policy co-ordination among the
Member States in the area of public health, in particular ‘initiatives aimed at
the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of
best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic
monitoring and evaluation’. The proposed Recommendation aims to strengthen
Member States' efforts in the field of promoting HEPA and to support them by
providing a framework for monitoring their policies. The Recommendation aims at
strengthening cooperation and policy coordination between the Member States and
at providing for further exchanges of good practice within the relevant Union level
structures for sport and for health.

This
Recommendation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles which
are recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Summary of the
proposed initiative

Following
the request from the Council, this Recommendation sets out the main elements
for coherent, cross-sectoral and evidence-based policies to promote HEPA and
thereby aims to help Member States in their efforts to enable citizens to
become (more) physically
active.

The Recommendation reflects the clear
evidence that HEPA promotion policies, to be successful, need to be based on a
cross-sectoral approach. It takes into account that Member States, while
sharing common objectives and respecting fundamental rights, set different
priorities with regard to HEPA due to different social, economic and cultural
contexts and therefore take different policy approaches. Provisions for policy
coordination at Union level are intended to support Member States in their
efforts to develop and implement effective HEPA policies. The monitoring
framework, including its indicators developed by HEPA experts, is designed as a
sufficiently flexible tool to inform policy making in this context. A detailed
description of the operationalization of indicators and data sources is set out
in the attached Commission Staff Working Document.

The
Recommendation invites Member
States:

· 
to develop a national strategy and a
corresponding action plan as well as adequate instruments for promoting HEPA
across sectors, reflecting the EU Physical Activity Guidelines;

· 
to monitor physical activity levels and the
implementation of HEPA policies by making use of the monitoring framework and
indicators set out in the Annex to the Recommendation, according to their national
circumstances;

· 
to cooperate closely among themselves and with
the Commission by engaging in a process of regular exchange of information and
good practice on HEPA promotion within relevant Union level structures;

The
Recommendation invites the Commission:

· 
to assist Member States in their efforts to
effectively promote HEPA and in developing and implementing policies consistent
with the EU Physical Activity Guidelines;

· 
to provide support for the establishment and
functioning of the monitoring framework, based on
existing forms of monitoring and data collection in this field;

· 
based on the information provided by Member
States, to regularly report on progress in implementing this Recommendation.

While the Recommendation
will first and foremost target public authorities in the Member States
responsible for HEPA promotion, it will ultimately help reaching out to Union citizens
at large (e.g. children, working population, seniors) by encouraging the
implementation of cross-sectoral policies providing for opportunities to engage
in physical activity. The initiative will also rely on mobilising stakeholders,
including the ones most directly related to physical activity, such as sport organisations.

Subsidiarity

While
the main responsibility for promoting HEPA and for the definition of sport and health
policies lies with the Member States, Union action can add significant value
over and above what Member States can achieve on their own. The Union can provide renewed political momentum toward focused
action on HEPA. More effective HEPA policies will help
contribute to other policy areas where Member States have agreed to set common
objectives. By helping to reduce the significant social and economic costs of
physical inactivity, and by addressing key factors contributing to active and
healthy ageing, a healthy workforce and ultimately higher productivity they
will strengthen Member States' ability to achieve the growth objectives set in
the Europe 2020 Strategy. They will also address the determinants of health
inequities outlined in the Strategy as a prerequisite for growth and competitiveness. Better HEPA
policies will also respond to recent calls from the Council and the Parliament
for action to support healthy lifestyle behaviours, including physical activity
and engagement in sport, as a means to address premature mortality, morbidity
and disability in the Union. The Council conclusions on HEPA adopted in
November 2012 make these requests even more explicit. The recent Evaluation of
the implementation of the Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Obesity and
Overweight-related Health issues also supports a policy initiative at European
level, as it encourages the Commission to raise the profile of nascent
initiatives focussing on physical activity.[22]

The
Recommendation's focus on enhanced
policy coordination between Member States – in the form
of sharing of experience, peer learning and
dissemination of good practice -
seems particularly useful given the vast differences that currently exist between the
Member States in the priority afforded to HEPA, the approaches chosen and the
national policy co-ordination mechanisms. Union support
and coordination will contribute to improving Member
States' capacity to promote HEPA across sectors and to shape policies that
ensure better interventions. The Union is well situated
to enhance provisions for monitoring and evaluation of HEPA and HEPA policies
and thereby to help Member States track developments over time. The monitoring
framework will deliver the evidence to Member States to justify more focused
approaches to HEPA promotion.

The proposed Recommendation builds on
existing strategies and tools developed at the international level, in
particular the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health of May
2004[23], the 2010 Global Recommendations which recommend at least 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical
activity for adults[24], and the global consensus achieved by the World Health Assembly on
27 May 2013 laid down in the "Omnibus Resolution on Non-communicable
Diseases"[25].
It takes account of the cooperation developed with the WHO Regional Office for
Europe in the framework of the Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and
Obesity-related Health issues and the 2013 evaluation of the latter[26]. It aims to improve further
the tools developed with regard to the monitoring of physical activity, in
particular the WHO European database on nutrition, obesity and physical
activity (NOPA)[27].
The information and data to be provided by the Member States in this context is
to a large extent already available and collected as part of existing surveys
or projects; a number of indicators are already in use. Collection of data will
require more efforts only in the case of a very limited number of indicators,
in particular in the early phase of the monitoring framework. It is expected to
improve over time and with increasing capacity in the Member States. The
monitoring framework should be implemented in close cooperation with the WHO
and with support from HEPA experts.

4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATION

It
is difficult to calculate the budget currently allocated to HEPA policies
because the costs of HEPA promotion are spread around government ministries and
authorities, as well as various NGOs and the private sector. In addition,
spending on HEPA is not recorded comprehensively across the Union. This is
exacerbated by the fact that HEPA is by nature cross-sectoral, that many
policies are tangentially related to HEPA and that policies which promote HEPA often do not include
HEPA promotion as a primary objective. Member States would ultimately bear
the costs relating to the implementation of HEPA policies following this
initiative.

Administrative
costs for the Member States would mainly stem from
the reporting requirements in the context of the light monitoring framework. They
would already be low in the first year, with further reductions once the
mechanism is fully operational, as staff becomes familiar with the monitoring
and because of better data availability over time.[28]

The
costs that would fall on the Union budget relate to the establishment and
functioning of the monitoring mechanism; and to the provision of support to
Member States for monitoring activities in the form of capacity building. These
costs would be covered by the Sport Chapter of the Erasmus+ programme for the
period 2014-2020.[29]
In addition, the Union budget would cover the organisation of Expert Group
meetings at Union level.

2013/0291 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

on promoting health-enhancing physical
activity across sectors

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 165 and 168
thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)        The benefits of
physical activity and exercise across the life course are paramount and include
lowered risk of cardiovascular disease, some types of cancers and diabetes,
improvements in musculoskeletal health and body weight control, as well as
positive effects on mental health development and cognitive processes. Physical
activity, as recommended by the World Health
Organization (WHO), is important for all age groups, and has particular
relevance for children, the working population and the elderly.

(2)        Physical activity being a prerequisite for
a healthy lifestyle and a healthy workforce, contributes to the achievement of
key objectives defined in the Europe 2020 Strategy[30], notably with
regard to growth, productivity and health.

(3)        While efforts to
promote health-enhancing physical activity (henceforth: HEPA) have been stepped
up by public authorities in some Member States over the past years, rates
of physical inactivity in the European Union remain unacceptably high. The
majority of Europeans do not engage in sufficient physical activity with 60%
never or seldom playing sport or exercising[31]. The lack of
leisure-time physical activity tends to be more common in the lower
socio-economic groups. There are currently no indications that the negative
trends are being reversed for the Union as a whole.

(4)        Insufficient physical activity has been
identified as a leading risk factor for premature mortality and disease in
high-income countries world-wide, being responsible for about 1 million deaths
per year in the European Region alone[32]. The detriments caused
by the lack of physical activity in the European Union are well recorded, as
are the significant direct and indirect economic
costs associated to the lack of physical activity and related health problems,
especially in view of the fact that most European societies are ageing rapidly.

(5)        Regarding physical activity levels, there are vast
discrepancies between Member States. While some have made considerable progress
in increasing the proportion of citizens who meet the minimum level of recommended
physical activity, many others have made none or even regressed. Current policies
have proved ineffective in reducing the physical inactivity levels for the Union as a whole. There is considerable potential to learn from successful approaches to
develop and implement HEPA policies.

(6)        A number of policy areas, in particular
sport and health, can contribute to the promotion of physical activity and can
provide new opportunities for Union citizens to become physically active. For
this potential to be fully exploited, and therefore for physical activity
levels to increase, a strategic cross-sectoral approach in the field of HEPA
promotion, including involvement of all relevant Ministries, bodies and
organisations, is indispensable. The availability of more and better data on
physical activity levels and HEPA promotion policies is an essential element to
underpin this process and a requirement for policy evaluation aimed at leading
to more effective future policy development and implementation. This data is,
however, lacking to a considerable extent.

(7)        The EU Physical Activity Guidelines[33], confirmed by EU
Sport Ministers meeting informally in December 2008 and by the Council in
November and December 2012[34], advocate a
cross-sectoral approach covering all thematic areas responsible for HEPA
promotion. The implementation of these
Guidelines in the Member States has so far remained patchy.

(8)        The 2011 Communication on Developing the
European Dimension in Sport[35] invited the Commission
and the Member States to, based on the EU Physical Activity Guidelines,
continue progress towards the establishment of national guidelines, including a
review and coordination process, and to consider a Council Recommendation in
that field.

(9)        The Resolution of the Council on a European
Union Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014[36] recognised the
need to strengthen cooperation between the Commission and the Member States in sport in a few priority areas, including the promotion of HEPA. In July 2012,
the Expert Group on Sport, Health and Participation expressed support for a new
Union initiative to promote HEPA.

(10)      The Council conclusions of 27 November 2012
on promoting HEPA acknowledged the need for further action at Union level and
called on the Commission to present a proposal for a Council Recommendation, including
a light monitoring framework based on a set of indicators covering the thematic
areas of the EU Physical Activity Guidelines.

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

(1) 
Member States should:

– 
Work towards effective HEPA policies by developing a
cross-sectoral approach involving policy areas including sport, health,
education, environment and transport, as described in the EU Physical Activity
Guidelines, and in accordance with national specificities. This should include:

– 
the adoption of a national strategy on HEPA
promotion, taking into account different groups of society and respecting the
principles of non-discrimination and equality between men and women;

– 
the adoption of a corresponding action plan;

– 
Monitor
physical activity levels and HEPA policies by making use of the light
monitoring framework[37] and indicators set out in
the Annex to this Recommendation according to national circumstances;

– 
Within
six months from the adoption of this Recommendation, appoint national HEPA focal
points who will support the abovementioned monitoring framework, and inform the
Commission of their appointment.         
The national HEPA focal points will in particular be tasked to coordinate the process of making data on physical activity available
for the monitoring framework; data should feed into the existing WHO database
on nutrition and physical activity (NOPA); they should also facilitate
interdepartmental cooperation on HEPA policies;

– 
Cooperate
closely among themselves and with the Commission by engaging in a process of
regular exchange of information and best practices on HEPA promotion in the
relevant Union level structures for sport and for health as a basis for
strengthened policy coordination.

(2) 
The Commission
should take the following measures:

– 
Assist Member States in adopting national strategies,
developing cross-sectoral HEPA policy approaches and implementing corresponding
action plans by facilitating the exchange of information and good practice,
effective peer-learning, networking and identification of successful approaches
to HEPA promotion;

– 
Promote the establishment and functioning of the HEPA
monitoring framework, based on existing forms of monitoring and data collection
in this field, by:

– 
providing, with the help of scientific experts,
targeted support for capacity building and training to national HEPA focal points, and, as appropriate, to other representatives from relevant public
authorities;

– 
examining the possibility to use data collected
to potentially produce European statistics[38]
on physical activity levels every two years;

– 
supporting the WHO in further developing the
physical activity aspects of the NOPA database by adapting it to the monitoring
framework set out in the Annex to this Recommendation;

– 
supporting and closely cooperating with the WHO
in the preparation and issuing of country-specific overviews on HEPA and
analysis of HEPA trends;

– 
Report every three years on progress in implementing
this Recommendation, on the basis of information provided within the reporting
arrangements set out in the monitoring framework and of other relevant
information about HEPA policy development and implementation provided by Member
States;

– 
Carry
out an evaluation of the implementation of the Council Recommendation after six
years.

Done at Brussels,

For
the Council

The
President

ANNEX

Proposed
indicators to evaluate the implementation of the EU Physical Activity
Guidelines (GL)

Thematic areas of the GL || Proposed indicators

International PA recommendations and guidelines (GL 1-2) || 1. National recommendation on physical activity for health

2. Adults reaching the minimum WHO recommendation on physical activity for health

3. Children and adolescents reaching the minimum WHO recommendation on physical activity for health

Cross-sectoral approach (GL 3-5) || 4. National coordination mechanism on HEPA promotion

5. Funding allocated specifically to HEPA promotion

"Sport" (GL 6-13) || 6. National sport for all policy and/or action plan

7. Sport Clubs for Health Programme

8. Framework to support opportunities to increase access to recreational or exercise facilities for low socio-economic groups

9. Target groups addressed by the national HEPA policy

"Health" (GL 14-20) || 10. Monitoring and surveillance of physical activity

11. Counselling on physical activity

12. Training on physical activity in curriculum for health professionals

"Education" (GL 21-24) || 13.  Physical education in primary and secondary schools

14. Schemes for school-related physical activity promotion

15. HEPA in training of physical education teachers

16. Schemes promoting active travel to school

"Environment, urban planning, public safety" (GL 25-32) || 17. Level of cycling / walking

18. European Guidelines for improving Infrastructures for Leisure-Time Physical Activity

"Working environment" (GL 33-34) || 19. Schemes to promote active travel to work

|| 20. Schemes to promote physical activity at the work place

"Senior citizens" (GL 35-37) || 21. Schemes for community interventions to promote PA in elderly people

"Indicators / evaluation" (GL 38) || 22. National HEPA policies that include a plan for evaluation

"Public awareness (GL 39) || 23. Existence of a national awareness raising campaign on physical activity

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1.           FRAMEWORK OF THE
PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1.        Title of the
proposal/initiative: Proposal for a Council Recommendation on promoting health-enhancing
physical activity across sectors

1.2.        Policy area(s) concerned
in the ABM/ABB structure[39]

Education and Culture: Sport / Budget line
15 01 02 11

1.3.        Nature of the
proposal/initiative

■ The proposal/initiative relates to a new action

 ̈ The proposal/initiative relates to a new action
following a pilot project/preparatory action[40]

 ̈ The proposal/initiative relates to the extension of
an existing action

 ̈ The proposal/initiative relates to an action
redirected towards a new action

1.4.        Objective(s)

1.4.1.     The Commission's
multiannual strategic objective(s) targeted by the proposal/initiative

The overall aim of this proposal is to contribute to a healthier and more productive
society through increased levels of health-enhancing
physical activity (HEPA) in the EU.

The operational costs resulting from the
proposed Council Recommendation will be covered by the Sport Chapter of the
Erasmus+ Programme (see the respective LFS). This LFS relates only to the cost
of the proposed expert group, i.e. administrative expenditure.

1.4.2.     Specific objective(s) and
ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

Specific objective: the objective of the
expert group is to:

- provide targeted support for capacity building and training to
national HEPA focal points, and, as appropriate,
to other representatives from relevant public authorities;

- support the WHO in further developing the physical aspects of the
NOPA database by adapting it to the monitoring framework set out in the Annex
of the Recommendation;

- support and closely cooperate with the WHO in the preparation and
issuing of country-specific overviews on HEPA and analysis of HEPA trends.

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned:

ABB Activity 15.05: Encouraging and promoting cooperation in the
field of youth and sports

1.4.3.     Expected result(s) and
impact

Specify the effects
which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

The activities of the
expert group will result in:

- support for capacity
building and training to national HEPA focal points and other relevant public authorities;

- support to the WHO
in further developing the physical aspects of the NOPA database;

- support to the WHO
in the preparation and issuing of country-specific overviews on HEPA and
analysis of HEPA trends.

The expenses being
subject of this LFS cover the costs of the meetings of the expert group related
to the recommendation, therefore they constitute only administrative
expenditure. The operational expenditure is covered by the Sport Chapter of the
Erasmus+ Programme.

1.4.4.     Indicators of results and
impact

- Establishment and
functioning of a HEPA monitoring framework at EU level;

- Regular reporting on
HEPA to the Member States.

1.5.        Grounds for the
proposal/initiative

1.5.1.     Requirement(s) to be met in
the short or long term?

As regards the expert group, there are no
particular requirements to be met.

1.5.2.     Added value of EU
involvement

Without EU involvement such an expert group
could not be constituted. As is explained in the Impact Assessment for the initiative,
EU action can add significant value over and above what Member States can
achieve on their own.

The expert group will be the main body to
discuss and steer the implementation of the Recommendation and the forum where
policy coordination on HEPA promotion policies takes place.

1.5.3.     Lessons learned from
similar experiences in the past

The first EU Work Plan for Sport, which was
adopted by the EU Council in May 2011 and covers the period 2011-2014,
established 6 expert groups in the field of sport. One of these groups, the
Expert Group on Sport, Health and Participation, has played an active role to
produce the ideas which underpin the Commission's proposal for a Council
Recommendation in the field of HEPA. This initiative thus builds directly upon
this experience.

1.5.4.     Compatibility and possible
synergy with other appropriate instruments

The proposal is fully in line with the Erasmus+
Programme and the EU Work Plan for Sport, both of which include HEPA as a
priority field of action.

1.6.        Duration and financial
impact

■ Proposal/initiative of limited
duration

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

– 
■   Financial impact from 2014 to 2020

 ̈ Proposal/initiative of unlimited
duration

– 
Implementation with a start-up period from YYYY
to YYYY,

– 
followed by full-scale operation.

1.7.        Management mode(s) planned[41]

From the 2014 budget

■ Direct management by the Commission

– 
■ by its departments (DG EAC)

– 
 ̈  by the executive agencies;

 ̈ Shared management with the Member States

 ̈ Indirect management by delegating implementation tasks to:

– 
 ̈ third countries or the bodies they have designated;

– 
 ̈ international organisations and their agencies (to be specified);

– 
 ̈the EIB and the European Investment Fund;

– 
 ̈ bodies referred to in Articles 208 and 209 of the Financial Regulation;

– 
 ̈ public law bodies;

– 
 ̈ bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the
extent that they provide adequate financial guarantees;

– 
 ̈ bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with the implementation of a public-private partnership and that
provide adequate financial guarantees;

– 
 ̈ persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in
the CFSP pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic
act.

– If more than one management mode is
indicated, please provide details in the "Comments" section.

Comments

2.           MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1.        Monitoring and reporting
rules

The experts will meet three times a year; after
each meeting a report will be established.

2.2.        Management and control
system

2.2.1.     Risk(s) identified – standard
Commission rules for management of expert groups will apply.

2.2.2.     Information concerning the
internal control system set up – standard Commission rules for management of
expert groups will apply.

2.2.3.     Estimate of the costs and
benefits of the controls and assessment of the expected level of risk of error
– standard Commission rules for management of expert groups will apply.

2.3.        Measures to prevent fraud
and irregularities

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and
protection measures – standard Commission rules for management of expert
groups will apply.

3.           ESTIMATED FINANCIAL
IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

3.1.        Heading(s) of the
multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

· Existing budget lines

In order of
multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Contribution

Number [...]Heading..........................................................] || Diff./non-diff. ([42]) || from EFTA countries[43] || from candidate countries[44] || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 21(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation

|| Global envelope DG EAC 15.01.02.11 (meetings of experts) || Non-diff. || NO || NO || NO || NO

· New budget lines requested – not applicable

In order of multiannual financial framework
headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Contribution

Number [...]Heading..........................................................] || Diff./non-diff. || from EFTA countries || from candidate countries || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 21(2)(b) of the Financial Regulation

|| [...][XX.YY.YY.YY] || || NO || NO || NO || NO

3.2.        Estimated impact on
expenditure

The costs of
the operational part of the iniative are covered by the Sport Chapter of the
Eramus+ Programme (budget line 15.02.03); this LFS refers exclusively to the
administrative expenditure.

3.2.1.     Summary of estimated impact
on expenditure

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Number || [...][Heading...........................................................................................]

DG || || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || 2018 2019 2020 || TOTAL

 Operational appropriations || || || || || || || ||

Number of budget line 15. || Commitments || (1) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Payments || (2) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Payments || (2a) || || || || || || || ||

Appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope of specific programmes[45] || || || || || || || ||

Number of budget line || || (3) || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations for DG <....> || Commitments || =1+1a +3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Payments || =2+2a +3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 ||

 TOTAL operational appropriations || Commitments || (4) || || || || || || || ||

Payments || (5) || || || || || || || ||

 TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope for specific programmes || (6) || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations for HEADING <....> of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || =4+ 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Payments || =5+ 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

If more than one heading is affected by the proposal /
initiative: not applicable

 TOTAL operational appropriations || Commitments || (4) || || || || || || || ||

Payments || (5) || || || || || || || ||

 TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope for specific programmes || (6) || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 4 of the multiannual financial framework (Reference amount) || Commitments || =4+ 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Payments || =5+ 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Heading of multiannual financial framework || 5 || " Administrative expenditure "

EUR million (to three decimal places)

|| || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || 2018 2019 2020 || TOTAL

DG EAC ||

 Human resources || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

 Other administrative expenditure || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

TOTAL DG EAC || Appropriations || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

TOTAL appropriations for HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || (Total commitments = Total payments) || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

EUR million (to three decimal places)

|| || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || 2018 2019 2020 || TOTAL

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 5 of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

Payments || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

3.2.2.     Estimated impact on
operational appropriations

– 
■   The part of the proposal/initiative which is covered by this LFS
does not require the use of operational appropriations. Operational
appropriations resulting from the proposed Recommendation are covered by the
LFS for the Erasmus+ Programme (see above).

– 
 ̈  The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational
appropriations, as explained below:

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three
decimal places)

Indicate objectives and outputs ò || || || Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || Enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || TOTAL

OUTPUTS

Type[46] || Average cost || No || Cost || No || Cost || No || Cost || No || Cost || No || Cost || No || Cost || No || Cost || No total || Total cost

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 1[47] ... || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Output || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Output || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Output || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Subtotal for specific objective No 1 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE NO 2 ... || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Output || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Subtotal for specific objective No 2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL COST || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

3.2.3.     Estimated impact on
appropriations of an administrative nature

3.2.3.1.  Summary

– 
 ̈  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations
of an administrative nature

– 
■   The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an
administrative nature, as explained below:

EUR million (to
three decimal places)

|| Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || 2018 2019 2020 || TOTAL

HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

Human resources || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A

Other administrative expenditure || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

Subtotal HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

Outside HEADING 5[48] of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

Human resources || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A || N/A

Other expenditure of an administrative nature || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Subtotal outside HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

TOTAL || 0,028 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,084 || 0,532

The human resources
appropriations required will be met by appropriations from the DG that are
already assigned to management of the action and/or have been redeployed within
the DG, together if necessary with any additional allocation which may be
granted to the managing DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the
light of budgetary constraints.

3.2.3.2.  Estimated
requirements of human resources –

– 
■   The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human
resources.

– 
 ̈  The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as
explained below:

Estimate to be expressed in full time
equivalent units

|| || Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || Enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6)

||  Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) || ||

|| XX 01 01 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) || || || || || || ||

|| XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) || || || || || || ||

|| XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

|| 10 01 05 01 (Direct research) || || || || || || ||

 External staff (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)[49] ||

|| XX 01 02 01 (CA, SNE, INT from the "global envelope") || || || || || || ||

|| XX 01 02 02 (CA, LA, SNE, INT and JED in the delegations) || || || || || || ||

|| XX 01 04 yy[50] || - at Headquarters || || || || || || ||

|| - Delegations || || || || || || ||

|| XX 01 05 02 (CA, SNE, INT - Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

|| 10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct research) || || || || || || ||

|| Other budget lines (specify) || || || || || || ||

|| TOTAL || || || || || || ||

XX is the policy
area or budget title concerned.

The human resources
required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to
management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if
necessary with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing
DG under the annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary
constraints.

Description of
tasks to be carried out:

Officials and temporary staff ||

External staff ||

3.2.4.     Compatibility with the
current multiannual financial framework

– 
■   Proposal/initiative is compatible with the current multiannual
financial framework.

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative will entail reprogramming of the relevant
heading in the multiannual financial framework.

Explain what reprogramming is required,
specifying the budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts.

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility
instrument or revision of the multiannual financial framework[51].

Explain what is required, specifying the
headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts.

3.2.5.     Third-party contributions

– 
■ The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third
parties.

– 
The proposal/initiative provides for the
co-financing estimated below:

Appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || Enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) || Total

Specify the co-financing body || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations cofinanced || || || || || || || ||

3.3.        Estimated impact on
revenue

– 
■   Proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

– 
 ̈            on own resources

– 
 ̈            on miscellaneous revenue

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Budget revenue line: || Appropriations available for the current financial year || Impact of the proposal/initiative[52]

Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || Enter as many years as necessary to show the duration of the impact (see point 1.6)

Article ............. || || || || || || || ||

For miscellaneous
‘assigned’ revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

Specify the method for
calculating the impact on revenue.

[1]               They include lowered risk of cardiovascular
disease, some cancers and type-2 diabetes, improvements in musculoskeletal
health and body weight control. See for instance: The
Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9838, p. 219-229, 21 July 2012.

[2]               Health
at a glance, Europe 2012, OECD.

[3]                      Physical
Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee
Report 2008, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[4]               Global
Health Risks, Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major
Risks, WHO 2009.

[5]               http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/disease-prevention/physical-activity/facts-and-figures/10-key-facts-on-physical-activity-in-the-who-european-region

[6]               Evidence
from studies carried out in Member States has been included in the Impact
Assessment accompanying this proposal.

[7]               Game
Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity
objectives, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/game_plan_report.pdf.
A more recent scientific publication referred to higher annual direct
health-care costs and indirect costs per head (in AUS, CH, USA) due to physical inactivity, while also noting that the magnitude of economic implications of
physical activity is difficult to compare at present. The Lancet series:
"The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health";
Volume 380, Issue 9838, p. 219-229, 21 July 2012.

[8]               UN
Political Declaration of the High level Meeting of the General Assembly on the
Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases (resolution 66/2), 2011,
and follow up action agreed at the 66th World Health Assembly, May
2013, Geneva.

[9]               Working
document: Table to track the implementation of the EU Physical Activity
Guidelines: http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/implementation_report_a6_en.pdf.

[10]             EU
Physical Activity Guidelines, Recommended Policy Actions in support of
Health-Enhancing Physical Activity, October 2008; http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/c1/eu-physical-activity-guidelines-2008_en.pdf

[11]             European
Commission: White Paper on Sport, COM(2007) 391 final, 11.7.2007.

[12]             European
Commission: White Paper on a Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Obesity and Overweight-related
Health issues, COM(2007) 279 final, 30.5.2007.

[13]             European
Commission: Special Eurobarometer 334 Sport and Physical Activity, March 2010.

[14]             http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/disease-prevention/physical-activity/facts-and-figures/is-physical-activity-a-reality-for-all

[15]             European
Commission: Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, 3.3. 2010.

[16]             The
Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9838, p. 219-229, 21 July 2012.

[17]             “For physical activity the science of how to change individual
behaviours has overshadowed efforts to understand true population change.
Because of this unbalanced focus, the structural and systemic changes necessary
to promote physical activity in populations (...) across various sectors have not
yet been addressed systematically. (...) A similar experience occurred in tobacco
control, where initially the burden of responsibility was put solely on
individuals. Once that view expanded to include recognition of societal
responsibility as well, population-level action and changes in smoking
prevalence followed.” The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9838, p. 219-229, 21 July 2012.

[18]             This is inter alia confirmed by a recent review which suggested
that, with a few notable exceptions, the development of national policy
documents on physical activity in Europe has only started in recent years. See
Daugbjerg et al: Promotion of Physical Activity in the European Region: Content
Analysis of 27 National Policy Documents. Journal of Physical Activity and
Health, 2009, 6, 805-817.

[19]             Council
Resolution on a European Union Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014, OJ C 162 of
1.6.2011.

[20]             European
Commission: Communication on developing the European dimension in Sport,
COM(2011) 12 final, 18.1.2011.

[21]             European Parliament resolution of 2 February 2012 on
the European dimension in sport (2011/2087(INI)).

[22]             http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/pheiac_nutrition_strategy_evaluation_en.pdf

[23]             WHO
Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, URL: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/strategy_english_web.pdf

[24]             WHO
Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. URL:
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_recommendations/en/index.html

[25]             http://ncdalliance.org/sites/default/files/rfiles/A66_WHA%20Final%20Resolution.pdf.

[26]             see fn.22.

[27]             WHO
NOPA database; URL: http://data.euro.who.int/nopa/

[28]             The
Impact Assessment (Annex V) has calculated the average cost per Member State.

[29]             The Impact Assessment (Annex V) has calculated the
combined costs for the Union budget. As part of the Preparatory Action in the
field of sport for 2013, the Commission, in cooperation with the WHO, is
testing ways to support Member States' activities relating to the monitoring of
HEPA policy development and implementation.

[30]             COM(2010) 2020.

[31]             European
Commission: Special Eurobarometer 334 Sport and Physical Activity, March 2010.

[32]             http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/disease-prevention/physical-activity/facts-and-figures/10-key-facts-on-physical-activity-in-the-who-european-region

[33]             http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/c1/eu-physical-activity-guidelines-2008_en.pdf

[34]             Council
conclusions on promoting health-enhancing physical activity, URL:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/133870.pdf;
Council conclusions on Healthy Ageing across the Lifecycle, URL: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/134097.pdf

[35]             COM(2011)
12 final.

[36]             OJ
C 162 of 1.6.2011.

[37]             The
monitoring framework sets out a minimal set of
reporting requirements on general aspects of HEPA promotion that can be addressed
by all Member States. The monitoring framework is
further described in the Commission Staff Working Document accompanying this
Recommendation.

[38]             See Commission decision on Eurostat of 17 September
2012 (2012/504/EU): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:251:0049:0052:EN:PDF.

[39]             ABM: activity-based management – ABB: activity-based
budgeting.

[40]             As referred to in Article 54(2)(a) or (b) of the
Financial Regulation.

[41]             Details of management modes and references to the
Financial Regulation may be found on the BudgWeb site: http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html

[42]             Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-Diff. =
Non-differentiated appropriations.

[43]             EFTA: European Free Trade Association.

[44]             Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential
candidate countries from the Western Balkans.

[45]             Technical and/or administrative assistance and
expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions
(former "BA" lines), indirect research, direct research.

[46]             Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.:
number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).

[47]             As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)...’

[48]             Technical and/or administrative assistance and
expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions
(former "BA" lines), indirect research, direct research.

[49]             CA= Contract Staff; LA = Local Staff; SNE= Seconded
National Expert; INT = agency staff; JED= Junior Experts in Delegations).

[50]             Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational
appropriations (former "BA" lines).

[51]             See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional
Agreement (for the period 2007-2013).

[52]             As regards traditional own resources (customs duties,
sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts
after deduction of 25% for collection costs.