# Official Journal C 232/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.232.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 232 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5327 August 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.232.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 232

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5327 August 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 84th plenary session held on 14-15 April 2010 |
| 2010/C 232/01 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Solidarity in Health: reducing health inequalities in the EU | 1 |
| 2010/C 232/02 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU (2009 Ageing Report) | 7 |
| 2010/C 232/03 | Outlook Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of cohesion policy | 14 |
| 2010/C 232/04 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region | 23 |
| 2010/C 232/05 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Action Plan on Urban Mobility | 29 |
| 2010/C 232/06 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enlargement strategy and the main challenges 2009-2010: candidate countries | 36 |
| 2010/C 232/07 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Improving the EIA and SEA Directives | 41 |
| 2010/C 232/08 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth and A public-private partnership on the Future Internet | 44 |
| 2010/C 232/09 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU | 49 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

84th plenary session held on 14-15 April 2010

2010/C 232/01

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Solidarity in Health: reducing health inequalities in the EU

1

2010/C 232/02

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU (2009 Ageing Report)

7

2010/C 232/03

Outlook Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of cohesion policy

14

2010/C 232/04

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region

23

2010/C 232/05

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Action Plan on Urban Mobility

29

2010/C 232/06

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enlargement strategy and the main challenges 2009-2010: candidate countries

36

2010/C 232/07

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Improving the EIA and SEA Directives

41

2010/C 232/08

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth and A public-private partnership on the Future Internet

44

2010/C 232/09

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU

49

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

84th plenary session held on 14-15 April 2010

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/1

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Solidarity in Health: reducing health inequalities in the EU

(2010/C 232/01)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

1.   welcomes the Commission's determination to support and complement the efforts of Member States and local and regional authorities to tackle health inequalities in the European Union. The recognition of the scale of the challenge presented by the health inequalities gaps between member states and within member states is significant. The Commission's view that health inequalities present a challenge to the EU's commitment to solidarity, social and economic cohesion, human rights and equality of opportunity is well made and endorsed. However, a stronger emphasis could have been put by the Commission on the objective of ‘territorial cohesion’ newly introduced in the Lisbon Treaty.

2.   recognises and uses as its own, the WHO definition of health, ‘health is a complete state of mental and physical wellbeing and not merely the absence of infirmity or disease’.

3.   reminds the Commission that the Lisbon treaty now requires the institutions under article 3, to promote the wellbeing of European citizens.

4.   draws the Commission's attention to the work undertaken by WHO, Sir Michael Marmot entitled ‘Closing the Gap in a Generation – Health Equity through action on the social determinants of health’. The CoR believes that this should be a key resource for the EU in addressing health inequalities.

5.   accepts the Commission's assessment that the problem of health inequalities is highly complex and that the way the situation develops depends on a plethora of factors, in particular: the recognition that inequalities can be seen at all levels, from European to neighbourhood; the role of the social gradient and the close connection between health and wealth; the health consequences of disadvantage for vulnerable and socially excluded groups; and the differing effects of social policy decisions in the provision of healthcare and social support.

6.   welcomes the balance which the paper has to a large extent struck between European cooperation and subsidiarity in compliance with article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); would however point out in this connection that reducing inequalities in health within Member States is, also under the Lisbon Treaty, a responsibility for national health policies.

EU Policy contributions to reducing health inequalities

7.   acknowledges the contribution that can be made by EU flanking policies generally in accordance with the objective set in article 168 TFEU as well as in article 35 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights that ‘a high level of human health protection (...) be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities’.

8.   recalls that the ‘right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices’ is enshrined in Article 35 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.

9.   welcomes the overarching goals of the EU Health Strategy which supports access to healthcare and disease prevention and promotion of healthy living.

10.   urges the Commission to provide the Committee of the Regions with reassurance that the Proposal for a Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross border healthcare will give full and complete consideration to the impact on health inequalities were this proposal to be implemented.

11.   considering the emphasis put in Article 168 TFUE on the improvement of health services in cross-border areas, the Committee of the Regions calls for support to contiguous regions in different member states to develop voluntary arrangements to reduce health inequalities across borders. The Committee of the Regions emphasises in this regard the opportunities offered by the instrument of the European Grouping on Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) already actioned by several groups. But the Committee of the Regions is clear that arrangements for cross-border healthcare more widely must be carefully assessed to ensure that movement of patients across borders does not advantage groups who already benefit from healthcare to the disadvantage of others, thereby exacerbating health inequalities. A clear commitment should be made to all regions that cross-border arrangements will give fair access to promoting the health outcomes of vulnerable and low performing groups, where the rights of those groups are in competition for healthcare resources. Access to cross border health should be available only with prior authorisation so that individuals on low incomes have equal access to services.

12.   welcomes the recognition of the role of the Common Agricultural Policy in relation to health issues and acknowledges the contribution of programmes such as the School Milk, Food for Most Deprived Persons, and School Fruit schemes in supporting nutrition and healthy living. Food provided in public facilities such as schools and hospitals should be primarily based on providing healthy, nutritious, locally-sourced food wherever possible. We also welcome the recognition of the impact the CAP and other policies can have on health in rural areas through action relevant to the social determinants of health. The CoR recognises that rural areas have specific health challenges: inadequate access to healthcare in rural areas can result in health inequalities in some member states; and the link between the agricultural economy and migration can result in communities with particular health needs and health inequalities. In both of these cases, the CAP can have a role in improving living conditions and is therefore significant.

13.   does not agree that it is sufficient to say that EU environment policy and the market policies under the Common Agricultural Policy support a range of initiatives which can contribute to improving health. Though there is potential within the CAP to make a contribution, fundamentally the CAP is not structured to give priority to health outcomes or health inequalities and it is legitimate to consider the negative impact on health outcomes that can result from an imbalanced approach to dairy and meat production compared to fruit and vegetables. There is an opportunity to review these imbalances in the reform of the CAP and the importance of supporting good and equitable health outcomes should be asserted at every stage of the reform process.

Health inequalities and economic issues

14.   regrets the failure of the Commission to fully address the issue of excessive use of alcohol and other drugs in creating ill health and underpinning health inequalities. Concerning alcohol, the CoR recognises the particular challenge it poses for policy makers who must also consider the impact, both public and private, the problem has on the local and regional economy. In this context it is appropriate to recognise that regulating consumption poses difficulties, but that is not a reason to ignore its impact on health nor to reduce efforts against the abuse of alcohol and other mind-altering substances.

15.   recognises that member states across the EU are facing a severe financial and economic crisis and that this will inevitably have an impact upon the health and wellbeing of its citizens. While it is true that the economic situation may result in the gaps in health outcomes widening, this situation should not be an excuse for not adapting policies in a way to better address inequalities. The failure of financial institutions globally obliges member states, regions and localities to review their approach to building sustainable communities. Policies too heavily focused on economic prosperity can result in health inequality. While economic difficulties may result in reduced economic prosperity, it is not a barrier to giving greater priority to reducing economic, social and health, inequality. The Commission has the opportunity now in the context of FP7 and budgetary planning to review the priorities and place greater emphasis upon the measures to tackle inequality.

16.   suggests that the current economic difficulties mean that the economic dimension of healthcare services and the economic impact of a healthy population are increasingly important. Healthcare services are significant employers and generate economic prosperity through associated sectors such as health research and innovation, with particular opportunities arising in the emerging economies. At the same time, the loss of elements of the workforce as a consequence of premature death and disablement represents a reduction in productivity and an increase in pressure on social support systems.

17.   endorses the recognition of the importance of better health for all population groups in the context of an ageing population. Social protection systems are already feeling the effects of a changed population demographic. While longer lives are to be welcomed, if social protection systems are to remain at the level Europeans have come to expect, more must be done to manage demand for services. Increasing the healthy years of life for those with the worst prospects is therefore a priority. Considering the magnitude of the socio-economic changes an ageing population in the EU will bring about, the CoR wishes to stress the importance of research and development targeted at improving elderly healthcare.

EU Cohesion policy contribution to health inequalities

18.   endorses the assertion that EU Cohesion policy is central to achieving the EU2020 objectives of economic and social cohesion and can be a powerful tool to address health inequalities. There is an important opportunity in 2010 with the development and agreement of the EU 2020 strategy to consider earmarking of structural funds as of 2013. The Committee expects the EU 2020 strategy to be strongly focused on fighting exclusion, which would in turn provide a clear connection to health inequalities.

19.   believes that EU structural funds could be used to expand local health care as part of a regional development strategy. This is because all European citizens do not have access to equal opportunities, including health related opportunities, which is one of the fundamental aims of EU cohesion policy and structural funds.

20.   acknowledges the Commission's identification of three areas of improvement that could be made: knowledge of the opportunity to use funds in this area; coordination between national policy departments and technical capacity to develop investments in this field. However, it is not necessarily the case that these are the areas of greatest priority for improvement. In particular, coordination between regional and local agencies, where these have responsibility for direct delivery of services, may have greater impact. Also, technical capacity may exist at national level but not in health agencies at regional or local level, and therefore interventions should be directed to the appropriate level to achieve desired outcomes.

Data collection, monitoring and analysis

21.   supports the suggestion that the measure of progress towards the EU2020 agenda could be further developed to reflect the importance of reducing health inequalities. The healthy life years indicator provides one measure of health outcomes, but should be supplemented with measures that reflect the importance of narrowing the gap between the most healthy and the least healthy.

22.   accepts the assessment of the variations between member states in collecting and analysing data. The development of health related indicators by EUROSTAT is helpful. In addition, it considers that the mutual support of the member states, through transfers of know-how on improving public health care, is an effective way of reducing inequalities between the member states.

23.   urges the Commission to recognise the particular challenges in monitoring health outcomes for migrants and migrant communities. Transient or migrating populations are less likely to have good health outcomes and can encounter specific obstacles in accessing social support. The communication identifies migrants as a vulnerable group. In achieving effective data monitoring, there should be regard given to the specific challenges of monitoring health outcomes when population groups are migratory or in transit.

24.   urges the Commission to acknowledge gender-based inequalities in health and to support the collection, monitoring and analysis of sex-disaggregated health data and gender statistics. Particular attention should be given to women's and men's right to access to preventive healthcare, with a view to effectively addressing disparities amongst and within Member States.

The role of regional and local authorities

25.   welcomes the recognition of the role of regional and local authorities, both in delivering health outcomes and in delivering the services which address the social determinants of health.

26.   suggests that greater emphasis is put on the importance of local action to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent the conditions that lead to ill health. Some regions have already developed their own strategies, in which goals that are set out in the communication are pursued and a framework for an overall health promotion policy is laid down. The Committee underlines that educational programmes in schools are vital to promote healthy eating and healthy living. There are many agencies that are in a position to contribute to stronger preventative action, but in many cases effective prevention will require very local activity tailored to the needs of particular communities. While the nature of the problems leading to ill health may be common across member states, delivering the messages about healthy living often requires small scale interventions built on local knowledge. These interventions may be effective in localities spread across many member states – geographically separate areas may share similar challenges, such as high unemployment from the closure of heavy industry. Future action should seek to connect small communities across the EU who are facing similar challenges that may not be shared with their closer regional neighbours. Collaboration at national level may be ineffective at drawing out the learning about approaches effective in particular small communities.

27.   strongly endorses the Commission's view that improving the exchange of information and coordination of policies between different levels of government and different sectors can create more effective action and achieve a larger and more consistent impact. The Committee would suggest that this view could be more strongly put: not only that such coordination and exchange can achieve more effective and impactful action, but that it is an important precondition for the reduction of health inequalities. Commitment to reducing health inequalities offers an important opportunity for member states to consider the level of cooperation within borders and to learn from member states who have been most successful in devising partnerships between levels of government and different sectors.

EU level cooperation structures

28.   reinforces the interest previously shown by the Committee of the Regions to build a focus on health inequalities into regional cooperation on health. The Committee of the Regions is committed to the principle of a structured interaction led by Committee members. The Committee is also interested in using such a structured interaction to engage collaboratively with DG SANCO and its work on health inequalities.

29.   believes that structured interaction from the Committee of the Regions should be supplemented with its representation in EU health related committees and working parties dealing with health. While it is recognised that member states have discretion to appoint representatives to attend these working parties, it would be beneficial to review the progress made at local and regional level in relation to fighting health inequalities.

Vulnerable groups

30.   welcomes the recognition of the needs of vulnerable groups, and the particular attention that needs to be given to people in poverty, disadvantaged migrant and ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities, elderly people and children living in poverty.

31.   requests that consideration be given to the needs of other vulnerable groups, particularly where health inequalities may be emerging over time. Understanding the changing nature of society and the inequalities that emerge as a result is critical to addressing avoidable inequality. This may include the needs of adults isolated as the result of family break up, people deprived of their liberty, people in care, or people living in rural areas with a declining economic base. Consideration should also be given to the importance of understanding the social and cultural influences prevalent in different community groups because of the significance this can have on individual behaviour.

32.   emphasises that action to support vulnerable groups should recognise the ambiguity in identifying ‘migrants’. For the purposes of health inequalities, any movement of population, regardless of whether people have moved from within the EU or from outside the EU, can result in social disadvantages, poor access to social support and therefore health inequalities. Population groups who have moved within the EU have unequal access to services such as housing and can become homeless. Homelessness can have acute impact on health. Specific action should be taken to consider the health outcomes of populations moving within the EU.

Regional and local role in funding and service provision

33.   believes that where existing funding streams are targeted to health, local and regional authorities should be entitled to a flexibility on whether to put the focus on developing skills, knowledge, and capacity in delivery agencies or on developing healthcare infrastructure. While investment in health infrastructure may be a priority in some member states and some regions or localities where infrastructure is underdeveloped, in other areas with significant health inequalities, health infrastructure is well developed. In these areas investment may need to be directed at a very local level to develop skills, knowledge and capacity in both health agencies and the local population.

34.   suggests that, whilst recognising that national implementation of Community legislation on Health and Safety at Work contributes to national health inequalities by protecting workers’ health, regional and local authorities can also have a role in modelling best practice in employment. This is relevant to authorities both as significant employers in their regions and localities, and also through authorities’ ability to influence the employment practice of other organisations and stakeholders in their regions and localities.

35.   recalls its request for greater legal certainty for the providers of social services of general interest in relation to EU competition rules and expects the Commission to take up this proposal in its 2010 work programme. Notes in this regard the commitment by the President of the European Commission to elaborate a quality framework for public services.

Recommendations

The Committee of the Regions recommends:

36.   Greater recognition within the EU2020 strategy of health and well being as being key to fighting exclusion.

37.   The possible use of structural funds to help tackle health inequalities.

38.   The inclusion of indicators beyond healthy life years in the monitoring of the Lisbon agenda, specifically indicators that reflect the gap in health outcomes between different groups.

39.   Recognition that the current financial crisis will exacerbate further the health inequalities of those EU citizens who find themselves unemployed, homeless or in poverty. Instead it urges greater investment in funding programmes such as FP7 and PROGRESS to help local and regional authorities tackle health inequalities both in the short term during the exit from the current programmes and longer term to tackle the widening gap in health.

40.   EU recognition and dissemination of the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of health, as well as national government responses to the WHO Commission.

41.   Commitment to the open method of coordination as a tool to share best practice and bench- marking to tackle health inequalities across member states without undermining the efforts already undertaken at the local and regional level.

Brussels, 14 April 2010

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCARCEL SISO

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/7

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU (2009 Ageing Report)

(2010/C 232/02)

I.   INTRODUCTION

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

1.   welcomes the Commission's communication on dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the European Union, which states that the ageing population will have a significant impact on pensions, health care and long-term care. The Commission communication emphasises that governments have a window of opportunity of less than ten years before the baby-boom cohorts retire; this presents a considerable level of urgency and major challenges and opportunities, which require targeted policy interventions. The actions taken to address the ageing of this cohort have to be very closely associated with gender equality policies in order to redress the current situation of greater poverty or less advantageous socio-economic conditions amongst elderly women, together with a poorer quality of life due to higher morbidity and greater dependency, closely linked to gender-based determining factors;

2.   thanks the local and regional authorities, non-governmental organisations and the Committee's other partners for their active contributions to the process of drafting this opinion, particularly during the ECOS meeting on 4 September 2009, the round table discussion on 18 November 2009 and the task force meeting on 14 December 2009;

3.   emphasises that the ageing population cannot be viewed in isolation, but forms part of a wider demographic transition. This transition is significantly changing the size and make-up of the population at local and regional level. A wide variety of factors affect the precise development and impact of this demographic transition (birth rate, mortality rate, immigration and people's willingness to move). The ageing of the population is a self-seeding process, and awareness and recognition of this process are essential in order to succeed in dealing with the impact of an ageing population;

4.   observes that the ratio of four people of working age for every person aged over 65 is going to change to a ratio of two people of working age for every older person. This is a long-term forecast; although it is worthwhile to look at long-term forecasts, the ageing of the population is not an issue for tomorrow or the day after, but an issue for today. More than 60 regions already have an old-age dependency of more than 29 %, and more than 70 regions are having to deal with a falling population (in some regions the population has fallen by more than 1 % per annum);

5.   notes that elderly women, the disabled and immigrants may experience particular challenges for healthy aging which need to be addressed;

6.   views the ageing of the population as a topic that should be dealt with as part of the Europe 2020 strategy, and aims to make use of the opportunities that this ageing provides for increasing social, economic and territorial cohesion. The Europe 2020 strategy works on the basis that each individual and each region contributes to the strength of the EU, thanks to their specific qualities and characteristics. European citizens who remain active and healthy as they get older have much largely untapped potential. This calls not only for policy targeted at older people, but for policy targeted at all European citizens at all stages of life;

7.   has previously noted that the impact of the ageing population is primarily felt at local level. Regional and local governments have important tasks with regard to health, welfare, paid and unpaid care, the labour market and the provision of services and facilities for housing, (public transport and education. It is the responsibility of local and regional authorities to find creative and innovative ways to deal with the impact of the ageing population within the context of the Europe 2020 strategy. This will require solidarity between older and younger people, between areas with growing and falling populations, between urban and rural areas and between regions and Member States.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

8.   advocates setting three main priorities as a ‘new deal’ for dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU, which will need to be put into operation in interregional or transregional pilot schemes. These priorities are in line with the Commission's objectives. The focus is on the primary local and regional responsibilities surrounding health and care, the labour market and the provision of facilities:

| — | Healthy ageing, with the aim of helping people in Europe to stay healthy and active for as long as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Healthy ageing, with the aim of helping people in Europe to stay healthy and active for as long as possible;

| — | Labour market participation and productivity, with the aim of promoting a European society where lifelong learning, participation and making a contribution to the development of society, including the possibility of paid/unpaid work, are available to everybody; |
| --- | --- |

—

Labour market participation and productivity, with the aim of promoting a European society where lifelong learning, participation and making a contribution to the development of society, including the possibility of paid/unpaid work, are available to everybody;

| — | Access to services and facilities, with the aim of reassessing the facilities provided to the ageing population; |
| --- | --- |

—

Access to services and facilities, with the aim of reassessing the facilities provided to the ageing population;

9.   notes that there is a direct link between the three priorities, and therefore advocates a horizontal approach: people who remain in good health as they age find it easier to make use of services and facilities, and have more opportunities on the labour market; a healthy working population and good services and facilities are essential to increasing productivity; and services and facilities can also make a contribution to healthy ageing and to increasing labour market participation and productivity; also advocates a gender approach that encourages healthy ageing under equal conditions for men and women;

10.   recognises a clear social agenda within these priorities. European society demonstrates its solidarity in its interactions with older people, including combating discrimination in all its forms (particularly age discrimination), removing obstacles that prevent older people participating in society, and providing an effective social safety net. People who make use of this safety net must be able to count on being treated with dignity. This social agenda is the joint responsibility of public authorities and their (social) partners;

11.   endorses the initiative of holding a ‘year of healthy and active ageing and solidarity between the generations’ with the full participation of children, in the next Commission term, and sees the priorities and the proposed pilot schemes as important elements of this year;

12.   observes that we can also build on local players who work to keep citizens (particularly older people, in the context of this opinion) active in society. Absorbing the impact of an ageing population requires cooperation with all of civil society, including the active involvement of individuals, organisations within society, knowledge institutions and private organisations. The social initiative of these groups makes the difference, and is indispensable in designing and implementing the proposed pilot schemes;

HEALTHY AGEING

Staying healthy and active for as long as possible

13.   understands healthy ageing to include all activities that help to combat the negative impact of the physical, psychological and social ageing process. Healthy ageing requires an integrated, lifelong approach (starting during childhood), focusing on the causes of health problems that develop over the course of a person's life and also looking at the possibilities for effective prevention and the environmental factors that affect people's health;

14.   sees the ageing of the European population very much as a positive (independent) development and a sign of prosperity. Healthy ageing comes down to how people can remain fit and well and continue to play an active part in society, with the emphasis on making a social and economic contribution. It is not (the biological) lifetime, but the life situation, that is the key here;

15.   notes that healthy ageing makes it possible to reduce the increase in costs as a result of population ageing: the healthier people remain as they age, the longer they can continue to contribute socially and economically to society. Promoting healthy ageing will require new socio-political thinking innovations, research (into treatments and other areas such as technical aids) and a broad-based approach to cities or surroundings suitable for the elderly with the corresponding to the range of available products. It is also essential to encourage skilled professionals essentially into the social and health care areas by expanding teaching programmes in university or non-university curricula focusing on ageing, so as to have trained and qualified professionals dealing with the various aspects of ageing, especially by encouraging professional profiles that can address treatments, dependence and health promotion. Healthy ageing thus makes a practical contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy;

16.   in order to reduce the cost related to an ageing population, the competent authorities should put in place policies which allow for, and encourage elderly people to stay at home as long as possible;

OBJECTIVES

17.   aims to ensure that the regions of Europe actively look for overlaps within their own policy on healthy ageing: they can work together to find the best ways of encouraging innovation and research in the field of healthy ageing and of monitoring progress. In order for this approach to succeed, a targeted innovation policy will be needed. The various authorities, together with their (knowledge) partners, must take the lead in promoting healthy ageing;

18.   calls for cooperation both within and between regions, and has identified the following central tasks in relation to healthy ageing (the emphasis here is on health; the other priorities put the emphasis on economic participation and the provision of services and facilities, respectively):

| — | Laying a healthy foundation at a young age. Healthy ageing needs a good start. The earlier health risks such as excess weight, eating habits and lifestyle are dealt with, the better the prospects; |
| --- | --- |

—

Laying a healthy foundation at a young age. Healthy ageing needs a good start. The earlier health risks such as excess weight, eating habits and lifestyle are dealt with, the better the prospects;

| — | Adequate care and rapid reintegration. If a person encounters health problems at some point in his or her life, the aim is to deal with those problems quickly and efficiently, i.e. cost-effectively; this is the best way to reintegrate people into everyday life and to keep them involved in society, and thus makes a significant contribution to increasing labour market participation and social support; |
| --- | --- |

—

Adequate care and rapid reintegration. If a person encounters health problems at some point in his or her life, the aim is to deal with those problems quickly and efficiently, i.e. cost-effectively; this is the best way to reintegrate people into everyday life and to keep them involved in society, and thus makes a significant contribution to increasing labour market participation and social support;

| — | (Long-term) care of the elderly. Care of the elderly requires a specific approach, firstly because the elderly are, to varying degrees, vulnerable, which may have a significant effect on the success of treatment, and secondly because older people's health problems are increasingly likely to be due to a combination of disorders. The key to providing adequate (long-term) care for the elderly is for care workers to be given appropriate training in modern, effective treatment methods and other health-related aspects (such as rehabilitation); |
| --- | --- |

—

(Long-term) care of the elderly. Care of the elderly requires a specific approach, firstly because the elderly are, to varying degrees, vulnerable, which may have a significant effect on the success of treatment, and secondly because older people's health problems are increasingly likely to be due to a combination of disorders. The key to providing adequate (long-term) care for the elderly is for care workers to be given appropriate training in modern, effective treatment methods and other health-related aspects (such as rehabilitation);

LABOUR MARKET PARTICIPATION AND PRODUCTIVITY

Lifelong learning, work and participation for all

19.   emphasises that elderly people must have a right to old-age revenue above the poverty threshold to ensure a life in dignity. Many elderly people, in particular women, live in or at risk of poverty;

20.   notes that (social) participation contributes significantly to older people's feelings of well-being, with participation in the labour market being the most important aspect of this. It is also important to increase labour market participation and productivity in order to maintain the health of both the economy and government finances and the social security systems against the backdrop of an ageing population. Participation is a right, but, looking to the near future, it is also an obligation for all citizens. This means that both employers and employees need to be flexible, and specifically implies that authorities and the social partners have an obligation to enable unrestricted labour market participation The Committee of the Regions thus supports a broad non-discrimination directive focusing on the accessibility of various goods and services (an important aspect of which needs to be combating age discrimination). At the moment, there are still big differences in labour market participation between regions and target groups. A modern (ageing) society needs to make the best possible use of the skills of older people. Providing high-quality, appropriate jobs will enable people to continue working for longer. This involves more than just working conditions: it also relates to variety of work, and so on. It is not acceptable to restrict career progression and exclude people from the labour market on the basis of age or, for instance, sex and (ethnic) background or disability;

21.   stresses that education has an important role to play in increasing labour market productivity and participation. It is time for a cultural change towards lifelong skills-based learning and working with the aim of life-long employability, and thus participation (in society). This means that access to services and facilities for training must be guaranteed. The responsibility for achieving this is shared between citizens, public authorities, employers, employees and knowledge institutions;

22.   believes that the concept of lifelong skills-based learning and working may ultimately result in retirement being closer to an ‘adjusted, i.e. competence-oriented, working phase’ in nature. The ‘silver economy’ provides ample opportunity to become economically stronger. Voluntary work and caring are also very valuable ways of realising this adjusted working phase. The most important thing is for citizens to remain active throughout their lives;

23.   believes that (selective) labour migration can also help to combat labour shortages. In that vein, the Commission has stated that a well organised legal immigration policy will have a role to play in filling labour shortages. This could include recognising diplomas and simplifying procedures (taking account of the risk of the possible negative impact of brain drain in the countries of origin);

OBJECTIVES

24.   aims to improve the employability of the whole working population. The best possible use must be made of every person's skills and competences, particularly those of older people. Health and healthy working conditions are crucial factors in people's employability. Making better use of existing skills is, in the first instance, the social partners’ responsibility; individuals, both male and female, should be called upon to undertake lifelong learning so that they can continue to take part in the continually changing demands of the society and the economy and take their proper place there. Public authorities have a facilitating and stimulating role. The best possible use must be made of the creativity and entrepreneurship of individuals and private operators; education and higher education establishments must tailor their programmes to the requirements of the elderly in order to enable them to develop the necessary knowledge and skills to this end. Of particular importance is that older citizens are encouraged and assisted in having their competencies accredited and validated;

25.   calls for labour market productivity and participation to be stimulated by means of a targeted policy mix tailored to each region and target group. Essential elements include:

| — | investing in education, training and teaching skills, in order stimulate young people's upward mobility on the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

—

investing in education, training and teaching skills, in order stimulate young people's upward mobility on the labour market;

| — | stimulating measures to improve work-life balance, including, for example, child care, compassionate and parental leave and technological innovations (teleworking); |
| --- | --- |

—

stimulating measures to improve work-life balance, including, for example, child care, compassionate and parental leave and technological innovations (teleworking);

| — | promoting occupational health. Although average life expectancy is increasing within the EU, people are not staying healthy for longer, which means that the labour market needs to be set up such that people can continue to participate despite any limitations and health problems they may have. Healthy (or healthier) and better facilitated working conditions will be required; |
| --- | --- |

—

promoting occupational health. Although average life expectancy is increasing within the EU, people are not staying healthy for longer, which means that the labour market needs to be set up such that people can continue to participate despite any limitations and health problems they may have. Healthy (or healthier) and better facilitated working conditions will be required;

| — | accrediting and validating the competencies and experiences of elderly citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

accrediting and validating the competencies and experiences of elderly citizens;

| — | looking for smarter options to allow workers from outside the EU onto the European labour market in fields where there are shortages (at the moment, for example, in parts of the care sector and certain knowledge-intensive sectors, but perhaps also in other sectors in the future); |
| --- | --- |

—

looking for smarter options to allow workers from outside the EU onto the European labour market in fields where there are shortages (at the moment, for example, in parts of the care sector and certain knowledge-intensive sectors, but perhaps also in other sectors in the future);

26.   stresses that the risk of losing part or all of their pension entitlements when they earn additional income after having reached pensionable age, is often a reason why elderly workers do not stay active. There is a need to explore the possibilities to adopt more flexible rules at the appropriate levels in this regard;

27.   underlines the importance of sensibilising companies, in particular human resources managers/recruitment offices to hire staff of advanced age, in particular women. Companies which make particular efforts to ensure internal mobility for elderly workers, to provide flexible working arrangements or which focus training or career development strategies on the specific needs of older workers, should be supported. The European Commission should collect and disseminate best practices in this regard. It is also crucial to sensibilise and inform older employees themselves in this respect;

ACCESS TO SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Reassessing the facilities provided

28.   understands the provision of services and facilities to include the general social, economic and territorial (physical) infrastructure that contributes to the quality of local and regional society. In this connection, it is worth distinguishing between regional and local services and facilities (such as public transport, care, education, social events and health care) and national social arrangements (such as pensions). The provision of services and facilities requires an integrated, coherent approach in order to make use of the social, economic and spatial opportunities;

29.   notes that the provision of services and facilities does not match the change in demand due to the ageing of the population. The policy must focus on ensuring that people can make the best possible use of services and facilities, so that they can continue to take an active part in society. Rising demand and inadequate public resources mean that this provision of services and facilities needs to be reassessed. The capacity for innovation needs to be exploited to the full, or implemented in a different way. The ageing of the population also presents an additional challenge when it comes to finding enough properly qualified workers to bear the brunt of keeping services and facilities accessible; increasing labour market participation and productivity will help with this (but other actions will also need to be taken);

30.   stresses that services and facilities cannot always continue to be provided in traditional ways in areas undergoing major demographic changes. Different, robust ways of guaranteeing accessibility should be stimulated, for example looking to ‘e-inclusion’. This includes e-services such as e-health, e-training, e-care and e-assistance. The traditional, often age-related, distinction between physical facilities and electronic services is becoming increasingly blurred, and in future will require an innovative, area-specific approach. An innovative approach like this must include establishing a regional network of both physical and digitally accessible services and facilities ‘telephone trees’ could, for example, be a small start;

31.   also stresses that a good, well-targeted public transport system will help significantly to keep services and facilities accessible, especially if they are centrally located and a good (public) transport systems. This applies not only to facilities (such as care facilities) for older people, but also, for example, to schools and knowledge institutions for young people and adults. It is important, in this context, for the (public) transport system to be tailored at regional level;

32.   refers to the World Health Organisation's initiative to promote ‘healthy cities’ in which facilities and services, in conjunction with the physical infrastructure, are better tailored for an ageing population. Active participation (by older people) has an important role to play when developing policy surrounding healthy cities. This approach is very much in line with the Committee's aim of accessibility of services and facilities;

OBJECTIVES

33.   aims to enable as many people as possible to make the best possible use of services and facilities, so that they can continue to take an active part in society. In future, the provision of regional and local services and facilities will need to be reassessed in the light of changes in demand, with this demand being based not just on age but more particularly on lifestyle: people with a healthy lifestyle generally need fewer, and different, facilities than those with an unhealthy lifestyle;

34.   calls for the development and exchange of knowledge relating to the provision of services and facilities, both within and between regions. The key priority is:

| — | to strengthen cooperation. The provision of services and facilities requires close cooperation. Regional and local cooperation between the authorities, knowledge institutions, organisations within society (in particular NGOs) and business is the driving force in increasing (qualitative and quantitative) support; |
| --- | --- |

—

to strengthen cooperation. The provision of services and facilities requires close cooperation. Regional and local cooperation between the authorities, knowledge institutions, organisations within society (in particular NGOs) and business is the driving force in increasing (qualitative and quantitative) support;

| — | to stimulate creative entrepreneurship, innovation and
  e-inclusion taking the ageing of the European population as a major opportunity for increasing the competitiveness of economic operators. The challenge for regional and local public and private operators is to make use of new ideas and technologies to improve the organisation and funding of the services and facilities they provide. Examples include broadband and e-inclusion (home automation, tele-care, tele-shopping and tele-learning), and also the development of new regional transport systems or the further development of existing public transport systems; |
| --- | --- |

—

to stimulate creative entrepreneurship, innovation and
  e-inclusion taking the ageing of the European population as a major opportunity for increasing the competitiveness of economic operators. The challenge for regional and local public and private operators is to make use of new ideas and technologies to improve the organisation and funding of the services and facilities they provide. Examples include broadband and e-inclusion (home automation, tele-care, tele-shopping and tele-learning), and also the development of new regional transport systems or the further development of existing public transport systems;

| — | to change what is provided. The provision of services and facilities, both e-based services and informal care services, should be adapted to citizens’ changing requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

to change what is provided. The provision of services and facilities, both e-based services and informal care services, should be adapted to citizens’ changing requirements;

| — | encourage the use of ICT to achieve greater social and territorial inclusion for the elderly. |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage the use of ICT to achieve greater social and territorial inclusion for the elderly.

CONCLUSIONS

35.   advocates an area-specific approach to dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the fields of (1) healthy ageing; (2) labour market participation and productivity; and (3) access to services and facilities. The Committee of the Regions is thus in favour of an integrated approach to the ageing population as part of a wider demographic transition. This approach is based on a lifecycle approach, on making the most of opportunities and on regional differentiation, resulting in a new deal for tackling the impact of an ageing population in the EU that does justice to the responsibility of local and regional authorities to provide creative and innovative solutions in their regions;

36.   calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to:

| — | encouraging further awareness-raising, knowledge-sharing, technological innovations and the development of best practices and intervention strategies among all players in the EU (non-governmental organisations, knowledge institutions, private operators and public authorities); |
| --- | --- |

—

encouraging further awareness-raising, knowledge-sharing, technological innovations and the development of best practices and intervention strategies among all players in the EU (non-governmental organisations, knowledge institutions, private operators and public authorities);

| — | monitoring and forecasting of the ageing of the population at regional level, as a vital input for developing and implementing policy. There are major regional differences that do not show up in national monitors but that are indispensable in anticipating the impact of an ageing population; |
| --- | --- |

—

monitoring and forecasting of the ageing of the population at regional level, as a vital input for developing and implementing policy. There are major regional differences that do not show up in national monitors but that are indispensable in anticipating the impact of an ageing population;

| — | including the subject of the ageing of the population as part of a wider demographic transition in the various European programmes, as a tool to support regional, area-specific, integrated and innovative approaches. In this connection, the regions call for close, direct cooperation with the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

including the subject of the ageing of the population as part of a wider demographic transition in the various European programmes, as a tool to support regional, area-specific, integrated and innovative approaches. In this connection, the regions call for close, direct cooperation with the Commission.

37.   offers to work with the Commission to launch various transregional and interregional pilot schemes based on the three main priorities. These pilot schemes primarily aim to exchange knowledge and best practices. This clearly goes beyond simply raising awareness: the pilot schemes must implement and exchange practical actions. In view of the integrated nature of the ageing issue, the Committee is keen for knowledge to be exchanged not only within the priorities but also horizontally, between the priorities. The pilot schemes should promote the development of knowledge. When it comes to implementing substantive programmes, the pilot partners can, independently, take advantage of various sources of EU funding. In the brochure ‘How to promote ageing well in Europe: instruments and tools available to local and regional actors’, the Committee, in collaboration with AGE, has set out what funding sources are available (CoR, 2009). This is a valuable tool in launching pilot schemes. The members of the Committee will draw up proposals in this regard;

38.   proposes the following framework for the pilot schemes. The pilot schemes should focus on generating practical knowledge and scientific knowledge (both applied and basic research) that helps to tackle the impact of an ageing population in the EU. Basic research must contribute to reducing future care requirements in the long term, in which connection cohort studies and biobanks are valuable sources of information. In order to find out how people can remain healthier as they age and thus put off the time when they will need care, we need to find out what (cellular) processes lie behind ageing. Interregional and transregional partnerships of knowledge institutions, (local) authorities and private parties should be established to develop innovative area-specific approaches and test them in practice; the social partners, welfare and care institutions and other non-governmental organisations may also have an important role here. These regional partnerships could be based around specific knowledge competencies or chain cooperation associations available in a given region, or around particular ageing issues that arise in the specific region. One option here is to link up with the existing INTERREG programmes. In addition to the actions listed above for each priority, the following points should be highlighted:

| — | Healthy ageing: strengthening care networks (care comprising cooperation between the various care partners who get involved throughout a citizen's lifetime and associated care needs) by translating the results of research into new products, technologies and services and using practical experience for research programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

Healthy ageing: strengthening care networks (care comprising cooperation between the various care partners who get involved throughout a citizen's lifetime and associated care needs) by translating the results of research into new products, technologies and services and using practical experience for research programmes;

| — | Labour market participation and productivity: with the aim of promoting a European society where lifelong learning, participation and making a contribution to the development of society, including the possibility of paid/unpaid work, are available to everybody; |
| --- | --- |

—

Labour market participation and productivity: with the aim of promoting a European society where lifelong learning, participation and making a contribution to the development of society, including the possibility of paid/unpaid work, are available to everybody;

| — | Access to services and facilities: developing area-specific approaches to reassess the facilities provided; |
| --- | --- |

—

Access to services and facilities: developing area-specific approaches to reassess the facilities provided;

39.   calls on the European Parliament to endorse the Committee of the Regions’ appeal for the urgent and topical subject of the ageing population (as part of a wider demographic transition) to be tackled at regional level in interregional and/or transregional pilot schemes, and to join it in initiating such schemes.

Brussels, 14 April 2010

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCARCEL SISO

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/14

---

Outlook Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of cohesion policy

(2010/C 232/03)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

1.   is pleased that the European Commission has already launched an exchange of views on the future form of European cohesion policy post 2013, with its Fourth Cohesion Report of May 2007, the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion of September 2008, the ‘Barca Report’ of April 2009 and its Progress Reports on Economic and Social Cohesion;

2.   welcomes the European Commission's request to the Committee of the Regions for an outlook opinion on how cohesion policy can remain an effective instrument for promoting the smooth and sustained development of the European Union and how it can meet the future challenges of implementing EU policies;

3.   emphasises that, in view of the Lisbon Treaty provisions, a priority objective of the EU must continue to be the pursuit of a policy to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion, in order to promote the smooth development of the Union as a whole. A specific objective in this context is to narrow the differences in levels of development between regions and reduce the gap in the case of the most disadvantaged areas. Particular attention should be paid here to rural areas, regions affected by industrial change and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions. The problems of urban areas such as towns and cities affected by long-term deprivation should also be recognised;

4.   therefore believes that European cohesion policy must evolve with the aim of continuing in the future to narrow development gaps sustainably, strengthen sustainable growth and employment in European regions, support social inclusion and competitiveness in all the Member States and regions, safeguard subsidiarity and financial sustainability and continue to improve the effectiveness of Community policy;

5.   considers that the debate about the future of European cohesion policy must precede that on the review of Europe's financial system insofar as the political objectives must be set before determining the resources to be allocated; issues concerning the financial framework of future cohesion policy are not discussed in this opinion. Such questions should be addressed in conjunction with the planned revision of the financing system and negotiations on the next financial perspective. However, the Committee of the Regions would already state its support for continuing to allocate a substantial proportion of the EU budget to structural policy funding measures in local and regional authorities;

Future challenges for cohesion policy post-2013

6.   shares the European Commission's view that new challenges are emerging in relation to economic, social and territorial cohesion, which will have to be met whilst also taking account of the practical aspects of regional development, the resources available and the development strategy. Regional and structural policy must typically adapt to changing problems and opportunities. The Committee of the Regions is therefore convinced that the regional tier of government with the involvement of local stakeholders can make a particularly valuable contribution in managing challenges such as climate change, security of energy policy, demographic changes or globalisation, in close coordination with efforts at higher levels of government. It is important that the principles of multilevel governance be implemented and that the different tiers of government work together;

7.   notes that these challenges will affect cohesion policy if they help to widen economic and social disparities in Europe's regions. Therefore it should be assessed how much more consideration must also given to the new challenges in framing cohesion policy. It is also necessary to consider whether these challenges should be addressed with legislative adjustments or general policy processes;

8.   points out that European cohesion policy also makes a contribution to meeting the new challenges by strengthening the competitiveness and attractiveness of the regions. For instance, it is already contributing to climate protection, management of the manifold consequences of climate change and to energy security by promoting eco-innovations, measures to encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources. This flexibility has already enabled European structural policy to meet new challenges in the past, and it can continue to do this;

9.   does not see any need for fundamentally new structural policy instruments or framing of new, additional objectives with respect to the new challenges where the overarching structural policy goals should be to strengthen competitiveness and employment in all Europe's regions, as well as and also accelerating the economic convergence of regions that are still lagging behind. The EU Structural Funds must also be used for this purpose beyond 2013 in all Europe's regions so that economic and social cohesion can be guaranteed and territorial differences between and within regions limited;

10.   therefore also supports the aims of the EU Territorial Agenda and key outcomes of the discussion of the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, which saw integrated regional strategy focusing on potential as promising instruments for stepping up cohesion in Europe. In the face of the future challenges, Europe cannot afford to forgo a joint policy approach between the various levels of government and different sectors. Only a coordinated joint effort between European, national and regional policies will be adequate to effectively meet the new challenges;

11.   therefore advocates thorough consideration of the extent to which the EU Structural Funds and other instruments can be used in particular to seize the opportunities associated with the new challenges in terms of accelerated convergence in Europe and improved European competitiveness and conversion towards a low carbon economy. This analysis should also deal with the interactions between cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy in the 2007-2013 period and address the question whether the earmarking of structural funds based on this strategy has had an impact on cohesion. Such an examination could allow a re-orientation of the strategic guidelines for cohesion policy, if necessary;

12.   points out that the EU Structural Funds have already made a substantial to implementation of the Lisbon strategy during the 2007-2013 funding period by increasing the regions’ involvement in its implementation, and therefore considers it necessary to maintain the momentum of European structural policy in implementing the renewed Lisbon strategy and the focus of cohesion policy on the objectives of the renewed strategy whilst upholding the original aim of cohesion policy, which is to reduce disparities in development between the less-developed regions and the rest of the EU. The effectiveness and impact of cohesion policy are strongly dependent on the economic situation. Promoting favourable economic conditions, competitiveness and employment in the regions is of key importance in achieving self-sustaining economic growth in the regions. In this context, cohesion policy must be regarded as the most important flanking policy for boosting the competitiveness of lagging regions;

13.   also stresses that the effectiveness and impact of cohesion policy are strongly dependent on the economic situation. Promoting favourable economic conditions, competitiveness and employment in the regions is of key importance in achieving self-sustaining economic growth in the regions. In this context, cohesion policy must be regarded as the most important flanking policy for boosting the competitiveness of lagging regions;

14.   therefore supports the European Commission's statement in its communication on the Europe 2020 strategy that economic, social and territorial cohesion remains one of the strategy's key concerns. The cohesion policy and structural funds are not only important instruments of EU policy in themselves, but also key catalysts for generating innovative, sustainable and integrated growth in the Member States and the regions. The close linking of economic, social and environmental policy goals is essential to the success of this strategy. However, the proposed flagship initiatives should not lead to any restriction of the European cohesion policy. The structural funds must remain capable of integrated problem-solving at regional level and should not be reduced to meeting sectoral conditions;

15.   emphasises that European cohesion policy plays an important role both in furthering social cohesion and in reducing social disparities in the European Union. The Committee of the Regions therefore notes that bearing in mind the social impact of the financial and economic crisis in particular, the political framing of social cohesion must be synonymous with economic and territorial cohesion and should not be neglected in the future; however, consideration should be given to the fact that cohesion policy should be a long-term policy, that should also be able to react to short-term changes caused by a deterioration of the economic situation;

16.   is convinced that an employment-oriented European cohesion strategy will become more important in the future owing to the effects of the financial and economic crisis. The Community's most important job market and employment policy funding instrument for realising this strategy is the indispensable European Social Fund (ESF). The European Social Fund must be maintained as a funding instrument at the service of the social cohesion objective within the framework of cohesion policy. Moreover, it is necessary to maintain an integrated approach to the application of the Structural Funds to the European territories. ESF must be allocated sufficient financial means if it is to reliably achieve the Community's job market and employment policy goals and social inclusion objectives;

17.   considers that the particular value of European cohesion policy must be measured by its results and refers in this connection to the Committee of the Regions opinion on the leverage effect of cohesion policy. The European Structural Funds are an important instrument for giving all regions the possibility to draw on their internal development potential to achieve sustainable growth, employment and prosperity. These programmes, which are geared to common European priorities, are based on agreed development strategies and implemented at devolved level. They thus make a tangible contribution to developing growth potential at the level of local and regional authorities;

18.   notes that among the many positive results of European cohesion policy, encouragement of research and innovation, as well as knowledge-intensive services, should be identified as particularly important. Many projects that are important for structural development - especially in the sphere of scientific and technical infrastructure and of developing innovative approaches in job market and employment policy - were carried out both in lagging regions and other regions in Europe only thanks to funding from the EU Structural Funds. Thus numerous projects have already been realised across Europe, providing an excellent example of the European added value of EU Structural Fund support. A cohesion policy geared to supporting the regions complements the promotion of excellence in Europe by ensuring that European innovation policy develops the necessary range to make the EU-2020 strategy a success. In order to maximise and strengthen the impact and results of research and innovation in the regions, it is important to ensure the coordination of programmes and instruments for funding innovation and research policies and cohesion policy;

19.   at the same time notes that the European Structural Funds are effective not only in terms of the direct funding they provide. They also play a key role in ensuring that the regional and structural strategies of stakeholders at the various different levels focus on common objectives. The Committee of the Regions is thus convinced that this significantly boosts the efficiency of the overall European, national, regional and local funding in place to foster economic, social and territorial cohesion. Thanks to the system of multi-level governance, which involves devolved responsibility for the various programmes in place in support areas, Europe is able to pursue common objectives using coherent measures while at the same time leaving due scope for establishing specific regional and local priorities. The Committee of the Regions feels that this – in addition to financial solidarity – represents the added value of European structural policy;

20.   feels that the ongoing ex-post evaluation of the last funding period and the upcoming interim review should be used to highlight the benefits and potential of Structural Fund support;

The principles of cohesion policy post-2013

21.   endorses the point made in the Barca report that structural policy also has to be seen in the light of the EU's ultimate objectives – increasing growth, well-being and cohesion and preserving peace – and considers that this policy should continue to be applied to all of Europe's regions, focusing in particular on the regions in greatest need. Structural policy is a key pillar of European integration and enables the public to identify with the European venture. Thus, in mapping out the course of future European cohesion policy, the formula for economic, social and territorial cohesion could well be to combine (i) European support programmes underpinned by appropriate strategic parameters and (ii) due regional- and local-level powers to resolve any difficulties that might arise;

22.   feels that it would be worthwhile to develop a method to assess the carbon footprint of projects funded by the Structural Funds, and recommends in particular that future programme planning should look towards carbon neutrality. As already provided for in some Member States, the overall balance of investments should not result in additional greenhouse gas emissions;

23.   notes in this regard that the devolved approach to cohesion policy has proven successful and should be retained. However, thought should be given to which procedures might lend themselves to further simplification in order to cut the red tape involved in the management of cohesion policy;

24.   advocates a modulated approach to using carefully chosen and meaningful indicators to assess cohesion policy in order to secure the targeted deployment of resources and present a comprehensive picture of the impact of structural policy;

25.   notes that other EU policy areas also impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion and must therefore also take due account of cohesion policy objectives; and hence calls on the European Commission to carry out studies on the territorial impact ex-ante of the legislative or non-legislative proposals in areas having a clear territorial dimension (public services, transport, energy, environment, competition, agriculture etc.). The CoR also calls on the European Commission to pay particular attention to this aspect when drafting the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. The Committee of the Regions expressly welcomes the Commission's efforts to better dovetail cohesion policy with other policies that have a clear territorial impact and to generate synergistic benefits;

26.   feels that EU cohesion policy also has close functional ties with EU State aid rules and those applicable to services of general economic interest. Any reform of EU cohesion policy should therefore also be accompanied by a review of EU State aid law. Modulated approaches may be needed, not least in the case of globally competing locations and investments in the ‘future industries’. As regards services of general economic interest, the CoR calls on the Commission to use the new legal basis provided by Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, inter alia, to clarify to what extent the mechanisms for financing these services are compatible with the relevant Community instruments;

27.   affirms that the partnership principle and, hence, the involvement of the economic and social partners and other regional and local stakeholders in all phases of Structural Fund support have proved successful in boosting acceptance of the measures and ensuring they are properly targeted; and, in the interests of enhanced partnership, would propose that increased backing be given to exchanges of best practice between regions. That said, the Committee of the Regions sees no need for more far-reaching legal provisions to help shape partnership at European level;

28.   feels there is a need for an ongoing review of the efficiency and effectiveness of European cohesion policy, not least against the backdrop of ever-scarcer financial resources. The increased use of private resources offers additional opportunities for implementing cohesion policy. At all events, the use of private resources should always be an incentive in the area of cohesion policy and never a substitute for it;

29.   stresses the need to facilitate the use of revolving funds in suitable areas within the framework of the cohesion policy so as to give a higher profile to loan-based instruments in implementing this policy, and recognises the role of the European Investment Bank and such programmes as Jeremie and Jaspers in the development and application of loan-based Structural Fund programmes;

30.   advocates the more consistent application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles in cohesion policy. These principles must not, however, be predicated on efficiency considerations alone. The current devolved arrangements for European cohesion policy – involving operational programmes drawn up at national and regional level in partnership-based dialogue with the Commission and implemented autonomously by the national, regional and local authorities – have proved successful. They must be maintained and built upon in order to give a further boost to regional and local autonomy in the operational implementation of European cohesion policy;

31.   expressly welcomes the more strategic approach to EU structural policy management that has been in evidence in the 2007-2013 funding period. Managing policy on the basis of objectives rather than eligibility rules means that the regions are able to select – and where necessary adapt – the measures and tools appropriate to them without losing sight of how these tie in with EU-wide goals;

32.   also reiterates that rural development measures under the second pillar of the CAP need to be better coordinated with regional policy, in order to improve consistency between urban and rural development. This coordination could result in a European-level strategic framework in the form of strategic Community guidelines applicable both to the Structural Funds and to the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

33.   feels that that the pursuit of a strategic approach of this kind would be greatly assisted by consistent reporting and monitoring of European strategic objectives in order to gauge progress and verify the reliability of control and audit procedures implemented by the Member States in the light of the goal of carrying out fewer but better checks and by a clear and robust audit system, thereby avoiding unnecessary red tape;

34.   also feels that the mono-fund programmes introduced for the ERDF and ESF have proved successful. Using mono-funds has greatly simplified the approval and revision procedures compared with the former multi-fund programmes. The requisite flexibility has been achieved by making it possible, to a certain extent, for programmes to include measures from the other fund as appropriate. The coordination of the funds and their respective operational programmes should be further strengthened, with the ultimate aim of a better complementarity between ESF and ERDF at the local and regional level.;

35.   would stress the ongoing concern for less red tape and consistently simpler administrative procedures for the allocation, use, settlement and monitoring of financial resources from the EU structural funds. This should also be factored into the rules for the planning of future programmes;

36.   notes that the current financing period has seen a tightening of the implementation and financial monitoring requirements. In some cases, simplifications that had previously been announced have been reversed. This has resulted in disproportionate cost and effort. Monitoring also shows that the effectiveness of development efforts is being undermined. The Committee of the Regions would therefore advocate a simple, transparent yet effective monitoring procedure. The Committee sees no need to conduct a full compliance audit in each funding period. Instead, the established rules in place for national funding should be deemed sufficient. Consideration should also be given to the structure of the audit bodies, the monitoring standards and the definition and determination of the margin of error with a view to possible simplification. The persistent practice of laying down rules and standards with retroactive effect complicates the situation, hampers proper administration and must be avoided in future. One alternative worth looking into would be to apply a general proportionality principle aiming to adapt the regulatory monitoring requirements to the size of the projects funded by the Structural Funds;

37.   points out that fresh scope for simplification might also be provided as a result of the new provision under the Lisbon Treaty whereby Member States are also to take responsibility for executing the EU budget. The CoR suggests that an additional simplification will be achieved through the Commission analysing Member States’ audit procedures and seeing if ‘contracts of confidence’ with regions can be reached to avoid duplication in auditing procedures. The principle of proportionality of regulations on small projects should be applied to reduce burdens;

The future architecture of cohesion policy after 2013

38.   is pleased that EU structural policy since 2000 has, by moving away from an initially diverse range of objectives and a large number of specific Community initiatives, reformed support arrangements in such a way as to achieve definite progress in terms of clarity and simplification. This progress must not be jeopardised again;

39.   considers that the decision to restrict the number of objectives, to involve all European regions, albeit with a special emphasis on those that are lagging behind, and to share responsibilities between the various tiers, with the onus on the regions to develop and implement the programmes at the devolved level, has basically proved sound;

40.   nonetheless feels that European cohesion policy should help to further improve economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Community, as well as its competitiveness, so as to guarantee sustainable economic growth, high employment, social inclusion and the quality and efficiency of public service provision, and emphasises that the relevant regions across Europe must be given equal treatment. In particular, regions that are lagging behind should be helped in future, regardless of the Member State in which they are situated. Cohesion policy is a key to public engagement at local and regional level with the EU's overarching political strategies;

41.   considers that European cohesion policy has to a large extent also become a tool to foster innovation, competitiveness and growth and thus to promote sustainable jobs;

42.   agrees with the Commission that European cohesion policy must continue to focus in particular on supporting the efforts of weaker regions in the new Member States to catch up economically. The Committee therefore feels that cohesion policy tools should therefore be suitably focused on those Member States and regions. Cohesion policy should help tap into the opportunities offered by the single market and European integration as a whole. However, EU cohesion policy must not thereby become a tool of ‘transferring funds’ and nothing more;

43.   believes that, to boost cohesion in Europe, it will still be necessary in future to ensure that the greater share of European Structural Fund resources goes to regions that are lagging behind so that continued progress can be made in evening out the biggest regional differences. The current definition of regions lagging behind – regions where per capita GDP is below 75 % of the EU average at NUTS II level – has proved a sound yardstick for selecting support areas. To evaluate cohesion policy, indicators need to be found below NUTS II level to highlight regional specificities and the situation on the ground in the regions;

44.   feels that those regions no longer eligible for maximum support should still receive assistance via reliable, appropriate and comprehensive support instruments that take due account of their specific circumstances, thus harnessing their long-term potential and at the same time benefiting the EU as a whole. That is the only way to safeguard the sustained success of structural support in these areas that has been achieved so far. For these regions (including those regions affected by the so-called ‘statistical effect’), appropriate and fair transitional arrangements must be put in place under the convergence objective so that support does not stop abruptly once the 75 % threshold has been reached and also to give the regions the security they need to further boost their competitiveness. In any case, irrespective of the future structure and aims of regional policy, financial help should be guaranteed for those regions which, for the first time, are no longer eligible under the convergence objective;

45.   is pleased that the European Parliament and the European Commission have explicitly recognised the particular plight of regions that will no longer be eligible for maximum support under the convergence objective after 2013;

46.   joins the European Parliament in calling on the Commission ‘to establish a more comprehensive system of gradual transitional assistance to regions that will soon be above the 75 % GDP threshold, in order to provide them with a clearer status and more security in their development;’

47.   stresses that the extensive support provided under European cohesion policy should be continued in the Regional competitiveness and employment regions after 2013 as these regions contain important pockets of poverty, and because the social and territorial disparities have been deepening in these regions across Europe. These regions make an important contribution to implementing the Lisbon strategy. However, if they are to make a lasting contribution to cohesion and competitiveness, constant efforts must be made to cultivate competitiveness, innovation and a high level of employment in line with sustainability requirements;

48.   is pleased that, as the European Commission announced in its fifth interim cohesion report, the majority of Member States have advocated retaining the Regional competitiveness and employment target, and that this also envisaged in the discussion paper prepared by the former Regional Affairs Commissioner, Danuta Hübner, in April 2009 and in the study drawn up by Fabrizio Barca on reforming European cohesion policy;

49.   agrees with the Commission that even structurally relatively strong regions that currently come under the second Structural Fund target of Regional competitiveness and employment need to increase their investment in creativity and innovation and accelerate the transition from new ideas to new products, services or processes;

50.   assumes that, given the territorial cohesion provisions set out in the new EU treaty, the territorial aspect of cohesion policy will be of greater importance in the future; and invites the European Commission to take the 400 contributions received during the consultation on the Green Paper on territorial cohesion into consideration in its reflexions on the future of the cohesion policy (see CoR opinion). The regions should therefore define their own strengths and develop appropriate strategies to address their respective needs. Spatial development will in future remain within the remit of the Member States and due account must be taken of the division of powers within each country. Involving the regional and local levels is designed to secure (i) spatial development that focuses on results and is properly positioned both in terms of content and of the geographical conditions involved and (ii) efficient use of resources;

51.   is in favour of maintaining the urban dimension in the context of European cohesion policy. Cities and metropolitan areas are important motors for growth and innovation. However, if they are to continue in that role, action will also be needed in future to bring a degree of social and economic stability to cities and urban problem areas, especially in the EU's less-developed regions. Cities and metropolitan areas help to spread development trends to surrounding areas. Furthermore, they guarantee access to knowledge, services and goods at the appropriate level. The development of urban policy should be based on supporting endogenous factors in the development of urban areas and strengthening relations and ties between urban centres;

52.   suggests that cohesion policy increasingly recognises the interrelated nature of urban and rural areas within wider functional economic areas. Cohesion policy is well placed to deliver an integrated development approach, which can address issues within and between the various combinations of urban and rural areas. Therefore, greater coordination is needed between the objectives and instruments of the European Structural Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Since regional problems are specific to each region, urges that each region within defined boundaries be allowed to establish its own targets and measures, so they can conduct their own development with help from EU resources;

53.   believes that major importance should be given to support for rural areas and the role of small and medium-sized cities in rural areas. This is the only way of addressing the structural deficits, migratory trends and disproportionately high number of older people in many rural areas of the European Union. Greater harmonisation is needed between the objectives and instruments of the European Structural Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development;

54.   points to the need, in application of the principle of territorial cohesion laid down in the Lisbon Treaty, for special attention also to be paid to regions affected by industrial change and regions with severe and long-term natural or demographic disadvantages e.g. the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross-border, mountain and outermost regions;

55.   emphasises that the existing support for cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation under the third Structural Fund objective – European territorial cooperation – has proved successful and should be continued and beefed up beyond 2013. Territorial cooperation makes a vital contribution to strengthening the European Union's competitiveness and its economic, social and above all territorial cohesion by drawing on the additional potential derived from the links between local and regional authorities. In this respect, existing programmes such as ESPON, Regions for economic change or URBACT should in future be brought together as horizontal territorial cooperation measures that benefit all three elements of cooperation. With regard to border regions, all those that meet the requirement of contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion should continue to be eligible for aid within the framework of the Territorial Cohesion Objective;

56.   in this respect, acknowledges the work of the European Commission in creating the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) and calls on local and regional authorities to make greater use of this instrument than in the past for implementing territorial cooperation, and invites the European Commission to address anomalies in the current regulations, such as in the cross-border strand which undermines the creation of functional areas of maritime co-operation between regions (because of the 150 km limit in the regulations), and to set out the role of the macro-regions and thematic strategies in greater detail in its proposals for future territorial cooperation arrangements. Steps must thereby be taken to ensure that local and regional authorities are more involved in framing and implementing such strategies than they have been up to now;

57.   calls for consideration to be given to Fabrizio Barca's proposal for the next funding period to earmark a small part of the cohesion policy budget for innovative measures, to be managed directly by the European Commission, in order to foster innovative approaches to regional policy across the Community;

System for implementing cohesion policy

58.   believes that the practice of devolving responsibility to the regions for drawing up operational programmes on the basis of regional development strategies, and then for actually implementing these programmes (which is an integral part of the system of coordination and partnership with higher levels of government) has proved its worth over several programming periods. The system of shared resource management, with programming and implementation at regional level, should thus also be retained in the future. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality must be strengthened in this respect. Above all, existing development potential can be opened up at regional and local level and local and regional stakeholders can be mobilised and brought together;

59.   therefore favours maintaining regional competence for European structural policy and rejects transferring responsibility – for instance for product selection – to the European level;

60.   supports continuing and stepping up efforts to cut red tape and simplify procedures, and proposes that, during the current funding period, the findings of the working party set up by the Commission on simplifying administration be taken into account in the framing of future administrative procedures; the Committee of the Regions should also be involved at an early stage in this framing process. More streamlined and transparent procedures are important prerequisites for efficient resource allocation;

61.   believes that consideration should also be given to whether other elements of European support policy still administered centrally by the European Commission – funding for innovation, for instance – might be transferred to the devolved system of the EU Structural Funds and the responsibility of the regional authorities, especially as the promotion of innovation is already a cornerstone of the EU Structural Fund programmes. For their part, the regions draw on local development concepts from the cities and sub-regions when putting together their regional development strategies and enlist the support of regional and local non-state stakeholders to implement the programmes, with the result that the administrative tier below the regional level is also actively involved in implementing EU structural policy;

62.   underlines the fact that local and regional authorities have amassed a great deal of essentially positive experience in recent years with development concepts, the establishment of regional management in sub-regions and integrated urban development concepts, recently subsumed by DG Regio as ‘local development methods’. These experiences have already been drawn on in the framing and implementation of the operational programmes for the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 periods;

63.   believes that, with a multiannual funding policy based on common European priorities, underpinned by a regional development strategy and implemented at regional level, the EU Structural Funds represents value added compared with the national regional policies. The fact that programmes are planned for implementation over a number of years creates a solid framework for all the participants and makes it possible, in particular, to pursue innovative approaches to policy. It ensures that structural policy is directed at strategic goals and priorities and protects against the danger of a short-term or ill-conceived funding policy which thus often retains outdated structures. The seven-year programmes that have been operated since 2000 have proved their worth. Under no circumstances should the programme cycle be shortened; regional policy is an important part of Community policy and any attempt to renationalise it should be resisted;

64.   positively welcomes the assessment culture which, under the EU Structural Funds, has increasingly become part of the support policy of all regions and makes it possible to continually improve the quality of strategies and instruments. The involvement of all the regions in European Structural Fund support provides scope for an exchange of experiences between the national and regional authorities throughout Europe and the opportunity to learn examples of best practice from one another. At the same time, the process creates a wide and solid foundation for the ongoing development of European structural policy;

The future role of local and regional authorities and the Committee of the Regions

65.   is critical of the growing trend for Structural Fund programmes to be implemented at national level and thus proposes that the progress report on economic, social and territorial cohesion report regularly on local and regional authority involvement in implementing cohesion policy, and in this connection points to the work of the Committee of the Regions’ Lisbon Monitoring Platform;

66.   emphasises the need to further strengthen the role of the local and regional authorities in developing, implementing and assessing cohesion policy so as to boost subsidiarity and reflect grassroots concerns;

67.   proposes a continued role for the Committee of the Regions as a partner enabling, at an early stage, local and regional authorities to work together on a broad scale at European level in the future shaping and implementation of cohesion policy;

Conclusions

68.   Given its target of the harmonious development of the European Union through reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions, economic, social and territorial cohesion forms a core element of the European integration model that was further strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty; with a view to achieving this target it needs to continue beyond 2013.

69.   Cohesion policy, with its devolved approach and system of multilevel governance, is the only European Union policy to link the goals of the EUROPE 2020 strategy and the new challenges with local and regional authorities. It is therefore essential that cohesion policy continue to be geared towards the goals of sustainable growth, social inclusion, employment and the fight against climate change. Cohesion policy brings together the various tiers of government and strengthens the local and regional dimension. Here, the seven flagship initiatives set out in the EUROPE 2020 strategy should be viewed as additional and complementary measures.

70.   Under cohesion policy, the major share of available resources must continue to go to the neediest and most problem-ridden Member States and regions of the European Union in order to help reduce the development gaps and thus make a practical contribution both to securing fairness of opportunity for the regions and to fostering European solidarity. The criteria used for defining funding areas have proved successful.

71.   Regions in transition also need special support so that the successes they have achieved with the help of the Structural Funds are not jeopardised by the funding being discontinued. The long-term nature of European support should give these regions the security to press ahead with development and enable them to respond to their own particular situations.

72.   The Regional competitiveness and employment objective must also continue to support all the other EU regions, not least in order to boost innovation, social cohesion and competitiveness.

73.   Given the high European added value which it offers, territorial cooperation must also remain a target in its own right to support cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation, in particular to make a practical contribution to territorial cohesion in the European Union.

74.   Cohesion policy could also provide scope to develop new approaches in regional policy. It might thus be worth studying the possibility of making a small proportion of European Commission resources available in future for supporting innovative measures.

75.   The current principles of cohesion policy with respect to the system of multilevel governance, multiannual programme planning, partnership, focusing of effort, indicator-based programme management and assessment, have proved successful. We therefore reject any shortening of the timeframe of the seven-year programme.

76.   The current system of resource management is complicated and prone to error. Thus the common goal of all participants must continue to be to reduce the margin of error and simplify resource management as well as settlement and auditing procedures. More should be done than in the past to find solutions tailored to the respective national situations, applying the proportionality principle in practice.

77.   The subsidiarity-based approach to cohesion policy must be retained and further expanded. To this end, it is above all important to further strengthen the role of local and regional authorities at every stage of the programming, implementation and assessment of cohesion policy.

78.   The results achieved at local and regional level must play a more central role than hitherto in assessing cohesion policy. The Committee of the Regions therefore supports all efforts to make implementation of cohesion policy conform to these premises.

Brussels, 15 April 2010

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/23

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region

(2010/C 232/04)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1.   The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (COM(2009) 248 final) is an important document from the point of view of the development of the European Union. It creates the framework for regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea area but at the same time opens the way for the emergence of macro-regions within the European Union. EU enlargement encouraged the political trend towards the creation of macro-regions. Member States which are geographically close to each other have common challenges and objectives, to which they respond by seeking solutions through regional cooperation.

2.   The European Commission communication notes that while the Baltic Sea Region is a highly heterogeneous area, the countries concerned share many common interests and depend on each other in many ways. It further notes that the Baltic Sea Region could be a model of regional cooperation where new ideas and approaches can be tested and developed over time as best practice examples. The Committee of the Regions would point out that the strategy should support the aims of cohesion policy of EU. Large disparities exist at regional and sub-regional level with regard to public services and infrastructure;

3.   The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is primarily a question of EU internal policy, covering both actions falling within EU competence and matters falling outside it. In implementing the strategy the aim is to promote better policy coordination and more effective legislation by applying an integrated approach.

4.   In the communication the Commission states that: ‘Better coordination and a more strategic use of Community programmes are key ingredients, especially at a time of crisis, to ensure that funds and policies in the region contribute fully to the strategy.’ It has been emphasised many contexts that the strategy must bring added value for the EU. The existing financial and legal framework also offers opportunities for effective action through closer cooperation and coordination.

5.   The European Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is an important document not only for the Baltic but also for other emerging macro-regions in Europe. The Baltic Sea is a pilot area for the formation of macro-regions in the EU. The solutions reached in the Baltic for promoting and implementing the strategy will serve as models and create good practice for other potential macro-regions. Regional and local players in the Baltic Sea Region will establish practices for other regions in Europe. For example, the Commission is in the process of preparing a strategy document for the Danube region. Similarly, discussions are under way on the need for corresponding strategy documents for other macro-regions.

6.   The emergence of macro-regions in the EU is not a clear-cut matter. From the viewpoint of regions and local communities it is necessary that cooperation between them intensifies and expands to embrace the EU's various policy areas and also cuts across policy areas. Macro-regions should not evolve into a new institutional level between the EU and Member States, but should be an instrument of cooperation between regions, Member States and the Union. Macro-regions will only be able to bring added value to European integration if they increase cooperation between the national and the local and regional levels, leading to more effective EU policy.

7.   According to the communication, the extent of the macro-region varies depending on the topic. It is essentially an EU internal strategy covering eight member States. But the communication points out that close cooperation between the EU and Russia is also necessary to tackle many of the regional challenges. The Committee of the Regions would stress that Norway is also an important non-EU partner in the Baltic Sea Region. In addition, there is a need for constructive cooperation with Belarus.

External dimension

8.   Although regional strategies are EU internal strategies, they are also potentially important for non-EU states bordering macro-regions. There are two states in the Baltic which directly border the Baltic Sea Region, Norway and Russia. Norway is already tied to the Baltic Sea Region through the EEA Agreement. The Agreement links Norway to the EU's internal market. Norway's position will not change in this regard. However, the Baltic Sea Strategy includes policy areas which are not covered by the EEA Agreement. One such sector is, for instance, the European Union's maritime policy, which is of great importance for Norway and in the implementation of which Norway has a key role to play.

9.   Russia's position and relationship with the EU is another matter. This relationship is governed by separate agreements and programmes. The basis for the relationship is the Agreement on Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and the EU and it’s Member States (1994). In addition, there are a large number of agreements between Russia and the EU on specific matters. There is also a mechanism for political consultation between the parties. Implementation of the agreements has not progressed as expected, nor has it been possible to reach a revised agreement on cooperation and partnership, despite efforts to this end.

10.   The relationship between Russia and the EU in the Baltic Sea Region is based to a large extent on bilateral relations and programmes.

11.   The Commission communication on the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region gives emphasis to the EU's Northern Dimension policy. It states that ‘... relations with third countries should be conducted primarily through the Northern Dimension with the option to use alternative channels when useful’.

12.   The Northern Dimension policy – the EU's political strategy – complements the Baltic Sea Strategy. And it is through the Northern Dimension policy that Iceland is also linked to cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region.

13.   In the implementation of the strategy, greater consideration should be given to issues related the strategy's external dimension. The scope of the Baltic Sea's external dimension should be widened to include the Baltic catchment area countries of Belarus and Ukraine. Closer involvement of these states in the implementation of the strategy would help bring them closer to European values.

14.   The successful implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy depends on the involvement of third countries in the region. For example, in the areas of environmental issues, transport, logistics and national security issues there is a need for cooperation which transcends the EU's external borders. Energy policy in the Baltic Sea Region is also an area of Baltic Sea policy which extends beyond the EU's external borders.

15.   Practical implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy takes the form of projects on the ground. This does not necessarily involve extensive political linkages. It is precisely here in the context of projects on the ground that there is an opportunity to demonstrate the mutual benefit that is to be derived, for example, from working with Russia.

16.   Regions and local communities have an important role to play in implementing the internal and external dimension of the strategy. Regions and local communities are involved in a large number of partnerships which transcend the EU's external borders. For example, town-twinning schemes offer opportunities for exploiting various elements of the strategy. To help advance the strategy, the EU and other players in the region should look for and devise ways of strengthening the strategy's external dimension in order to improve its implementation.

17.   The EU's normal funding programmes and instruments are used in the Baltic Sea Region. A special challenge is to use these instruments to serve the goals set in the Baltic Sea Strategy. This is all the more important given that the Commission communication does not contain any proposals on extra funding or other additional resources. It is important to ensure that existing EU resources which are relevant can be used to the full both now and in future programming periods for the achievement of the strategy's goals.

18.   The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is – and must be – founded on application of the subsidiarity principle. In other words, the strategy should focus primarily on dealing with issues that cannot be solved by national or local means alone. The communication presents strategy's priorities in the form of four key tasks:

| — | to enable the emergence of a sustainable environment |
| --- | --- |

—

to enable the emergence of a sustainable environment

| — | to enhance the region's prosperity |
| --- | --- |

—

to enhance the region's prosperity

| — | to improve the region's accessibility and attractiveness |
| --- | --- |

—

to improve the region's accessibility and attractiveness

| — | to ensure safety and security in the region. |
| --- | --- |

—

to ensure safety and security in the region.

19.   For the implementation of the strategy the Commission communication is document is accompanied by a separate action plan. The action plan has three levels. It first defines four pillars which correspond to the four key challenges identified above. The pillars are divided into 15 priority areas, which in turn are divided into 78 flagship projects. The priority areas have been selected from the point of view of implementing the strategy, either on the grounds that they promote the achievement of the goals or provide an opportunity to tackle the Baltic Sea Region's main challenges. The themes they cover are general and often fairly very wide-ranging. In contrast, the flagship projects are concrete and of a more practical nature.

20.   When preparing the strategy, the Commission engaged in wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders, which had three main components: non-papers from governments and other official bodies in the region; stakeholder events to allow official, NGO and private sector participants to contribute their expertise; public consultation though the Europa web site, in which a large number of players in the Baltic Sea Region participated.

21.   In all, 109 stakeholder groups took part in the consultation process, including all the region's eight Member States and the three non-EU states (Russia, Norway and Belarus). In addition, 48 intergovernmental organisations and 31 regional and local authorities voiced their views, as did 19 representatives from the private sector. The consultation process brought forward a large number of ideas and proposals from regional stakeholders concerning the preparation of the strategy.

22.   The parties which took part in the consultation exercise, in particular the representatives of organisations and regional and local authorities, should be afforded an ongoing opportunity to participate in the development of the strategy. The Committee of the Regions feels that much attention needs to be paid to the evaluation and follow-up of the communication and its accompanying action plan. The proposal contained in the communication to hold an annual forum is good but does not go far enough. The Committee believes that evaluation should be continuous and should be opened up to all stakeholders wishing to participate.

23.   On the basis of the consultation process, the Commission concludes that no new institutions are needed for the implementation of the strategy. There are numerous cooperation schemes in the Baltic Sea Region and there is no reason to create new ones, which might only increase administrative costs without contributing to effective action. Hundreds of different organisations and networks exist in the Baltic Sea Region. Many of these were established in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Cold War system to help states seeking EU membership adjust to European cooperation.

24.   Despite the large number of organisations and networks in the region, many of them have lost their raison d’être and ceased to be necessary following the 2004 enlargement. Organisations which were originally set up to promote membership have not always been able to find a new role and tasks for themselves. The Baltic Sea Strategy and its implementation might offer new tasks for such organisations. There is a need for all stakeholders to jointly consider and assess how extensive a network is appropriate for implementing the Baltic Sea Strategy..

25.   Activation of organisations and networks calls for an extensive information and communication campaign on the contents of the strategy and the opportunities which it offers. The Commission does not draw attention to this aspect in its proposal. The Committee of the Regions recommends that the European Commission's representations in the Members States be required to organise suitably extensive and wide-ranging information activities.

26.   However, the Committee would emphasise that cooperation between regional and local authorities has increased following enlargement and the organisations and networks established by them have become more active. These groups demonstrated considerable interest during the consultation exercise and the positions they put forward were often very thoroughly prepared.

27.   The Commission communication also states the following: ‘Not just a strategy. There must be actions – concrete, visible actions – to overcome the challenges facing the region. In its action plan, therefore, the Commission insists that Member States and other stakeholders take responsibility as lead partners for specific priority areas and flagship projects ...’.

28.   The Committee of the Regions would point out that this wish was not fulfilled in the strategy's first approval stage. In the action plan the responsibility for implementation of the priority areas has been given primarily to Member States. Only one of the 15 priority areas has been allocated to the regional level. This concerns the development of regional tourism policy, where the responsibility for coordination has been given to the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In the same priority area, the responsibility for promotion of health has been given to the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-Being (NDPHS). The aim is that implementation of the priority areas should take place in close cooperation with the Commission.

29.   The regions had not been allocated the lead role in any of the (78) flagship projects at the time the communication was adopted. The flagship projects are precisely the projects where regions could play a considerable role. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that when decisions on flagship projects are taken in the future regions and local authorities should be given the opportunity to play an active part in their implementation.

Implementation of the strategy

30.   The Committee of the Regions notes that the communication gives little consideration to outlining the strategy's implementation process. The Baltic Sea Strategy is a pilot for a new kind of macro-regional cooperation, key elements of which are the involvement of players at different levels of government and coordinated action. The Committee of the Regions urges the Commission to place special emphasis on supporting flexible but purposeful implementation and governance of the strategy.

31.   The communication sets out a three-level approach for implementation which is broadly consistent with the multi-level governance model. The approach presented is in line with the Community method employed in the European Union. The proposal binds implementation to standard EU procedure. The Council has been given responsibility for policy development, on the basis of recommendations from the Commission. It is also the Commission's task to provide the Council with regular progress reports on the strategy. The Committee of the Regions believes that it is important to apply the Community method in order to guarantee that multi-level governance is implemented. By doing so, this will ensure that the regional and local level take part in the implementation of the strategy.

32.   In accordance with the multi-level governance approach, the Commission has a key role in the implementation of the strategy. The Commission will be responsible for ‘coordination, monitoring, reporting, facilitation of the implementation and follow-up. In partnership with the stakeholders of the region, it should prepare regular progress reports, and use its power of initiative to make proposals for adaptation of the strategy and action plan whenever these are required. Coordination should keep under review how the use of funds is contributing to the priorities of the strategy’.

33.   The communication does not contain any proposals on how the work of the Commission might be organised with the strategy in mind. The starting point is that ‘Programming authorities can review the allocation criteria and facilitate the selection of projects aligned with the strategy. Furthermore, the Commission will welcome appropriate modifications of the programmes where necessary’. There is a danger here that, in view of the Commission's many areas of responsibility, not enough resources will be allocated within the Commission to implementation of the strategy. It might be useful to set up multi-sector ‘task force’-type teams of officials within the Commission to manage tasks related to the strategy. The Commission has such a crucial role to play in the implementation of the strategy that it should be allocated adequate resources for planning, monitoring, coordination and reporting.

34.   The third level of implementation comprises ‘partners’. The practical implementation level is fundamental for the implementation of the strategy. The Commission document provides only a cursory description of this level. The idea is that implementation on the ground and the implementing bodies will be aligned with the objectives of the strategy. Here too the role of the Commission is crucial: ‘The Commission will work in partnership with the other institutions, Member States and regions, international financing institutions, transnational programming bodies and inter-governmental organisations such as HELCOM to identify coordinating bodies at the level of priority areas and lead partners for flagship project’.

35.   The Commission communication defines a macro-region as ‘an area covering a number of administrative regions but with sufficient issues in common to justify a single strategic approach’. The definition refers to administrative regions rather than countries, which implies that regional and local government players are on a par with national governments, constituting the basis of the region. The Committee of the Regions takes the view that regional and local players should be given a prominent role in this process. Regions and local players are the level closest to citizens. Visible input from them could help to bring the strategy closer to citizens, which is a key requirement for its success. Proximity and the legitimacy associated with it are a sine qua non for the success of the strategy. These principles can best be applied in partnership with regional and local level players.

36.   The local and regional level also has a sound knowledge of the Baltic Sea Regions’ conditions and needs. Regional and local players have long and effective experience of working together with each other and with NGOs. It is also worth remembering that local and regional players also have long experience of tripartite activity with the European Commission and Member State governments in managing EU financial instruments and policies. They are competent bodies as regards EU policies in general. Moreover, it is to be noted that regional and local players showed great interest and involvement in the stakeholder consultations.

37.   The Committee of the Regions hopes that the Commission will recognise the central role and capabilities of regional and local level players in implementing the strategy. The regional and local level should be given a key position as an established participant in the multi-level governance system when identifying and selecting coordinating bodies at the level of priority areas and lead partners for flagship projects.

38.   The Committee of the Regions notes with satisfaction that, at the request of the European Parliament, an appropriation has been included in the EU budget for promoting the strategy. The Committee feels that the appropriation, whilst modest in relation to needs, is an encouraging first step and hopes that it will be increased in future years. The Committee believes that the funds should be targeted especially at enhancing the capabilities and possibilities of the regions and numerous stakeholder groups operating in the Baltic Sea Region to participate in improving the implementation of the strategy.

39.   The Committee of the Regions supports the idea of an annual forum but does not think that it is sufficient from the point of view of monitoring implementation of the strategy. It is not enough that the forum ‘bring together partners concerned with different aspects of the strategy, including from interested third countries, to review and discuss the progress of the strategy and to make recommendations on implementation’. Overseeing implementation of the strategy also requires more explicit monitoring in connection with implementation on the ground. It should be considered here how best to provide information about the results of the various measures. A way should also be found of gathering existing data on the Baltic Sea Region so as to support the achievement of the objectives set by the strategy

40.   Frequent references are made in the action plan to the importance of stakeholder commitment. Successful implementation of the strategy requires strong political commitment on the part of players in the region. Securing and maintaining political commitment is a fundamental issue. The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is being published in exceptional conditions, in the midst of a severe global recession.

41.   The Baltic Sea economic region is being hard hit by the recession. Not so long ago, the Baltic Sea economic region was the fastest growing region in Europe. Now in June 2009, at the time of the publication of the action plan, it is one of the regions most badly affected by the crisis. The existence of the crisis may be a factor that helps to speed up implementation of the action plan. The Baltic Sea Strategy could offer new ingredients in efforts to overcome the economic crisis. On the other hand, the action plan estimates that the timetable for the implementation of the measures contained in the strategy could be delayed because of the crisis in public finances.

42.   The assumption that stakeholders are committed to the strategy is based on the active interest shown by them during the preparation of the strategy. Member State governments are in a key position when it comes to commitment. Governments set the objectives for the strategy and decide on its broad outlines and priorities. But they also play a crucial role in creating interest and commitment among other players in the region. Through their decisions, governments must create conditions conducive to the active involvement of other stakeholders.

43.   Institutions have been set up in the Baltic Sea Region for inter-governmental cooperation. Cooperation between the Nordic countries, which started in the 1950s, has its own bodies, namely the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Similarly, the Baltic Council of Ministers and the Baltic Council were set up between the three Baltic States. In 1992 two organisations covering the whole Baltic Sea area were set up, the Council of the Baltic Sea States Baltic (CBSS) and a corresponding body for parliamentarians, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC).

44.   Stepping-up inter-governmental cooperation does not require the establishment of new bodies. Rather, what is needed is that the existing institutions are made more effective and used as arenas for the implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy. The Baltic Sea Strategy would also give these organisations a new area of activity.

45.   The role of the three organisations comprised of parliamentarians could be to provide a forum for politicians to discuss Baltic Sea policy. This would help to increase political parties’ and parliamentarians interest in and commitment to Baltic Sea policy. This could be very important from the point of view of implementing the Baltic Sea Strategy.

46.   In addition, other organisations and bodies for cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region are potential arenas for implementing the Baltic Sea Strategy and, above all, for securing stakeholders’ commitment to it. The Baltic Sea Strategy might also help to spur the activities of many organisations which have lost their raison d’être.

Brussels, 14 April 2010.

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCARCEL SISO

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/29

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Action Plan on Urban Mobility

(2010/C 232/05)

I.   GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Background

1.   In 2008, the Committee of the Regions (1) responded to the European Commission Green Paper: Towards a new culture for Urban Mobility (2). This was followed by an Action Plan on Urban Mobility (3) in April 2009 in response to a European Parliament own initiative report (4) in which the Committee of the Regions welcomed the numerous urban mobility initiatives which have emerged at EU level.

2.   The Committee of the Regions has advocated a model whereby Urban Mobility Plans are implemented via sustainable long-term public-public/public-private agreements or Mobility Agreements and asked that the Commission to establish a financing instrument within the framework of Cohesion Policy, made available to regions and urban areas directly, that would encourage urban areas to set up mobility plans. The design and implementation of Urban Mobility Plans would be the responsibility of the cities themselves.

3.   The European Commission was also asked to add value to the process by funding incentives, award schemes and exchange of best practice with the equivalent of an EU-wide ‘Blue Flag Scheme’ for quality coastal areas to be awarded on the basis of specific indicators to urban areas with low levels of pollution and congestion.

4.   believes that there is a need for European-level harmonisation, particularly regarding the technical requirements for vehicles (e.g. retrofitting existing vehicles with diesel particulate filters), infrastructure and transport services, and also in respect of labels (plates and badges) allowing vehicles that meet European exhaust gas and noise standards to enter green zones;

5.   Moreover, the Committee of the Regions (5) has expressed the view that the social dimension of urban mobility should be given further focus, as it is the tool to promote both social cohesion and territorial cohesion within urban and peri-urban areas.

6.   The Commission has now adopted an Action Plan on Urban Mobility (6) which proposes twenty measures to encourage and help local, regional and national authorities in achieving their goals for sustainable urban mobility. For the first time, a possible comprehensive support package in the field of sustainable urban mobility is presented.

7.   The actions proposed by the Commission are to be launched over the four years following the adoption of the Action Plan, but the European Commission will conduct a review of the implementation of the Action Plan in the year 2012 and will then assess the need for further action.

Comments on the European Commission’s Action Plan on Urban Mobility

8.   The Committee of the Regions congratulates the European Commission for having finally published an Action Plan on Urban Mobility which reflects the main issues at stake for better mobility in our cities.

The Economic and Environmental Arguments for an Action Plan

9.   The European Commission has identified that 72 % (7) of the European population live in urban areas. This figure will rise to 84 % by 2050. Urban areas face the challenge of making transport sustainable, both in competitiveness terms (congestion, transport costs) and environmental terms (air quality, noise).

10.   The Committee of the Regions acknowledges the crucial importance of urban mobility and urban transport for the future of Europe, as it touches upon the three main pillars of sustainable development:

| — | the economic pillar, because transport congestion is an obstacle to economic competitiveness (trade delays, higher cost of transportation of goods, etc). Urban areas are the economic motors of Europe, as more than 70 % of economic wealth in the EU is created there. However, 7 % of this wealth is wasted on the external costs of accidents, congestion, health and environmental damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

the economic pillar, because transport congestion is an obstacle to economic competitiveness (trade delays, higher cost of transportation of goods, etc). Urban areas are the economic motors of Europe, as more than 70 % of economic wealth in the EU is created there. However, 7 % of this wealth is wasted on the external costs of accidents, congestion, health and environmental damage;

| — | the environmental pillar, because the pollution generated by car/lorry traffic and congestion within metropolitan areas and cities and in inter-urban travel is one of the main obstacles to the EU’s success in reaching the 20-20-20 objective. Motorised transport in cities represents 40 % of greenhouse gas emissions produced by road transport overall and up to 70 % of other pollutants. It is obvious that introducing a modal shift of urban transport (public transport being the main solution) will contribute to the sustainability of European development; |
| --- | --- |

—

the environmental pillar, because the pollution generated by car/lorry traffic and congestion within metropolitan areas and cities and in inter-urban travel is one of the main obstacles to the EU’s success in reaching the 20-20-20 objective. Motorised transport in cities represents 40 % of greenhouse gas emissions produced by road transport overall and up to 70 % of other pollutants. It is obvious that introducing a modal shift of urban transport (public transport being the main solution) will contribute to the sustainability of European development;

| — | the social pillar, because better systems of public transport and reductions in congestion will have a positive impact on the quality of life of citizens and public health; they will also give deprived neighbourhoods and communities better access to city centres, thereby allowing better access to job opportunities, services (health, education) and culture. |
| --- | --- |

—

the social pillar, because better systems of public transport and reductions in congestion will have a positive impact on the quality of life of citizens and public health; they will also give deprived neighbourhoods and communities better access to city centres, thereby allowing better access to job opportunities, services (health, education) and culture.

Roles and Responsibilities

11.   The Committee of the Regions welcomes the complete understanding of the subsidiarity principle shown by the Commission since, in the Action Plan, the European Commission acknowledges that urban mobility policies are the primary responsibility of local, regional and national authorities even though decisions adopted at a local level often relate to a framework set by national and EU policy.

12.   The European Commission adopts the view that much is to be gained by a partnership approach which fully respects the subsidiarity principle and the different competencies and responsibilities of all levels of governance.

13.   The 20 measures proposed in this Action Plan mainly concern tools to help cities and regions develop sustainable mobility policy and reflect most the CoR’s past recommendations. These tools are:

| — | exchange of information and best practice; |
| --- | --- |

—

exchange of information and best practice;

| — | publication of information and guidance documents on establishing urban mobility plans; |
| --- | --- |

—

publication of information and guidance documents on establishing urban mobility plans;

| — | dialogue with public transport operators in order to define voluntary commitments on passenger rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

dialogue with public transport operators in order to define voluntary commitments on passenger rights;

| — | internet guide on clean vehicles and discussions with the Member States regarding arrangements for introducing ‘energy saving’ driving techniques in driving tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

internet guide on clean vehicles and discussions with the Member States regarding arrangements for introducing ‘energy saving’ driving techniques in driving tests;

| — | an observatory on urban mobility; |
| --- | --- |

—

an observatory on urban mobility;

| — | several studies in the field of urban mobility, including how the different type of ‘green zones’ work in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

several studies in the field of urban mobility, including how the different type of ‘green zones’ work in the EU.

14.   The Commission’s Action Plan on Urban Mobility provides an opportunity to set out an EU framework to assist local, regional and national authorities to take action in urban areas where sustainable transport networks need to be developed and new technological solutions introduced, respecting competencies and responsibilities, to introduce measures that offer EU citizens clean modes of transport in urban areas and to change urban mobility behaviour in order to meet environmental and economic competitiveness objectives and social cohesion goals of the EU.

15.   The European Commission’s Action Plan sets out 6 themes arising from the consultation on the Green Paper, each of which is worth commenting upon further.

Promoting Integrated Policies

16.   Perhaps the most important of the three actions proposed within this theme is the support to be given to local authorities in developing sustainable urban mobility plans covering freight and passenger transport in urban and peri-urban areas. This action was a key recommendation of the Committee of the Regions (8).

17.   However, an interesting addition, worthwhile of support, is the proposal to introduce an urban mobility dimension in the Sustainable Energy Plans to be prepared by cities participating in the Covenant of Mayors (9) in order to promote an integrated approach, linking energy and climate change with sustainable transport and mobility issues.

18.   The Commission also envisages providing information on the link between sustainable urban mobility measures and regional policy objectives, including the link between urban transport and the trans-European transport network.

Focusing on Citizens

19.   There is acknowledgement that passenger rights and availability of information on reliability, safety, etc are necessary to attract the public to the bus, tram, metro and other public transport modes. The Commission intends to identify EU-wide best practices and to put in place a set of voluntary commitments for strengthening passenger rights in public transport – an initiative which the Committee of the Regions has previously supported (8).

20.   The European Commission intends to work with public transport operators and others in facilitating the provision of travel information, with the ultimate aim of providing users with a public transport travel portal at an EU level on the internet with a particular focus on the main nodes in the TEN-T network and their local and regional connections – as previously suggested by the Committee of the Regions (8).

21.   The Commission proposes to launch a study on the operational rules for Green Zones across the EU, which is intended to lead to the exchange of good practice. This proposal underpins the Committee of Regions’ suggestion (8), of an annual European prize to reward outstanding and transferable transport initiatives, as part of the equivalent of an EU-wide ‘Blue Flag Scheme’ awarded to areas with low levels of environmental pollution and congestion (a ‘Green Flag Scheme’). The European Commission suggests that, for the European Mobility week, the existing award scheme would be optimised and a special award introduced to encourage the adoption of urban mobility plans.

22.   As energy-efficient driving is a mandatory part of the training and testing of professional drivers, the Commission will discuss with Member States if and how energy efficient driving could be included in driving tests for private drivers.

Greening Urban Transport

23.   The European Commission believes that action at an EU level can help strengthen markets for new, clean vehicle technologies and alternative fuels. It therefore proposes continued support for research and demonstration projects funded through the Seventh Framework Programme, to facilitate the market introduction of lower and zero emission vehicles and alternative fuels - with specific reference to the European Green Cars Initiative (10) with its focus on electric vehicles and related infrastructure in urban areas.

24.   An internet-based guide on clean and energy efficient vehicles will be developed, providing support for the joint procurement of vehicles for public services.

25.   Once the EU framework for the internalisation of external costs is established, the Commission will launch a study on the urban aspects of internalisation that will consider the effectiveness and efficiency of pricing solutions that make the user pay for the external costs (environmental, congestion and other costs).

Strengthening Funding

26.   A specific recommendation of the Committee of the Regions (8) was that support for European funding and co-financing of urban transport projects should be conditional upon the existence of integrated Urban Mobility Plans, further adding to the EU incentivisation of these plans. The Committee of the Regions advocated the introduction of European financial instruments enabling co-financing of Urban Mobility Plans, contingent upon the existence of public-public/public-private Urban Mobility Agreements that draw in funds from the private sector and from local, regional and national funding programmes.

27.   The Commission’s Action Plan suggests that EU funding, including EIB instruments, can provide significant incentives and help leverage private funds, so helping local authorities to develop innovative public-private partnership schemes. The Commission would wish to help authorities and stakeholders to explore existing funding opportunities and develop innovative public-private partnership schemes.

28.   Furthermore, the Commission has acknowledged that it should continue to support the CIVITAS initiative beyond the third generation projects started in 2008 as previously advocated by the Committee of the Regions (8).

Sharing Experience and Knowledge

29.   The European Commission intends to launch a study on how to improve data collection for urban transport and mobility, and to set up a virtual platform to share information, data and statistics, monitor developments and facilitate the exchange of best practices – building on existing initiatives (11). This action was previously welcomed by the Committee of the Regions.

Optimising Urban Mobility

30.   The European Commission is concerned to facilitate modal shift towards more environmentally friendly modes of transport and efficient freight logistics and, in order to respond to these concerns, intends to organise a conference on urban freight transport in 2010. This is an initiative that is welcomed by the Committee of the Regions.

31.   The Commission also envisages offering assistance on the application of Intelligent Transport Systems – hopefully, with interoperable communication protocols and data transfer to improve urban mobility in relation, for example, to electronic ticketing and payment, traffic management, travel information, etc.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

32.   welcomes the European Commission’s Action Plan on Urban Mobility and supports the measures put forward as these do not undermine the subsidiarity principle and the primary responsibilities of local, regional and national authorities, believing that urban mobility challenges are equally as important as regional and long distance transport infrastructure, and in any case are complementary in one or another regional field of action;

Funding a modal shift towards public transport

33.   believes that technology-driven actions alone (new engine technology, better fuels and other improvements) supported by the Seventh Framework Programme will not be sufficient to achieve the provision of high quality, secure and affordable public transport systems and, thereby, major modal shift and lower congestion in urban areas; modal shift to all forms of public transport, cycling and walking must be encouraged;

34.   accordingly, urges the Commission give due consideration to urban mobility, with clear sustainability criteria in urban and peri-urban areas of the EU, through the Structural Funds and Cohesion Policy, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD);

35.   moreover, in the forthcoming review of the Financial Perspectives for the EU, urges that urban transport needs are taken into account – particularly because of the major contribution that funded Urban Mobility Plans could deliver in relation to the economic, environmental and social pillars of sustainable development in metropolitan areas;

36.   supports the suggestions by the European Parliament that, in the 2014-20 Financial Perspectives, the possibility of a European financial instrument should be examined that would enable the co-financing of:

| — | Urban Mobility Plans; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Urban Mobility Plans; and

| — | investment in urban and metropolitan mobility that meets the EU's environmental and socio-economic objectives; |
| --- | --- |

—

investment in urban and metropolitan mobility that meets the EU's environmental and socio-economic objectives;

37.   believes that these measures are justified as the provision of high quality, secure, affordable and extensive public transport systems in European cities and peri-urban areas would make it possible to:

| — | strengthen economic growth and competitiveness through a reduction of congestion and transport costs, make more effective the management of passenger and goods traffic, the creation of jobs in support of public transport systems and the leverage effect of such investment (12); |
| --- | --- |

—

strengthen economic growth and competitiveness through a reduction of congestion and transport costs, make more effective the management of passenger and goods traffic, the creation of jobs in support of public transport systems and the leverage effect of such investment (12);

| — | improve the quality of the environment through the reduction of GHG emissions and other pollutants, reduction of road traffic and energy savings (13), improvement of air quality and the reduction of respiratory and cardio-vascular health impacts; |
| --- | --- |

—

improve the quality of the environment through the reduction of GHG emissions and other pollutants, reduction of road traffic and energy savings (13), improvement of air quality and the reduction of respiratory and cardio-vascular health impacts;

| — | reinforce social and territorial cohesion (14) through increased mobility for residents, particularly excluded communities living in poor suburbs, and at the same time improve the environment of populated areas and tourist attractions in town centres; |
| --- | --- |

—

reinforce social and territorial cohesion (14) through increased mobility for residents, particularly excluded communities living in poor suburbs, and at the same time improve the environment of populated areas and tourist attractions in town centres;

Adopting an integrated approach to urban policies

38.   believes that there needs to be more coherence across European policies and initiatives and, particularly, an integrated approach to urban policies and spatial planning in order that initiatives to tackle congestion and environmental pollution through the development of integrated, sustainable Urban Mobility Plans in metropolitan areas are not negated by policies on, for example, urban planning and housing provision;

39.   re-states its support for development of sustainable urban mobility plans for, at least, the larger cities, urban and peri-urban areas that would address the accessibility challenges for all inhabitants and freight transport needs of these areas, as well as congestion, environmental and health impacts;

40.   advocates the introduction of incentive measures at an EU level such that, in appropriate urban and peri-urban areas, European funding and co-financing of urban and metropolitan transport projects should be contingent upon the existence of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans and the adoption of Mobility Agreements that, through public-private partnership agreements, draw in funds from the private sector, local, regional and national funding programmes;

41.   accepts that many cities have already drawn up mobility plans but believes that, if this approach was adopted across all major urban areas with active stakeholder involvement, cities would continue to have the freedom to adapt mobility plans to their own circumstances whilst the Commission would be able to demonstrate the added value of action at the EU level;

42.   notes that, as on previous occasions, the European Commission has called upon local authorities to develop and implement sustainable urban transport plans (15), the Commission should encourage Member States to make this mandatory for all large urban or peri-urban areas and create suitable incentives for cities and regions in order to encourage local authorities to draw up such plans;

43.   urges that funding for the CIVITAS initiative should be increased but only to allow CIVITAS to move beyond demonstration projects and the exchange of best practice, to assist in the promotion and implementation of Urban Mobility Plans;

44.   urges the Commission to further incentivise the development and implementation of Urban Mobility Plans by the introduction of an annual European prize to reward outstanding and transferable transport initiatives, as part of an EU-wide ‘Green Flag Scheme’ awarded for instance to urban areas that adopt Urban Mobility Plans and achieve low levels of environmental pollution and urban congestion or have been particularly successful in adjusting the modal split;

45.   recommends the Commission adopt a set of indicators which would trigger the award of an urban ‘Green Flag’, but recognises that achievement of low levels of pollution (air and noise) and low levels of congestion (speed and reliability of journeys) will be a variable challenge for cities given the high degree of variation of city characteristics and urban transport characteristics;

46.   recommends that, when the selecting cities for the award of a green flag, account also be taken of the promotion of a green and/or environment-friendly way of thinking in urban areas, such as the promotion of the use of alternative forms of transport (by the development of foot and cycle paths or the encouragement of other alternative means of transport, etc);

Encouraging a modal shift in transport

47.   accepts that the citizens of the EU, given their more acute awareness of climate change issues, may now be more receptive to adopting measures that will make the user pay for the external costs of transport systems (environmental, congestion and other costs) where public authorities do not invest in public transport – the ‘polluter pays’ principle;

48.   urges the Commission to quickly commence the study proposed on the urban aspects of the internalisation of external costs of transport modes, so that measures can be adopted that will help rebalance the costs of different transport modes (16), (17) and achieve more sustainable transport system in urban areas;

49.   believes that guidance from the European Commission on the various options for reflecting the external costs of mobility in transport prices will encourage public support for clean modes of transport, assist in modal shift and help to make it clear to the public that individual transport only ‘appears’ more economical because the external costs do not appear on the economic accounts for transport;

50.   welcomes the support offered by the Commission for research into clean, energy efficient vehicles and alternative fuels but notes that, whilst technological advance will assist with the environmental agenda, measure to achieve modal shift are also required to deal with both the environmental and congestion problems within urban areas;

Enhancing the rights of passengers

51.   welcomes the European Commission’s proposals on passenger rights and availability of information on safety and reliability but, since these will extend only to voluntary commitments based on EU-wide best practice, urges the Commission to strengthen the likely impact of these proposals by supporting communication and awareness campaigns in all Member States, in co-operation with national, regional and local authorities;

52.   calls for such awareness campaigns to include information on the impact of urban mobility measures and the mobility choices of Europe’s citizens on the environment and economic competitiveness of Europe and its regions.

Brussels, 15 April 2010.

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

---

(1)  Opinion on the Green Paper on Urban Transport (Rapporteur: Albert Bore) - CdR 236/2007 fin.

1

(2)  COM(2007) 551.

2

(3)  Opinion on the Action Plan on Urban Mobility (Rapporteur: Albert Bore) – CdR 417/2008 fin.

3

(4)  Report on an Action Plan on Urban Mobility (Rapporteur: Gilles Savary) - 2008/2217(INI).

4

(5)  Opinion on the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (Rapporteur: Jean-Yves Le Drian) – CdR 274/2008 fin.

5

(6)  COM(2009) 490.

6

(7)  United Nations, World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2007 Revision.

7

(8)  See footnote 3.

8

(9)  www.eumayors.eu.

9

(10)  http://ec.europa.eu/research/trnasport/info/green_cars_initiative_en.html.

10

(11)  For example – www.eltis.org.

11

(12)  Public transport investments have a multiplier effect of 2 to 2.5 on local and regional economies – EC Fifth Framework Programme (2005): Transecon study.

12

(13)  Energy savings of around 400 to 500kg of fuel per inhabitant annually is possible in cities with public transport having a high modal share -UITP.

13

(14)  See footnote 5.

14

(15)  Thematic strategy on the Urban Environment – COM(2005) 718.

15

(16)  Passenger fares in rail and bus services are increasing faster that the cost of private car use – European Environmental Agency, Report 3/2004.

16

(17)  A Sustainable Future for Transport: Towards an Integrated, Technology-led and User Friendly System (Rapporteur: Väino Hallikmägi) – CdR 146/2009 fin.

17

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/36

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enlargement strategy and the main challenges 2009-2010: candidate countries

(2010/C 232/06)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

General recommendations

1.   reiterates that the EU's objective is to promote peace and the values and prosperity of its peoples. To this end, the Union is open to any European country that is fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria;

2.   points out that the enlargement process is an important factor in ensuring peace and stability on the European continent and provides the citizens of the candidate countries with a further opportunity to benefit from the growing prosperity produced by the economic area;

3.   emphasises that the European Union must confirm its absolute commitment to the prospect of accession for all European countries that comply with the membership criteria and the conditionality of the Stabilisation and Association Process;

4.   notes that the success of the admission process depends on how the relevant candidate country prepares for accession and fulfils the Copenhagen criteria;

5.   underlines its full support for the measures and reforms introduced by the candidate countries in order to meet the membership criteria;

6.   draws attention to the key importance to the admission process of compliance with the principles of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation. It calls on the candidate countries to find mutually acceptable solutions to outstanding issues with neighbouring countries within the framework of European priorities, principles and values;

7.   points to the importance of actively involving local and regional authorities and their associations at an early stage, since it is a profoundly democratic structural procedure which cannot be carried out at central level without the active participation of all levels of governance and without full compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proximity;

CROATIA

Progress achieved by Croatia in the accession process

8.   commends Croatia for the continuous progress it has made in meeting the criteria for Union membership and the obligations arising from accession;

9.   voices its satisfaction at the bilateral agreement to settle the border dispute with Slovenia that has achieved a mutually acceptable solution;

10.   urges Croatia to step up its efforts to meet all the necessary criteria and benchmarks, including full cooperation with the ICTY, where there are still outstanding issues, and to accelerate reforms in certain key sectors, a precondition for the completion of accession negotiations in 2010;

11.   considers that progress has been achieved in eradicating corruption. It notes, however, that corruption remains widespread in many sectors, and recommends that additional efforts be made and the administrative capacity of bodies fighting corruption be boosted, together with a culture of political accountability at all levels;

12.   welcomes the legal guarantees and general respect for media freedom and pluralism, but highlights the threats and political pressure to which journalists investigating corruption and organised crime are subject;

13.   is concerned at the inadequate application of anti-discrimination legislation. Recent budget cuts must not be used as an excuse for not applying the law in full. The Committee points out that discrimination against minorities is a particular problem, as in practice neither protection against discrimination nor the relevant criminal proceedings are aligned with EU models;

Boosting local and regional authority capacities

14.   is pleased at the smooth conduct, higher voter turnout and increased involvement of women in the first direct elections of mayors and prefects that were held in May 2009;

15.   welcomes the adoption of the ‘2009-2013 National Training Strategy for Local Government Officials and Staff’. It recognises its importance for boosting the ability of local government to deliver decentralised services to citizens, but nevertheless points to the significant weaknesses in administrative procedures, recognising that the legislative foundation for building a modern, professional public administration remains incomplete;

16.   notes that the decentralisation strategy has not been adopted, due to a lack of commitment at political level, and regrets the lack of general coordination between the political and technical levels, as well as between the central administration and local authorities. It calls on the national authorities to introduce procedures enabling them to be properly represented in the legislative process, and recommends that measures be taken to improve the economic situation of local and regional authorities;

17.   calls for more practical steps regarding educational provision and better vocational skills and knowledge for Croatian central, regional and local authorities and proposes that cooperation between the Member States be developed in this regard so that their experiences may be made use of more rapidly and that the conditions of the European Union Accession Treaty be met as quickly as possible;

18.   acknowledges the progress made in simplifying registration procedures for companies, but emphasises that the business climate is suffering from the large number of parafiscal taxes at national and local level, corruption, and shortcomings in public administration;

19.   considers that local and regional authorities and their associations must be involved in implementing the Community acquis. It points out that local and regional authorities must be well prepared to fulfil the obligations arising from future EU accession and to benefit from the opportunities it offers;

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Progress achieved by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the accession process

20.   notes the Commission's recommendation and the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of December 2009, and encourages the government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to ensure good neighbourly relations, and in particular to intensify efforts to find a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution to the name issue under the auspices of the UN;

21.   points to the importance of good neighbourly relations and calls on the government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to work together with all partners at further developing regional cooperation;

22.   welcomes the EU's decision to allow citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to travel without a visa within the Schengen area as of 19 December 2009;

23.   asks the authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to continue their reform efforts, especially in relation to public administration and the judiciary, anti-corruption policy, women's rights and inter-ethnic relations, in accordance with the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement, under which the rights of people of all ethnic backgrounds must be guaranteed and their participation in public life and administration increased;

24.   welcomes the progress made in relation to strengthening and implementing the framework for eliminating corruption, although corruption continues to exist and to be a serious problem. The Committee of the Regions calls for the necessary efforts to continue, especially as regards implementing the legislative framework;

Boosting local authority capacities

25.   commends the proposal to set up a new committee for local government;

26.   endorses the use of cross-border cooperation to promote dialogue between local and regional authorities in neighbouring countries;

27.   is pleased that OSCE/ODIHR observers and the Council of Europe were able to report that the presidential and local elections which took place in 2009 met most of the OSCE criteria and international standards for democratic elections. The Committee of the Regions calls on the government to continue implementing the further recommendations of the OSCE and ODIHR, and expects the irregularities they observed to be properly investigated;

28.   urges that decentralisation be continued and that further responsibilities be transferred to municipalities, which are the key authorities under the Ohrid Framework Agreement, but points out that efforts must be stepped up, especially in relation to the economic framework for municipalities. Also encourages the work of the Association of Municipalities (ZELS), which is very important in promoting the decentralisation process;

29.   welcomes the entry into force of the law on inter-municipal cooperation in June 2009, and looks forward to its implementation, and of similar laws that are in preparation;

30.   highlights the improvement in collection of municipal taxes and efforts to strengthen the capacity of the municipalities in relation to managing wealth tax, public finances, public debt and financial control;

31.   points out that administrative capacity is still inadequate in certain municipalities, especially ones with a small population, in relation to financial management, tax administration and financial control, and laments the continued lack of transparency and accountability of local and regional authorities;

32.   sees a need for better coordination between national and local levels of government, and for more efforts by the ministry in charge of local authorities to facilitate the decentralisation process;

33.   calls for the campaign against human trafficking to be stepped up by further implementing the National Action Plan for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and illegal immigration (NAP)and ensuring a better coordination at local level;

34.   welcomes the fact that municipality staff are progressively being trained to implement parts of the acquis which they are transposing at local level and to manage EU funding, and encourages continuation of these efforts;

35.   notes that administrative capacity to implement and apply environmental legislation is far from adequate, at both national level and local level, and emphasises the importance of effectively addressing the issue, also taking into account any environmental effects on neighbouring countries;

TURKEY

Progress achieved by Turkey in the accession process

36.   welcomes the broad public dialogue on a series of traditionally sensitive topics such as the role of the judiciary, the rights of people of Kurdish origin, the rights of the Alevi community, the role of the army and Turkey's relations with its neighbours, and commends the Turkish government for its constructive attitude and its role in steering the dialogue;

37.   notes that progress on tangible reforms remained limited in 2009, and would encourage the government to turn its political initiatives into specific changes to legislation and their subsequent implementation;

38.   regrets the fact that despite enactment of legislation relating to the Copenhagen political criteria, implementation of this legislation is still wanting, particularly in the areas of women's rights, non-discrimination, religious freedom, freedom of expression, zero tolerance of torture and the eradication of corruption;

39.   is concerned about the state of play with freedom of expression and freedom of the press, particularly following the unprecedented fine imposed on a media group;

40.   regrets the limited progress made in the area of religious freedom, and urges the government to establish a legal framework in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights so as to enable all non-Muslim religious communities and the Alevi community to practise their faith without unjustified constraints;

41.   regrets the fact that the Turkish government continues to express reservations regarding respect for the rights of minorities, such as those provided for under international law; calls therefore on the Turkish government to bring its policy into line with international standards in this area and calls on the political parties to support the government’s efforts, and urges Turkey to adopt measures in line with the recommendations of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly on the Greek minority living on the islands of Imbros (Gökçeada) and Tenedos (Bozcaada), so as to maintain the intercultural character of the two islands as a model for cooperation between Greece and Turkey;

42.   deplores the continued non-fulfilment of commitments stemming from the Additional Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement and urges Turkey to proceed with full, non-discriminatory implementation;

43.   urges all interested parties to actively support the ongoing negotiations and to contribute in a practical way to full settlement of the Cyprus question, on the basis of a bizonal and bicommunal federation with a single international legal personality and citizenship, in accordance with the relevant decisions of the UN Security Council and the principles underpinning the EU, and invites them to facilitate the creation of a climate that is conducive to negotiations, with the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Cyprus, an EU Member State, the resolution of the issue of the settlers and the return of the sealed-off part of Famagusta to its legal inhabitants;

44.   notes the importance of Turkey as a transit country for illegal immigrants; takes note of the plan to resume negotiations on a EU-Turkey readmission agreement, and urges Turkey to fully implement, in the meantime, the existing bilateral readmission agreements with the Member States; urges the Turkish government to step up cooperation with the EU on managing immigration, involving Frontex, which manages security at the EU's external borders;

45.   With regards to other regional issues, the CoR welcomes the improvement of Turkey's relation with its neighbours especially the joint agreement with Armenia and underlines the high importance of a rapid ratification of the protocols of establishing diplomatic ties and further development of bilateral relations with Armenia. The CoR expects Turkey to continue the efforts towards good-neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of differences;

Boosting local authority capacities

46.   welcomes the generally free and fair local elections held in March 2009;

47.   expresses dissatisfaction at the slow progress with transferring responsibilities to local authorities, in particular the establishment of operational municipal councils, which is the basis for strengthening public participation in local authority decision-making;

48.   calls for an increase in transparency and accountability, in particular regarding the internal and external financial control of local authorities, and underlines the importance of decentralisation and of strengthening the capacity of local authorities to carry out the tasks entrusted to them;

49.   welcomes the priority given to full employment in the negotiations and the adoption of a national programme for adoption of the Community acquis; notes despite this that there is little progress to report in relation to the effective implementation of policies and constitutional reform;

50.   draws attention to Special Report No. 16/2009 of the European Court of Auditors on the European Commission's management of pre-accession assistance to Turkey and calls on the Commission to implement the Court’s recommendations and to set goals and implement programmes on the basis of the accession criteria;

51.   welcomes the establishment of development agencies, in particular the fact that the regional and local bodies concerned are involved in drafting the agencies’ budgets. Stresses, nevertheless, that the selection criteria are unclear and that the procedure is not sufficiently transparent;

52.   notes that alignment with the acquis in the area of regional policy and coordination of structural instruments are still limited;

53.   is hopeful and confident that a comprehensive analysis of the specific shortcomings and criticisms of Turkey's authorities and other institutions will be undertaken and that appropriate legal and administrative steps are to be taken to remedy them.

Brussels, 14 April 2010

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCARCEL SISO

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/41

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Improving the EIA and SEA Directives

(2010/C 232/07)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A.   General comments and the role of regional and local authorities

1.   affirms the importance of the SEA and EIA Directives as key instruments for local and regional environmental policy insofar as they prevent the likely consequences for the environment of public or private investment programmes, plans or projects;

2.   emphasises that the application of both Directives may impose additional costs on businesses and public administrations;

3.   points out however that neither of the Directives established obligatory environmental standards: ensuring quality control of EIAs and SEAs is largely left to the national authorities;

4.   considers that, although there is provision for public participation and transparency in the decision-making process under the SEA and EIA Directives, there are still gaps that need to be filled, specifically regarding the beginning of the public consultation stage, the form of public information and access to it;

5.   draws attention to the fact that some passages of the two Directives overlap. Although they address different matters, with the SEA Directive applying upstream of certain public and private plans and programmes, and the EIA Directive examining public and private projects, the boundary between what defines a plan, a programme and a project is not always clear and doubt remains about whether the subject of an assessment meets the criteria for requiring the application of both Directives or only one. Therefore the assessment needs to be carried out in two stages;

6.   underlines the need for both Directives to have formal links with the Habitats Directive, particularly its Appropriate Assessment aspect, and the Biodiversity Action Plan, and to contain a well-established methodology to determine the impacts of climate change;

B.   Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive

7.   confirms that all the Member States have established comprehensive regulatory frameworks and are implementing the EIA Directive, in some cases going beyond the minimum requirements it lays down;

8.   notes, however, that in some fields the EIA Directive is in need of improvement and calls for a discussion of experts at Member State level, in particular with regard to screening, public participation, quality of data, EIA transboundary procedures and coordination between the EIA and other Directives and policies;

9.   proposes that the screening mechanism set out in Article 4 in conjunction with Annexes II and III, should be simplified and clarified, by detailing the selection criteria set out in Annex III and establishing thresholds, criteria or triggers in the Directive. It is shown that when establishing thresholds, some Member States often exceed their margin of discretion, either by taking account only of some selection criteria in Annex III or by exempting some projects in advance. In addition, there are several cases in which cumulative effects are not taken into account and there is the use of ‘salami-slicing’ practices in projects, especially for big investment plans. Also proposes that the technical characteristics of the projects included in Annexes I and II is spelt out in detail in order to clarify the scope of application;

10.   recommends that the Directive introduce mandatory scoping that determines the content and extent of the matters to be covered in the environmental information of the EIA, and a transparent accreditation process for consultants where utilised;

11.   also recommends, as a measure contributing to the quality and hence the effectiveness of EIAs, that the Directive specify that assessment of alternative solutions, establishment of the duration of validity of the EIA and monitoring of the possible significant environmental effects of project implementation are obligatory, as well as of the effectiveness of the protective and corrective measures adopted;

12.   stresses that the public must be given early and effective opportunities to participate in decision-making. Public consultation should begin as early as possible, for instance at the scoping and screening stage. Minimum requirements must also be prepared on how best to make EIA documentation available to the public concerned;

C.   Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive

13.   draws attention to the fact that the overall picture of the application and effectiveness of the SEA Directive across all Member States is a varied one in terms of the institutional and legal arrangements, and in terms of how Member States perceive its role (1);

14.   underlines that, although further experience in applying the SEA Directive is needed, the Directive contains a series of elements, which are left for each Member State to describe, that could be specified in a review. It draws attention to the need to:

| — | specify unambiguously the scope of the Directive (Article 3(2)(a) and (3)) regarding whether a plan or programme is like to have environmental effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

specify unambiguously the scope of the Directive (Article 3(2)(a) and (3)) regarding whether a plan or programme is like to have environmental effects;

| — | better define what information the environmental report (Article 5 and Annex I) must contain. Identification of the correct scale of data and of the level of detail of the assessment, and the inclusion of a standard set of environmental criteria could improve the effectiveness of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

better define what information the environmental report (Article 5 and Annex I) must contain. Identification of the correct scale of data and of the level of detail of the assessment, and the inclusion of a standard set of environmental criteria could improve the effectiveness of the Directive;

| — | provide in the environmental report (Article 5(1)) a specific definition of reasonable alternatives on a mandatory basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

provide in the environmental report (Article 5(1)) a specific definition of reasonable alternatives on a mandatory basis;

| — | make it obligatory to establish methods and indicators enabling the monitoring of significant environmental effects (Article 10) of implementing plans and programmes, as well as of the effectiveness of the protective and corrective measures adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

make it obligatory to establish methods and indicators enabling the monitoring of significant environmental effects (Article 10) of implementing plans and programmes, as well as of the effectiveness of the protective and corrective measures adopted;

15.   recalls that experience shows that introducing SEAs into regional and local land-use planning increases the relevant costs by 0.1-1 % and approval times by 20 to 25 % above the normal duration, and that this must be reflected in any amendments made to the SEA Directive;

16.   considers that there is a vital need to develop capacity in the Member States so as to ensure effective implementation of the SEA Directive. In order to do this, capacity-building must be strongly encouraged, in particular through targeted campaigns for the recruitment and training of SEA experts and drafting of guidance documents;

17.   proposes, that any initiatives taken must incorporate the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and better regulation, open a broadly-based debate with all stakeholders, enhance nature conservation, increase the level of harmonisation and simplify existing procedures;

18.   notes that time and money can be saved and duplication of work avoided, because the public already has the opportunity to find out about the options envisaged in the course of public hearings while land-use plans are being prepared; an SEA is therefore superfluous as a measure to ensure public involvement. An SEA can be carried out to test alternatives regarding the aim, the technologies used or the environmental impact of a specific, potentially environmentally harmful project.

Brussels, 15 April 2010

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCARCEL SISO

---

(1)  More information on the application and effectiveness of both Directives can be found on the following studies by the European Commission:

1

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/eia_study_june_09.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/study0309.pdf

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/44

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth and A public-private partnership on the Future Internet

(2010/C 232/08)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Comments applicable to both communications

1.   welcomes the Commission's communications on Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth and on A public-private partnership on the Future Internet, given that utilising the digital dividend and developing the Future Internet can make a major contribution to bridging the digital divide and achieving the objectives of the Lisbon strategy and its successor, the EU 2020 strategy, while meeting some of the key social, cultural and economic needs of the people of Europe;

2.   has previously highlighted on several occasions that a lasting digital divide causes social exclusion and economic disparities. Achieving equal opportunities in terms of digital access and skills is thus a social and economic necessity;

3.   would also reiterate that e-inclusion is of crucial importance in achieving the goals of the i2010 initiative (1) – aimed at A European information society for growth and employment – and thus in attaining the Lisbon goals (2) on socio-economic development;

4.   emphasises that the requirement for affordable broadband access is essential for social and territorial cohesion and economic growth as well as for e-inclusion across the EU, particularly at this time of deep economic and social crisis;

5.   notes that as a service comparable to utilities such as water and electricity, broadband is now increasingly seen as another such utility (3); it should therefore be available at a reasonable cost for all EU citizens;

6.   stresses the importance of local and regional authorities – as recognised in the i2010 strategy for a European information society – as they are the driving force of economic growth at local level and generate, use and own many digital information products and services; in certain Member States they are also the competent authorities in this field. Local and regional authorities should be fully and effectively involved in the governance of the information society (4);

7.   thus emphasises the key role and responsibility of local and regional authorities in helping to ensure equal and affordable broadband access in areas where the market fails, in leading pilot projects aimed at bridging the e-accessibility gap, and in developing new approaches towards people-centred public e-services (2);

8.   takes the view that local and regional authorities should participate in wide-ranging cooperation to improve the interoperability of public administration and the effectiveness of public service delivery (5);

9.   advocates that Europe's full potential for developing ICT services in the public and private sectors be fully exploited, and thus that ICT be used as a means of improving local and regional authorities’ services in fields such as healthcare, education, public order, security and social services. EU-backed public-private partnerships among local and regional authorities and ICT-development SMEs in the area of public ICT services can serve as an excellent cornerstone for building up local skills and knowledge across the EU (6);

Specific comments on the Commission communication on ‘Transforming the digital dividend into social benefits and economic growth’

10.   shares the Commission's view that the switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial television in Europe will free up highly valuable radio frequencies due to the greater efficiency of digital broadcasting transmission. This digital dividend has great potential for the provision of a wide range of services, as the radio signals in this range travel far and the equipment can be easily used indoors. The Committee is therefore convinced that this represents a unique opportunity for Europe to meet the growing demand for radio spectrum, particularly to provide wireless broadband to rural areas, thereby bridging the digital divide, and to stimulate the take-up of new wireless services such as the next generation of mobile broadband, as well as to support the development of terrestrial broadcasting;

The digital dividend as an instrument of economic development

11.   notes that, according to the study commissioned by the Commission on Exploiting the digital dividend – a European approach, between EUR 150 billion and EUR 700 billion of total value could be generated across the EU from the digital dividend over a 15-year period; in this context, underlines the fact that, according to the recently amended provisions of the common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (7), radio frequencies are a public good with an important social, cultural and economic value;

12.   notes that access to the digital dividend will facilitate broadband service delivery throughout the EU, thus helping to complete the single market in electronic communication services, and thereby constituting a major element of the productivity and competitiveness of Europe's economy;

The digital dividend as a tool to bridge the digital divide

13.   is convinced that a lasting digital divide stands in the way of creating and maintaining social cohesion and prosperity and causes social and economic exclusion; in view of this, the i2010 initiative should help to improve the quality of life for individuals and society in general (2);

14.   would again highlight the difficulties the markets have in providing affordable high speed broadband networks to certain geographical areas; thus calls on the Commission to promote the use of the freed-up spectrum and to develop policies and guidance that acknowledge market failure and facilitate state and public sector initiatives to develop open networks functionally separated from services in such areas (3);

Opening up the spectrum – the advantages for the development of public services

15.   reiterates that access to high-quality wireless broadband at reasonable prices can increase the accessibility and quality of services provided by local and regional authorities while making it easier for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises to offer their products for sale. Remote regions and communities, especially the outermost ones, are expected to benefit considerably from more widespread and faster access to broadband services (8);

16.   believes that the use of the digital dividend should enable so-called ‘e-government’ services to be developed, encompassing areas such as: user-administration relations; the contribution of administrations to fostering public debate (dissemination of essential public information, public forums, online consultations, and more broadly, new public consultation mechanisms); dealings between companies and the administration (social data notifications, recruitment notifications, transfers of tax and accounting data); the application of e-commerce techniques to the public procurement sphere (e-procurement); and the new work and organisation methods within administrations (job transformation, cooperative working, teleworking). The use of the digital dividend could thus offset the difficulties arising from the remoteness of rural areas, through better communication between the administration and users – both private and commercial;

17.   stresses that one of the main focuses of the economic modernisation objectives of European cohesion policy for 2007-2013 is on making Member States, regions and cities more attractive through accessibility and the provision of services which are of an adequate standard. The Committee feels that these efforts support the development of e-government services and foster the growth of the knowledge economy by boosting research and innovation capacities (2);

A coordinated approach at EU level

18.   notes that – according to the aforementioned study on Exploiting the digital dividend – a European approach – appropriate European coordination of the digital dividend spectrum as a whole, if achieved before 2015, would increase its potential economic impact by an additional EUR 20 to 50 billion over 15 years, depending principally on the actual level of future demand for services such as advanced terrestrial broadcasting and wireless broadband;

19.   also notes the fact that both the CEPT (9) (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations) and the RSPG (10) (Radio Spectrum Policy Group) have stressed that any harmonised approach should be non-binding; several reasons support this view: differences between countries as regards size and topography, levels of competition with other service provider platforms, such as satellite or wired networks, and the use of spectrum in neighbouring countries that are not part of the EU. The Committee also believes that, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is up to the Member States – or to local or regional authorities with competence in this field – to decide on the particular use to be assigned to a radio-spectrum sub-band. It recognises, however, that there needs to be coordination of the technical conditions of use at EU level, so as to maximise the economies of scale for investment and ensure efficient use of the spectrum;

20.   therefore thinks that taking a harmonised approach to the digital dividend is justified, provided that it is non-binding and takes account of the specific features of the Member States and the policies that they intend to implement. The Committee thus welcomes the Commission's intention to adopt a decision on harmonised technical conditions of use for the 800 MHz sub-band, while not obliging Member States to open the sub-band for new uses other than broadcasting uses;

The digital dividend and national media policies

21.   notes that Community policy on the digital dividend will have an impact on Member States’ media policies, particularly with regard to the development of digital terrestrial television. Each EU Member State currently has a comparable number of national television coverage slots, but the impact of allocating a sub-band of radio frequencies to non-broadcasting services will vary across the Member States, thus endangering the principle of equitable access to the spectrum for each Member State. The Committee therefore believes that Community policy on the digital dividend needs to take account of this issue, and to ensure that all Member States have equivalent capacities to pursue their national policies concerning the development of digital media;

22.   emphasises the vital role of media services in promoting cultural diversity, pluralism and participatory democracy and in building and strengthening the identities of local, regional and national communities within Europe. It notes that terrestrial television is still the primary method of providing such services to the public, and acknowledges people's needs and expectations with regard to the diversity of programmes, the quality of services and mobility, and the need for value-added services also to be provided via terrestrial platforms;

The digital dividend and town planning and environmental protection policies

23.   notes that using the digital dividend for wireless communications will require more antennas than broadcasting does, which could have an impact on town planning and the environment, and that it is usually local and regional authorities that are responsible for such matters. It therefore draws attention to the need to strike the right balance between the inevitable rolling out of new networks and the exercise of these powers;

Specific comments on the Commission communication on a public-private partnership on the Future Internet

Research and development

24.   praises the Commission for its commitment to further supporting research and technological development on the Future Internet through the seventh Framework Programme (FP7), beyond the current outstanding achievements, and recommends using the CIP programme, which is an excellent platform to promote the roll-out of future Internet applications. More specifically, as the Committee has stated in previous opinions (11), it calls for the coordinated use of the seventh research framework programme (FP7), the structural funds (SFs) and the competitiveness and innovation programme (CIP), as this is essential to the competitiveness of the EU and the synergy between cohesion, research, higher education and innovation policies at national and regional levels (6);

25.   notes that there is a general lack of coordination in certain sectors, such as education, innovation, research, investment and the marketing of innovative ICT solutions. In this regard, the concept of user-driven innovation can serve as a key tool for improvement, which is being used in more and more regions and cities across Europe and has proven to be a central driver of R&D investment and market entry for new innovations. It therefore recommends that this concept should be given greater prominence in the European Commission's communication (6);

26.   once again underlines the importance of closely linking R&D and industrial practices, and therefore urges the Member States and the Commission to make every effort to promote the rapid transfer of research into daily commercial and public practices (6);

27.   points out that local and regional authorities can create an innovative research environment and explore new avenues for institutional cooperation between the public and private sectors and cross-border regional cooperation. In addition to investment by local and regional authorities, this also requires financial support from Member States and the EU (12);

Interoperability

28.   notes that the development of interactive platforms, such as Web 2.0, has become more useful nowadays owing to their complex functions of information sharing and advanced interoperability between a large number of networks and the options they provide for the creation or supply of content, either by individuals or through cooperative or collective formats; in this context, the rapid development of mass storage technologies is vital for public administrations’ databases, which will contain the descriptions of the objects identified by their Internet address (13);

29.   feels that the success of the efforts to facilitate the emergence of markets for innovation and achieve interoperability and common standards depends on the continued support and participation of national, regional and local authorities, and that these efforts should be supplemented by actions at regional and local level;

Data security and privacy

30.   feels that, when building the infrastructure of the Future Internet and developing the services it carries, it will be crucial to ensure that all security requirements at every level are met to ensure optimum levels of privacy and protection of personal data and prevent any unauthorised tracking of any kind of personal information and profiling, including shopping preferences, medical status, health records, etc. (13);

31.   believes that protecting people's privacy depends on certain factors, including the structuring of public sector bodies (the majority of which are at local level), the convergence of EU legislation, the fostering of an innovative culture among public authority officials, including through the use of a common code of ethics, and the management of ICT-based applications (13);

32.   calls for extensive training for all staff, particularly aimed at specialist technicians (in e.g. networks, systems, security, privacy, etc.), staff working directly with security procedures involving different methodologies and staff generally or indirectly involved in innovation and modernisation drives (e.g. teaching digital literacy to consumers) (13);

33.   points out that it has already recommended strengthening and giving new impetus to preventing, tackling and resolving network security problems in good time, a task which is promoted by the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) (2);

The need for joint action at European level to develop the Future Internet

34.   welcomes the Commission's intention to involve the Future Internet Forum (FIF) in implementing the proposals set out in the communication, in so far as it is necessary to coordinate activities at European level in order to avoid efforts being too scattered and to establish shared objectives of public interest. Given that local and regional authorities are important players in the development of the Future Internet, the Committee feels that they should have the option of participating in the FIF, and calls on the Commission to make proposals to this end.

Brussels, 15 April 2010

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

---

(1)  COM(2005) 229 final.

1

(2)  CdR 5/2008 fin.

2

(3)  CdR 304/2008 fin.

3

(4)  CdR 247/2009 fin.

4

(5)  CdR 10/2009 fin.

5

(6)  CdR 156/2009 fin.

6

(7)  Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, OJ L 337, 18.12.2009.

7

(8)  CdR 252/2005 fin.

8

(9)  CEPT Report 22 – Report B from the CEPT to the European Commission in response to the mandate on ‘technical considerations regarding harmonisation options for the digital dividend’, 1.7.2008.

9

(10)  RSPG opinion on EU spectrum policy implications of the digital dividend, 14.2.2007 – RSPG opinion on the digital dividend, 18.9.2009.

10

(11)  CdR 263/2007 fin.

11

(12)  CdR 84/2007 fin.

12

(13)  CdR 247/2009.

13

---

| 27.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/49

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU

(2010/C 232/09)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.   welcomes the European Commission (Commission) initiative to set up the Communication on ‘Preparing for our future: Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU’ (KET Communication);

2.   notes that these technologies have the potential to turn into valuable assets for citizens, businesses and administrations, and could contribute to the improvement of products and quality of public services;

3.   welcomes additional references and reports like the Communication on ‘Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009’ (Nano Report), for the support it offers to the future development of key enabling technologies (KET); notes that the KET Communication recognises nanotechnologies as one of the five most strategically relevant key enabling technologies KET;

4.   notes the key role of local and regional authorities (LRA) in promoting informed dialogue with the general public, and in addressing public concerns close to the citizens;

5.   endorses the increased focus proposed in the KET Communication on joint strategic programming and demonstration projects, as well as the pursuit of a more strategic and coordinated approach, not only by the EU and Member States, but also by the regions;

6.   welcomes reference in the present KET Communication to the promotion of regional innovation clusters and networks, as essential for creating and maintaining world-class innovation, and serving to firmly anchor knowledge in a given region;

7.   acknowledges the importance of KET for the EU's international competitiveness and sustainable development; stresses that the exchange of experiences and best practices between Member States and other European regions should be intensified and; emphasises the importance of taking benefits of best practices worldwide;

8.   reaffirms the importance of synergies between FP, Structural Funds (SF) and national policies in relation to the broader EU objectives of competitiveness and cohesion;

9.   recognises the importance of the review of the State Aid framework regarding innovation, and asks the Commission to be kept informed about relevant developments;

10.   endorses the Commission's proposal to set up a high-level expert group tasked with developing a shared longer term strategy for KET, and requests the Commission to be kept informed from an early stage about developments around this group, including their analyses and policy recommendations;

11.   endorses the need mentioned in the Nano Report to integrate health, safety and environmental aspects in the development of nanotechnology, and to establish an effective dialogue with all stakeholders;

12.   recognises the importance of carefully reviewing existing European regulations, as requested by the European Parliament, and synchronise them with regional regulations and standards, since excessive diversity in regulations could be detrimental to the international competitiveness of European regions and Member States;

13.   considers that the proposed actions, in their current wording as KET Communication, do not give rise to any objections regarding their compliance with both the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality;

KET’s impact on competitiveness and innovation

14.   stresses the importance of KETs in underpinning practical applications, their potential role in the new European plan for innovation, and their possibilities to enhance quality of life and competitiveness in European regions;

15.   acknowledges that in addition to the need to pay ongoing attention to the competitiveness of particular sectors, it is important to note that Europe's future prosperity will be increasingly dependent upon inter-sectoral activities (1);

16.   notes that promoting a great variety of applications of specific knowledge in several innovation chains could lead to the creation of new jobs at all levels and secure knowledge for the regions (1);

17.   calls upon reviewing the EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP) and adapting it more to SMEs’ needs, in order to facilitate their participation in European joint projects and provide more potential for the development of KETs at regional level;

18.   recognises that Europe is already proving less attractive for industrial investments in this sector.

Societal aspects of KETs

19.   acknowledges the importance, mentioned in the KET Communication, of public knowledge and understanding of KET, and of proactive strategy bringing together stakeholders: to address public concerns and; to openly communicate on the benefits and risks of new technologies;

20.   recalls the need to: well understand and communicate benefits and risks of new technologies, as expressed by the CoR in previous opinions (2) and; carry out, if necessary, studies to better understand possible risks in relation to expected benefits;

21.   welcomes, in this regard, a stronger role for the European Group of Ethics to an informed debate on opportunities and risks of bio and nanotechnologies;

22.   endorses the importance of addressing societal expectations and concerns, as mentioned in the Nano Report and its accompanying documents;

23.   encourages the promotion of cooperation between the EU and national and regional levels on ethical and socio-economic issues;

24.   considers that the EU should set up a European Task Force on Social Innovation, which would not be separate from EU industrial policy but would rather lie at the heart of such policy (1);

25.   calls on Member States to make coordinated, joint decisions with the regions on innovation policy, and on the methods and instruments used to promote this policy, so that the results achieved also respond to the existing need at local and regional level (3);

26.   welcomes the Commission's intention to urge, both in trade policy and in bilateral agreements, that illegitimate subsidy practices in third countries and thus subsidy competition be halted. Where third countries are not prepared to do this, the EU and the Member States should nonetheless employ effective measures to defend their technological and economic interests in order to ensure the continued presence in Europe of key enabling technologies and the knowledge-based economy that goes with them.

Infrastructure and cohesion

27.   asks for more focus on awareness-raising at regional at local level and on stimulating the infrastructure upgrade, as necessary elements for the development and implementation of KETs;

28.   points out that European research infrastructures are mainly located in Western Europe, and that in this regard a better geographic distribution should be promoted;

29.   recognises the need to develop a framework at European level to ensure that research infrastructures work more effectively and barriers to international research are eliminated;

30.   urges that European Groupings for Territorial Cohesion (EGTC) be specifically considered as an alternative legal instrument for setting up research infrastructures with a European dimension;

31.   highlights the importance of LRAs in promoting joint research programmes: LRAs are key players in developing regional research and innovation strategies; they often manage research institutions and; they support innovative environments;

32.   proposes adding incentives within the SF to support research and innovation, including differential grant rates favouring investments in research and innovation projects;

33.   encourages cities and regions to: support knowledge transfer and innovation from the science base to industry; improve the supply of venture capital, also for cross-border cooperation and; support those applying technological inventions in patenting and making use of patents;

34.   stresses the special role of cohesion policy in supporting innovation activity in the regions;

35.   notes that the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) can provide financial support for the development of skills and for the modernisation of educational structures and systems, by funding business incubators and science parks, and hence facilitating connections between SMEs and universities;

Improvement of SMEs participation to public-private partnerships

36.   reaffirms that European industrial policy should pay more explicit attention to interaction between large and medium-sized or small enterprises, and especially between SMEs and research centres (1); stresses the crucial importance of a qualified workforce for this interaction and for anchoring industry at the regional level;

37.   recalls the essential role of cooperation between public institutions and the private sector, with particular focus on involving universities, colleges and research bodies (4); notes the importance of linking university curricula to the technologies that are relevant to the workforce of a region, in order to retain knowledge and competitiveness in that region;

38.   urges a significant shift, when using SF by regions, towards stimulating in particular the demand side for research and innovation, fostering user-driven and open innovation as a regional potential (5);

Developments in specific sectors

39.   acknowledges that intermittent spectacular innovations in products and marketing are already beginning to happen in a number of sectors, as for example the food and pharmaceutical sectors (life sciences), biomedical technology, automotive and high-tech systems (1);

40.   points out that biotechnology offers promising future alternatives for the chemical industry, in addition to its applications in health, food and animal feed (2);

41.   asks for developing the co-existence of differing agricultural practices, not only in the interests of good farming, but also of tolerance and trust between neighbouring farmers in the exchange of information, coordination and cooperation (2);

42.   welcomes the Commission's activities aimed at ensuring safe and effective use of modern biotechnology in the developing countries and fostering the capacity of these states to assess and manage risk, in order to support the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources in these countries (2);

43.   highlights the need to develop adequate safety assessment methodologies for nanotechnologies, and to put in place an adequate policy and regulatory framework before further market penetration occurs;

44.   stresses the need to prioritise the development of a more robust sustainability assessment for technologies, particularly focusing on early development long before they get to the near-market stage; notes that this could eventually lead to the elaboration of independent methodology frameworks for risk assessment and management, and for studies on social impact;

45.   calls for a stronger forward-looking function for all Commission departments, especially in the technological field, with a view to facilitating the early identification of newly emerging issues. The relevance, coherence and effectiveness of legislation and policies and their implementation and social and economic impact are to be reviewed (2).

Brussels, 14 April 2010

The First Vice-President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

---

(1)  CdR 39/2006 fin.

1

(2)  CdR 174/2007 fin.

2

(3)  CdR 283/2008 fin.

3

(4)  CdR 83/2007 fin.

4

(5)  CdR 263/2007 fin.

5

---