# Official Journal C 225/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.225.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 225 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5527 July 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.225.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 225

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5527 July 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 95th plenary session held on 3 and 4 May 2012 |
| 2012/C 225/01 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2011-2012 | 1 |
| 2012/C 225/02 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The Green Paper on family reunification | 7 |
| 2012/C 225/03 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Review of EU air quality and emissions policy | 11 |
| 2012/C 225/04 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Legislative proposals on the reform of the common fisheries policy | 20 |
| 2012/C 225/05 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Active ageing: innovation — smart health — better lives | 46 |
| 2012/C 225/06 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Energy efficiency in cities and regions — a focus on the differences between rural districts and cities | 52 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

95th plenary session held on 3 and 4 May 2012

2012/C 225/01

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2011-2012

1

2012/C 225/02

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The Green Paper on family reunification

7

2012/C 225/03

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Review of EU air quality and emissions policy

11

2012/C 225/04

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Legislative proposals on the reform of the common fisheries policy

20

2012/C 225/05

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Active ageing: innovation — smart health — better lives

46

2012/C 225/06

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Energy efficiency in cities and regions — a focus on the differences between rural districts and cities

52

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS |
| | 95th plenary session held on 3 and 4 May 2012 |
| 2012/C 225/07 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a general regulation on the funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework | 58 |
| 2012/C 225/08 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a regulation on the ERDF | 114 |
| 2012/C 225/09 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a regulation on the European Social Fund | 127 |
| 2012/C 225/10 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a regulation on the Cohesion Fund | 143 |
| 2012/C 225/11 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Revising the TEN-T legislative framework | 150 |
| 2012/C 225/12 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for the period 2014-2020 | 159 |
| 2012/C 225/13 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on European Union programme for social change and innovation | 167 |
| 2012/C 225/14 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Legislative proposals on the reform of the common agricultural policy and rural development policy post-2013 | 174 |
| 2012/C 225/15 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Erasmus for All | 200 |
| 2012/C 225/16 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on trans-European telecommunication networks | 211 |
| 2012/C 225/17 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 2014-2020 consumer programme | 217 |
| 2012/C 225/18 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Health for growth: the third multi-annual programme of EU action for the period 2014-2020 | 223 |

III   Preparatory acts

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

95th plenary session held on 3 and 4 May 2012

2012/C 225/07

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a general regulation on the funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework

58

2012/C 225/08

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a regulation on the ERDF

114

2012/C 225/09

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a regulation on the European Social Fund

127

2012/C 225/10

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Proposal for a regulation on the Cohesion Fund

143

2012/C 225/11

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Revising the TEN-T legislative framework

150

2012/C 225/12

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for the period 2014-2020

159

2012/C 225/13

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on European Union programme for social change and innovation

167

2012/C 225/14

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Legislative proposals on the reform of the common agricultural policy and rural development policy post-2013

174

2012/C 225/15

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Erasmus for All

200

2012/C 225/16

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on trans-European telecommunication networks

211

2012/C 225/17

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 2014-2020 consumer programme

217

2012/C 225/18

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Health for growth: the third multi-annual programme of EU action for the period 2014-2020

223

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

95th plenary session held on 3 and 4 May 2012

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/1

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2011-2012’

2012/C 225/01

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | points out that all the countries (1) covered by the enlargement strategy have formally ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and would encourage them to meet and implement these commitments; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that all the countries (1) covered by the enlargement strategy have formally ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and would encourage them to meet and implement these commitments;

| — | draws attention to the vital importance of the formation and development of multilevel governance, independent media and civil society in the candidate countries and urges them to support respect for civil liberties and democratic procedures in political life; |
| --- | --- |

—

draws attention to the vital importance of the formation and development of multilevel governance, independent media and civil society in the candidate countries and urges them to support respect for civil liberties and democratic procedures in political life;

| — | stresses the importance of a formal consultation procedure between competent national authorities, and local and regional authorities at every stage of the EU enlargement process, which broadens public participation and helps apply the subsidiarity principle and bring citizens closer. It also facilitates the implementation of legislation and helps to make better use of IPA if local and regional representatives are well informed about the integration process; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses the importance of a formal consultation procedure between competent national authorities, and local and regional authorities at every stage of the EU enlargement process, which broadens public participation and helps apply the subsidiarity principle and bring citizens closer. It also facilitates the implementation of legislation and helps to make better use of IPA if local and regional representatives are well informed about the integration process;

| — | calls for the creation or reinforcement of organisations that group together local and regional authorities and the cooperation with their counterparts in other EU Member States, which can help to share experiences and support the integration process; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for the creation or reinforcement of organisations that group together local and regional authorities and the cooperation with their counterparts in other EU Member States, which can help to share experiences and support the integration process;

| — | takes a positive view of the ongoing integration process in the candidate countries, which should also be taken advantage of as one element in a decentralisation process based on transparent implementation; |
| --- | --- |

—

takes a positive view of the ongoing integration process in the candidate countries, which should also be taken advantage of as one element in a decentralisation process based on transparent implementation;

| — | stresses the key importance of respect for the principle of good neighbourly relations among EU Member States, candidate countries and other countries and the role and importance of developing cross-border and regional cooperation between these countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses the key importance of respect for the principle of good neighbourly relations among EU Member States, candidate countries and other countries and the role and importance of developing cross-border and regional cooperation between these countries.

| Rapporteur | Stanisław SZWABSKI (EA/PL), Chairman of the municipality of Gdynia |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011-2012
  COM(2011) 666 final |

Rapporteur

Stanisław SZWABSKI (EA/PL), Chairman of the municipality of Gdynia

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011-2012

COM(2011) 666 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General recommendations

| 1. | points out that the goal of EU enlargement is to expand the area of peaceful development and cooperation in Europe; the European Union is therefore open to any European country that wishes to join, respects and is committed to the democratic values and meets the membership criteria, points out that any enlargement is only possible when the successful integration of the accession country into the European Union is ensured; |
| --- | --- |

1.

points out that the goal of EU enlargement is to expand the area of peaceful development and cooperation in Europe; the European Union is therefore open to any European country that wishes to join, respects and is committed to the democratic values and meets the membership criteria, points out that any enlargement is only possible when the successful integration of the accession country into the European Union is ensured;

| 2. | would point out that all the countries (2) covered by the enlargement strategy have formally ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and would encourage them to meet and implement these commitments; |
| --- | --- |

2.

would point out that all the countries (2) covered by the enlargement strategy have formally ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and would encourage them to meet and implement these commitments;

| 3. | welcomes the Commission's proposal to make greater use of IPA to promote and accelerate result-oriented reform efforts. Involving local and regional authorities where relevant could promote capacity building and absorption capacity in the beneficiary countries, and thus make more effective use of IPA funds; |
| --- | --- |

3.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to make greater use of IPA to promote and accelerate result-oriented reform efforts. Involving local and regional authorities where relevant could promote capacity building and absorption capacity in the beneficiary countries, and thus make more effective use of IPA funds;

| 4. | stresses that the enlargement process is designed to ensure stability and increased prosperity for the citizens of the EU and the candidate countries and to ensure shared responsibility for the development of an ever greater area of peace, freedom, security and justice with an internal market and pursuing the goals of economic, social and territorial cohesion, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women; |
| --- | --- |

4.

stresses that the enlargement process is designed to ensure stability and increased prosperity for the citizens of the EU and the candidate countries and to ensure shared responsibility for the development of an ever greater area of peace, freedom, security and justice with an internal market and pursuing the goals of economic, social and territorial cohesion, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women;

| 5. | points out that successful and persisting reform efforts should include all levels of society. Good governance – including modernisation of the public sector coordinated at national, regional and local level – provides better conditions for broad and stronger democracy, increased transparency and systems that are less beset by corruption and nepotism. A decentralised system increases public accountability and makes it easier for citizens to get involved in decision-making processes; |
| --- | --- |

5.

points out that successful and persisting reform efforts should include all levels of society. Good governance – including modernisation of the public sector coordinated at national, regional and local level – provides better conditions for broad and stronger democracy, increased transparency and systems that are less beset by corruption and nepotism. A decentralised system increases public accountability and makes it easier for citizens to get involved in decision-making processes;

| 6. | draws attention to the vital importance of the formation and development of multilevel governance, independent media and civil society in the candidate countries and urges them to support respect for civil liberties and democratic procedures in political life; |
| --- | --- |

6.

draws attention to the vital importance of the formation and development of multilevel governance, independent media and civil society in the candidate countries and urges them to support respect for civil liberties and democratic procedures in political life;

| 7. | stresses the importance of a formal consultation procedure between competent national authorities, and local and regional authorities at every stage of the EU enlargement process. This broadens public participation and helps apply the subsidiarity principle and bring citizens closer. It also facilitates the implementation of legislation and helps to make better use of IPA if local and regional representatives are well informed about the integration process; |
| --- | --- |

7.

stresses the importance of a formal consultation procedure between competent national authorities, and local and regional authorities at every stage of the EU enlargement process. This broadens public participation and helps apply the subsidiarity principle and bring citizens closer. It also facilitates the implementation of legislation and helps to make better use of IPA if local and regional representatives are well informed about the integration process;

| 8. | calls for the creation or reinforcement of organisations that group together local and regional authorities, and the cooperation with their counterparts in other EU Member States, which can help to share experiences and support the integration process; |
| --- | --- |

8.

calls for the creation or reinforcement of organisations that group together local and regional authorities, and the cooperation with their counterparts in other EU Member States, which can help to share experiences and support the integration process;

| 9. | takes a positive view of the ongoing integration process in the candidate countries, which should also be taken advantage of as one element in a decentralisation process based on transparent implementation; |
| --- | --- |

9.

takes a positive view of the ongoing integration process in the candidate countries, which should also be taken advantage of as one element in a decentralisation process based on transparent implementation;

| 10. | highlights the fact that the progress and success of the enlargement process depends largely on the candidate countries making genuine advances in implementing reforms to meet the Copenhagen criteria; |
| --- | --- |

10.

highlights the fact that the progress and success of the enlargement process depends largely on the candidate countries making genuine advances in implementing reforms to meet the Copenhagen criteria;

| 11. | points to the need to speed up the European Council's endorsement of the Adriatic-Ionian macroregional strategy, which has the added value of smoothening and bolstering the accession process for SEE candidate and potential candidate countries, and also presents an opportunity to promote the consolidation of democratic processes in territories belonging to the greater Mediterranean area; |
| --- | --- |

11.

points to the need to speed up the European Council's endorsement of the Adriatic-Ionian macroregional strategy, which has the added value of smoothening and bolstering the accession process for SEE candidate and potential candidate countries, and also presents an opportunity to promote the consolidation of democratic processes in territories belonging to the greater Mediterranean area;

| 12. | stresses the key importance of respect for the principle of good neighbourly relations among EU Member States, candidate countries and other countries and the role and importance of developing cross-border and regional cooperation between these countries; |
| --- | --- |

12.

stresses the key importance of respect for the principle of good neighbourly relations among EU Member States, candidate countries and other countries and the role and importance of developing cross-border and regional cooperation between these countries;

| 13. | requests that the authorities of countries applying for EU membership establish consistent regulations and national strategies in cooperation with administrative bodies at local and regional level and that the necessary means be made available to local and regional authorities to carry out strategies to integrate marginalised groups; |
| --- | --- |

13.

requests that the authorities of countries applying for EU membership establish consistent regulations and national strategies in cooperation with administrative bodies at local and regional level and that the necessary means be made available to local and regional authorities to carry out strategies to integrate marginalised groups;

| 14. | stresses the need for comprehensive and balanced information in candidate countries about the EU, its institutions, the integration process and the changes this process entails for individual countries, as well as the challenges and opportunities for citizens. Such information, large part of which needs to be provided by the authorities of the acceding countries, is essential to allow citizens to actively participate in their country's integration into the EU and to recognise the benefits of potential membership; |
| --- | --- |

14.

stresses the need for comprehensive and balanced information in candidate countries about the EU, its institutions, the integration process and the changes this process entails for individual countries, as well as the challenges and opportunities for citizens. Such information, large part of which needs to be provided by the authorities of the acceding countries, is essential to allow citizens to actively participate in their country's integration into the EU and to recognise the benefits of potential membership;

| 15. | calls on all candidate countries to play a part in developing and strengthening the EU and Community institutions, depending on their formal possibilities; |
| --- | --- |

15.

calls on all candidate countries to play a part in developing and strengthening the EU and Community institutions, depending on their formal possibilities;

| 16. | highlights the need for, and importance of, a clear and unambiguous confirmation by the EU of its commitment to the enlargement process to take in candidate countries that meet the conditions for accession; |
| --- | --- |

16.

highlights the need for, and importance of, a clear and unambiguous confirmation by the EU of its commitment to the enlargement process to take in candidate countries that meet the conditions for accession;

CROATIA

Croatia's progress in the EU accession process

| 17. | welcomes with satisfaction the signature of the Accession Treaty with Croatia, which marks an important moment in European integration; subject to successful conclusion of the ratification procedures, the Committee of the Regions looks forward to welcoming Croatia as a new member from 1 July 2013; |
| --- | --- |

17.

welcomes with satisfaction the signature of the Accession Treaty with Croatia, which marks an important moment in European integration; subject to successful conclusion of the ratification procedures, the Committee of the Regions looks forward to welcoming Croatia as a new member from 1 July 2013;

| 18. | is delighted at the progress made by Croatia in meeting the EU membership criteria, from the submission of its application in 2003 to the successful conclusion of negotiations in June 2011 and the Commission's favourable opinion on Croatian EU accession of October 2011; |
| --- | --- |

18.

is delighted at the progress made by Croatia in meeting the EU membership criteria, from the submission of its application in 2003 to the successful conclusion of negotiations in June 2011 and the Commission's favourable opinion on Croatian EU accession of October 2011;

| 19. | welcomes the fact that Slovenia and Croatia have agreed to submit the open border issue to an arbitral tribunal and looks forward to the implementation of the bilateral Border Arbitration Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

19.

welcomes the fact that Slovenia and Croatia have agreed to submit the open border issue to an arbitral tribunal and looks forward to the implementation of the bilateral Border Arbitration Agreement;

| 20. | stresses Croatia's high level of preparedness for membership, while calling on that country to further consolidate and fully implement the EU acquis, especially as regards the judiciary, tackling corruption, implementing anti-discrimination legislation, competition policy and media freedom and pluralism; |
| --- | --- |

20.

stresses Croatia's high level of preparedness for membership, while calling on that country to further consolidate and fully implement the EU acquis, especially as regards the judiciary, tackling corruption, implementing anti-discrimination legislation, competition policy and media freedom and pluralism;

| 21. | welcomes the positive outcome of the referendum on Croatia's accession to the EU in January 2012; |
| --- | --- |

21.

welcomes the positive outcome of the referendum on Croatia's accession to the EU in January 2012;

ICELAND

The candidate country's progress

| 22. | welcomes the progress made in the accession negotiations with Iceland; underlines the very constructive cooperation between Iceland and the EU in the framework of the EEA and the Schengen area; |
| --- | --- |

22.

welcomes the progress made in the accession negotiations with Iceland; underlines the very constructive cooperation between Iceland and the EU in the framework of the EEA and the Schengen area;

| 23. | believes that Iceland could join the EU in the near term based on the ‘own merits’ principle and encourages timely continuation of alignment in remaining policy areas; |
| --- | --- |

23.

believes that Iceland could join the EU in the near term based on the ‘own merits’ principle and encourages timely continuation of alignment in remaining policy areas;

| 24. | commends the fact that Iceland has, to some extent, successfully overcome its economic difficulties and has persevered with implementation of the necessary reforms; |
| --- | --- |

24.

commends the fact that Iceland has, to some extent, successfully overcome its economic difficulties and has persevered with implementation of the necessary reforms;

| 25. | is concerned about the lack of strong public support for the integration process; |
| --- | --- |

25.

is concerned about the lack of strong public support for the integration process;

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Progress of the candidate country from the Western Balkans region

| 26. | takes a positive view of the efforts of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the accession process; |
| --- | --- |

26.

takes a positive view of the efforts of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the accession process;

| 27. | welcomes the measures taken by the government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to promote the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's membership of the EU, but is concerned at the lack of effective action to find a satisfactory solution to the formal question of the country's name; it is essential that good neighbourly relations be maintained, including negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the country's name, under the auspices of the United Nations; |
| --- | --- |

27.

welcomes the measures taken by the government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to promote the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's membership of the EU, but is concerned at the lack of effective action to find a satisfactory solution to the formal question of the country's name; it is essential that good neighbourly relations be maintained, including negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution to the issue of the country's name, under the auspices of the United Nations;

| 28. | takes a positive view of the ongoing steps to adapt the national legal system to EU legislation; draws attention, however, to the need for continued reform in the areas of justice, fundamental rights of women and minorities and public administration; |
| --- | --- |

28.

takes a positive view of the ongoing steps to adapt the national legal system to EU legislation; draws attention, however, to the need for continued reform in the areas of justice, fundamental rights of women and minorities and public administration;

| 29. | draws attention to the need for tackling high-level corruption and guaranteeing the freedom of expression in the media; |
| --- | --- |

29.

draws attention to the need for tackling high-level corruption and guaranteeing the freedom of expression in the media;

| 30. | acknowledges the progress made in cooperation between the institutions of government, the various levels of local government and non-governmental organisations; |
| --- | --- |

30.

acknowledges the progress made in cooperation between the institutions of government, the various levels of local government and non-governmental organisations;

| 31. | welcomes progress on implementing the law on languages, on decentralisation and on equitable representation and encourages the continuation of efforts to address ongoing challenges such as education and harmonious relations between all communities; |
| --- | --- |

31.

welcomes progress on implementing the law on languages, on decentralisation and on equitable representation and encourages the continuation of efforts to address ongoing challenges such as education and harmonious relations between all communities;

MONTENEGRO

Progress of the candidate country from the Western Balkans region

| 32. | with an eye to the Council's intention to launch accession negotiations in June 2012, welcomes the measures taken to change and adapt the legislation of Montenegro in connection with reform of the public administration, keeping of national statistics, free media, as well as tackling corruption and organised crime; there has also been a certain improvement in observance of human rights, gender equality and respect for minority rights; |
| --- | --- |

32.

with an eye to the Council's intention to launch accession negotiations in June 2012, welcomes the measures taken to change and adapt the legislation of Montenegro in connection with reform of the public administration, keeping of national statistics, free media, as well as tackling corruption and organised crime; there has also been a certain improvement in observance of human rights, gender equality and respect for minority rights;

| 33. | welcomes the initiatives to reduce the level of corruption and recommends more action to tackle corruption, especially in the areas of privatisation, territorial planning, education and the health service as well as in local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

33.

welcomes the initiatives to reduce the level of corruption and recommends more action to tackle corruption, especially in the areas of privatisation, territorial planning, education and the health service as well as in local and regional authorities;

| 34. | highly commends the progress made in protecting the rights of the minority population and representing it in statutory and self-governing bodies; |
| --- | --- |

34.

highly commends the progress made in protecting the rights of the minority population and representing it in statutory and self-governing bodies;

| 35. | welcomes the decision to set up a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) as a forum for dialogue between the EU's Committee of the Regions and local authorities in Montenegro; |
| --- | --- |

35.

welcomes the decision to set up a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) as a forum for dialogue between the EU's Committee of the Regions and local authorities in Montenegro;

TURKEY

The candidate country's progress

| 36. | welcomes the changes leading to the democratisation of political life and society in Turkey; notes Turkey's obligation to maintain good neighbourly relations, and calls for it to avoid any action against Member States or their sovereign rights, as defined by the Copenhagen criteria and the EU-Turkey Negotiating Framework of 3 October 2005; expresses its dissatisfaction at Turkey's declarations stating its intention to freeze relations with the EU presidency during the second half of 2012, and hopes to see the development of regional cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

36.

welcomes the changes leading to the democratisation of political life and society in Turkey; notes Turkey's obligation to maintain good neighbourly relations, and calls for it to avoid any action against Member States or their sovereign rights, as defined by the Copenhagen criteria and the EU-Turkey Negotiating Framework of 3 October 2005; expresses its dissatisfaction at Turkey's declarations stating its intention to freeze relations with the EU presidency during the second half of 2012, and hopes to see the development of regional cooperation;

| 37. | expresses disappointment at Turkey's continued failure to meet its commitments under the Additional Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement and calls on Turkey to progress towards its full implementation; |
| --- | --- |

37.

expresses disappointment at Turkey's continued failure to meet its commitments under the Additional Protocol to the EC-Turkey Association Agreement and calls on Turkey to progress towards its full implementation;

| 38. | notes with concern Turkey's low level of enforcement of legislation, adopted in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria; finds regrettable the lack of clear progress in developing local governance and civil society but hopes nonetheless that the ongoing constitutional reform process will secure significant progress; affirms that the establishment of a joint consultative committee between the Committee of the Regions and Turkish local and regional authorities should help ensure that due account is taken of EU requirements regarding decentralisation; |
| --- | --- |

38.

notes with concern Turkey's low level of enforcement of legislation, adopted in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria; finds regrettable the lack of clear progress in developing local governance and civil society but hopes nonetheless that the ongoing constitutional reform process will secure significant progress; affirms that the establishment of a joint consultative committee between the Committee of the Regions and Turkish local and regional authorities should help ensure that due account is taken of EU requirements regarding decentralisation;

| 39. | is concerned at the inadequate progress made in freedom of speech, media freedom, religious freedom, women's rights and respect for minority rights and in finding a fair solution to the Cyprus issue; urges the Turkish government to lend active support to the continuing negotiations and to take action aimed at the full settlement of the Cypriot question; |
| --- | --- |

39.

is concerned at the inadequate progress made in freedom of speech, media freedom, religious freedom, women's rights and respect for minority rights and in finding a fair solution to the Cyprus issue; urges the Turkish government to lend active support to the continuing negotiations and to take action aimed at the full settlement of the Cypriot question;

| 40. | is very much concerned about, and invites Turkey to improve, the observance of fundamental rights and freedoms in law and in practice; the restrictions in practice on the freedom of the media, the legal cases launched against writers, journalists, academics, elected politicians and human rights defenders, and frequent website bans all raise serious concerns that need to be addressed by the Turkish government; |
| --- | --- |

40.

is very much concerned about, and invites Turkey to improve, the observance of fundamental rights and freedoms in law and in practice; the restrictions in practice on the freedom of the media, the legal cases launched against writers, journalists, academics, elected politicians and human rights defenders, and frequent website bans all raise serious concerns that need to be addressed by the Turkish government;

| 41. | urges Turkey to step up local administrative reform, with a view to further decentralisation and making more effective use of local and regional levels of government. Key factors include greater and fairer funding for the local sector, systems for consultation between the various levels in line with the principles of multi-level governance, and greater support for the EU integration of the local level; |
| --- | --- |

41.

urges Turkey to step up local administrative reform, with a view to further decentralisation and making more effective use of local and regional levels of government. Key factors include greater and fairer funding for the local sector, systems for consultation between the various levels in line with the principles of multi-level governance, and greater support for the EU integration of the local level;

| 42. | is concerned at the sharp decline in public and media interest and credibility regarding Turkish EU membership; would therefore ask the EU to press ahead with the negotiations, not least through a ‘positive agenda’ that is to come into play as soon as Turkey meets the accession criteria; |
| --- | --- |

42.

is concerned at the sharp decline in public and media interest and credibility regarding Turkish EU membership; would therefore ask the EU to press ahead with the negotiations, not least through a ‘positive agenda’ that is to come into play as soon as Turkey meets the accession criteria;

| 43. | takes a positive view of the Commission's proposal to broaden cooperation between the local and regional authorities of EU Member States and their Turkish counterparts; |
| --- | --- |

43.

takes a positive view of the Commission's proposal to broaden cooperation between the local and regional authorities of EU Member States and their Turkish counterparts;

| 44. | stresses the CoR's interest in making use of existing mechanisms for cooperation between the EU and Turkey, cross-border programmes, regional cooperation and cooperation between local government institutions, with a view to developing local government and increasing the scope of application of the subsidiarity principle and democratisation; |
| --- | --- |

44.

stresses the CoR's interest in making use of existing mechanisms for cooperation between the EU and Turkey, cross-border programmes, regional cooperation and cooperation between local government institutions, with a view to developing local government and increasing the scope of application of the subsidiarity principle and democratisation;

ALBANIA

Progress of the potential candidate country

| 45. | calls on the Albanian authorities to continue reforms, as the reforms carried out so far only to some extent bring that country closer to meeting the Copenhagen criteria; |
| --- | --- |

45.

calls on the Albanian authorities to continue reforms, as the reforms carried out so far only to some extent bring that country closer to meeting the Copenhagen criteria;

| 46. | draws attention to the critical importance for the integration process of implementing the principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation and of developing democratic procedures, local government and civil society; |
| --- | --- |

46.

draws attention to the critical importance for the integration process of implementing the principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation and of developing democratic procedures, local government and civil society;

| 47. | encourages the Albanian government and opposition to restore and maintain constructive political dialogue in order to bolster the smooth running and independence of the basic democratic institutions; urges the Albanian authorities to step up their efforts to promote and implement the reforms necessary for the pre-accession process, especially as regards human rights, gender equality, the protection of minorities as well as of property rights, tackling corruption and organised crime and the pursuit of a constructive emigration policy; |
| --- | --- |

47.

encourages the Albanian government and opposition to restore and maintain constructive political dialogue in order to bolster the smooth running and independence of the basic democratic institutions; urges the Albanian authorities to step up their efforts to promote and implement the reforms necessary for the pre-accession process, especially as regards human rights, gender equality, the protection of minorities as well as of property rights, tackling corruption and organised crime and the pursuit of a constructive emigration policy;

| 48. | notes with concern the lack of decisive action to tackle the corruption encompassing a number of areas of public life; such corruption may in future pose a serious problem for the country's development; |
| --- | --- |

48.

notes with concern the lack of decisive action to tackle the corruption encompassing a number of areas of public life; such corruption may in future pose a serious problem for the country's development;

| 49. | urges the Albanian government to work actively with relevant stakeholders to promote decentralisation and EU integration. |
| --- | --- |

49.

urges the Albanian government to work actively with relevant stakeholders to promote decentralisation and EU integration.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Progress of the potential candidate country

| 50. | welcomes the reforms being carried out by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina; draws attention, however, to the scope for increasing the degree of coordination between all levels of government, including the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska; |
| --- | --- |

50.

welcomes the reforms being carried out by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina; draws attention, however, to the scope for increasing the degree of coordination between all levels of government, including the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska;

| 51. | believes that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must step up efforts to implement these reforms; draws attention to the fact that implementation of reforms in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria will be possible in the medium term only with significant involvement from the authorities, while environmental reforms will only be possible over the long term; |
| --- | --- |

51.

believes that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must step up efforts to implement these reforms; draws attention to the fact that implementation of reforms in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria will be possible in the medium term only with significant involvement from the authorities, while environmental reforms will only be possible over the long term;

| 52. | is concerned at the political stalemate in the country and the inability to get beyond the special interests of individual political groups, which is leading to significant delay in the accession process of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If stakeholders, in particular local authorities, were more widely and closely involved, IPA funds could be utilised more effectively and thus be of more obvious benefit to citizens. This would also highlight the advantages for the public of closer ties with the EU; |
| --- | --- |

52.

is concerned at the political stalemate in the country and the inability to get beyond the special interests of individual political groups, which is leading to significant delay in the accession process of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If stakeholders, in particular local authorities, were more widely and closely involved, IPA funds could be utilised more effectively and thus be of more obvious benefit to citizens. This would also highlight the advantages for the public of closer ties with the EU;

| 53. | agrees with the Commission's analysis of the situation with regard to the conflict, deadlock and political paralysis in Bosnia and Herzegovina and would therefore like to highlight the comments it made in 2010 (3). As a divided country, Bosnia needs leadership that can reconcile conflicts and initiate collective solutions. The EU needs to make it clear that the only real option is a policy that opens the country to the four freedoms of the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

53.

agrees with the Commission's analysis of the situation with regard to the conflict, deadlock and political paralysis in Bosnia and Herzegovina and would therefore like to highlight the comments it made in 2010 (3). As a divided country, Bosnia needs leadership that can reconcile conflicts and initiate collective solutions. The EU needs to make it clear that the only real option is a policy that opens the country to the four freedoms of the internal market;

| 54. | stresses the weakness of cooperation between the country's various administrative levels, which should be rectified with the clear support of all political forces in the country; |
| --- | --- |

54.

stresses the weakness of cooperation between the country's various administrative levels, which should be rectified with the clear support of all political forces in the country;

| 55. | notes that, in order to develop a climate of constructive cooperation in the country, it needs to have a functional administrative structure in which the various political levels complement each other and reconcile their divisions. The CoR reiterates that national government in Bosnia and Herzegovina must be strengthened in several spheres, and that support must be given to the driving forces for reform that are promoting both a stronger state and a decentralisation process with reinforced local authorities; |
| --- | --- |

55.

notes that, in order to develop a climate of constructive cooperation in the country, it needs to have a functional administrative structure in which the various political levels complement each other and reconcile their divisions. The CoR reiterates that national government in Bosnia and Herzegovina must be strengthened in several spheres, and that support must be given to the driving forces for reform that are promoting both a stronger state and a decentralisation process with reinforced local authorities;

| 56. | is convinced of the need to step up practical cross-border cooperation as well as cooperation between central, regional and local authorities; |
| --- | --- |

56.

is convinced of the need to step up practical cross-border cooperation as well as cooperation between central, regional and local authorities;

KOSOVO
   (4)

Progress of the potential candidate country

| 57. | welcomes Kosovo's commitment to its European trajectory in the context of the European integration process; |
| --- | --- |

57.

welcomes Kosovo's commitment to its European trajectory in the context of the European integration process;

| 58. | hopes that the lack of broad consensus among EU Member States on the formal status of Kosovo will not obstruct the development of relations in the form of agreements between the EU and Kosovo, and believes that, for the moment, practical, ad hoc solutions could be sought and promoted on the basis of a neutral approach as regards Kosovo's status; |
| --- | --- |

58.

hopes that the lack of broad consensus among EU Member States on the formal status of Kosovo will not obstruct the development of relations in the form of agreements between the EU and Kosovo, and believes that, for the moment, practical, ad hoc solutions could be sought and promoted on the basis of a neutral approach as regards Kosovo's status;

| 59. | stresses that the EU, in accordance with the principles it has adopted, is totally committed to the European perspective of the western Balkans, Kosovo included; |
| --- | --- |

59.

stresses that the EU, in accordance with the principles it has adopted, is totally committed to the European perspective of the western Balkans, Kosovo included;

SERBIA

The candidate country's progress

| 60. | welcomes the Commission's recommendation on awarding Serbia EU candidate status; |
| --- | --- |

60.

welcomes the Commission's recommendation on awarding Serbia EU candidate status;

| 61. | welcomes the European Council decision to grant Serbia status of candidate to the EU and urges Serbia to continue systemic and structural reforms; stresses the need to take steps to normalise relations with Kosovo, in accordance with the terms of the stabilisation and association process, by fully observing the principles of regional cooperation, with all stakeholders taking part; simultaneously hopes, that no steps, which could jeopardise their European perspective will be taken; |
| --- | --- |

61.

welcomes the European Council decision to grant Serbia status of candidate to the EU and urges Serbia to continue systemic and structural reforms; stresses the need to take steps to normalise relations with Kosovo, in accordance with the terms of the stabilisation and association process, by fully observing the principles of regional cooperation, with all stakeholders taking part; simultaneously hopes, that no steps, which could jeopardise their European perspective will be taken;

| 62. | encourages the Serbian authorities to continue the constructive steps they have taken to promote cooperation and stability in the region; |
| --- | --- |

62.

encourages the Serbian authorities to continue the constructive steps they have taken to promote cooperation and stability in the region;

| 63. | commends the progress made by Serbia in the pre-accession process, covering adjustments in a series of areas including human rights, the judicial system, media freedom and the Helsinki criteria; |
| --- | --- |

63.

commends the progress made by Serbia in the pre-accession process, covering adjustments in a series of areas including human rights, the judicial system, media freedom and the Helsinki criteria;

| 64. | draws attention to the particular importance in the integration process of implementing the principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation as well as development of democratic procedures, minority and local government rights, and development of civil society; |
| --- | --- |

64.

draws attention to the particular importance in the integration process of implementing the principle of good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation as well as development of democratic procedures, minority and local government rights, and development of civil society;

| 65. | takes a positive view of the protection of the linguistic rights of the traditional minority population and the approval in September 2011 of a law on public property and the transfer of some powers to the province of Vojvodina and to local authorities. |
| --- | --- |

65.

takes a positive view of the protection of the linguistic rights of the traditional minority population and the approval in September 2011 of a law on public property and the transfer of some powers to the province of Vojvodina and to local authorities.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  With the exception of Kosovo, in accordance with UN resolution 1244/1999.

1

(2)  With the exception of Kosovo, in accordance with UN resolution 1244/1999.

2

(3)  CdR 345/2009.

3

(4)  Under UNSCR 1244/1999.

4

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/7

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The Green Paper on family reunification’

2012/C 225/02

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | points out that the need to tackle the specific issue of family reunification coincides with the attention given to a new European agenda for integration (CdR 199/2011), and a European culture of multilevel governance (CdR 273/2011) which urges the Committee of the Regions to take action; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that the need to tackle the specific issue of family reunification coincides with the attention given to a new European agenda for integration (CdR 199/2011), and a European culture of multilevel governance (CdR 273/2011) which urges the Committee of the Regions to take action;

| — | notes that the Green Paper indicates that in some cases the application of the directive is used as a deterrent and points out that the arrangements for family reunification cannot be viewed as a means to curb migration flows; the specific aims of reunification are to improve the integration of legal migrants and to comply with the right to a family; |
| --- | --- |

—

notes that the Green Paper indicates that in some cases the application of the directive is used as a deterrent and points out that the arrangements for family reunification cannot be viewed as a means to curb migration flows; the specific aims of reunification are to improve the integration of legal migrants and to comply with the right to a family;

| — | stresses that people's right to live with their family, as well as the right and the duty to provide for, educate and bring up their children and thus to have their children with them, are fundamental rights and duties, independent of citizenship; points out that this is recognised in many instances of national and international case law which agree on this point; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses that people's right to live with their family, as well as the right and the duty to provide for, educate and bring up their children and thus to have their children with them, are fundamental rights and duties, independent of citizenship; points out that this is recognised in many instances of national and international case law which agree on this point;

| — | points out that the States must act with due regard for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in order to give the regions and local communities a stronger role in the application of integration policy and to provide them with a stable, legally sound frame of reference; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that the States must act with due regard for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in order to give the regions and local communities a stronger role in the application of integration policy and to provide them with a stable, legally sound frame of reference;

| — | the Committee calls for a stronger local-level role in multilevel governance, a crucial condition for a consistent immigration policy which complies with fundamental rights and is capable of promoting the wellbeing of host communities and immigrants. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Committee calls for a stronger local-level role in multilevel governance, a crucial condition for a consistent immigration policy which complies with fundamental rights and is capable of promoting the wellbeing of host communities and immigrants.

| Rapporteur | Sergio SOAVE (IT/PES), Mayor of Savigliano (CN) |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC)
  COM(2011) 735 final |

Rapporteur

Sergio SOAVE (IT/PES), Mayor of Savigliano (CN)

Reference document

Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC)

COM(2011) 735 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Frame of reference

| 1. | welcomes the Commission's decision to open up a debate on family reunification, the subject of Directive 2003/86/EC, in order to assess various problems which have arisen in the course of the directive's application and to look into the criticisms made by various parties (NGOs, local communities, academia); |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the Commission's decision to open up a debate on family reunification, the subject of Directive 2003/86/EC, in order to assess various problems which have arisen in the course of the directive's application and to look into the criticisms made by various parties (NGOs, local communities, academia);

| 2. | endorses the decision to use the Green Paper, which examines a number of key issues in the directive and asks a series of questions, as a basis for discussion; is pleased that the Commission will only decide on any practical measures to be adopted after this consultation has taken place; |
| --- | --- |

2.

endorses the decision to use the Green Paper, which examines a number of key issues in the directive and asks a series of questions, as a basis for discussion; is pleased that the Commission will only decide on any practical measures to be adopted after this consultation has taken place;

| 3. | points out that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in managing integration and social cohesion policies. They should therefore be fully involved in discussions on the enactment of the rules on family reunification in order to facilitate both the proper integration of immigrants in the host country and any reform of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

3.

points out that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in managing integration and social cohesion policies. They should therefore be fully involved in discussions on the enactment of the rules on family reunification in order to facilitate both the proper integration of immigrants in the host country and any reform of the directive;

| 4. | emphasises that this initiative is in line with the Stockholm Programme of December 2009 and the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum of September 2008; |
| --- | --- |

4.

emphasises that this initiative is in line with the Stockholm Programme of December 2009 and the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum of September 2008;

| 5. | points out that the need to tackle the specific issue of family reunification coincides with the attention given to a new European agenda for integration (CdR 199/2011), and a European culture of multilevel governance (CdR 273/2011) which urges the Committee of the Regions to take action; |
| --- | --- |

5.

points out that the need to tackle the specific issue of family reunification coincides with the attention given to a new European agenda for integration (CdR 199/2011), and a European culture of multilevel governance (CdR 273/2011) which urges the Committee of the Regions to take action;

Political backdrop to the opinion

| 6. | believes, upon careful consideration, that the economic crisis which is convulsing Europe may distort people's judgment regarding the directive. Another factor here is the concomitant influx of people arriving in Europe, some of them fleeing the effects of the undeniably major and positive political movement known as the Arab spring which has affected many Southern Mediterranean countries; |
| --- | --- |

6.

believes, upon careful consideration, that the economic crisis which is convulsing Europe may distort people's judgment regarding the directive. Another factor here is the concomitant influx of people arriving in Europe, some of them fleeing the effects of the undeniably major and positive political movement known as the Arab spring which has affected many Southern Mediterranean countries;

Principles and evaluations

| 7. | notes that the Green Paper indicates that in some cases the application of the directive is used as a deterrent and in this context points out that the arrangements for family reunification cannot be viewed as a means to curb migration flows, a problem which should be tackled at source and in other ways. The specific aims of reunification are to improve the integration of legal migrants and to comply with the right to a family, a principle enshrined in every charter of rights; |
| --- | --- |

7.

notes that the Green Paper indicates that in some cases the application of the directive is used as a deterrent and in this context points out that the arrangements for family reunification cannot be viewed as a means to curb migration flows, a problem which should be tackled at source and in other ways. The specific aims of reunification are to improve the integration of legal migrants and to comply with the right to a family, a principle enshrined in every charter of rights;

| 8. | stresses that people's right to live with their family, as well as the right and the duty to provide for, educate and bring up their children and thus to have their children with them, are fundamental rights and duties, independent of citizenship; points out that this is recognised in many instances of national and international case law which agree on this point. Specifically, Article 16 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the ‘natural and fundamental group unit of society’ which is ‘entitled to protection by society and the State’. Article 9 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights includes the right to a family among the fundamental rights of the individual; |
| --- | --- |

8.

stresses that people's right to live with their family, as well as the right and the duty to provide for, educate and bring up their children and thus to have their children with them, are fundamental rights and duties, independent of citizenship; points out that this is recognised in many instances of national and international case law which agree on this point. Specifically, Article 16 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the ‘natural and fundamental group unit of society’ which is ‘entitled to protection by society and the State’. Article 9 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights includes the right to a family among the fundamental rights of the individual;

| 9. | calls for immigration policies to comply fully with these fundamental rights, in line with the case law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts which have handed down clear and consistent judgments on this point; |
| --- | --- |

9.

calls for immigration policies to comply fully with these fundamental rights, in line with the case law of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts which have handed down clear and consistent judgments on this point;

| 10. | also calls for a practical evaluation of the impact of family reunification. The directive asserts that family reunification is a factor in social and cultural stability which itself promotes integration, fostering economic and social cohesion to the benefit of host local authorities. It must indeed be recognised that the application of the right to family reunification is a step forward for migration policies which demonstrate their maturity by focusing on the stabilisation of immigrants as a vital tool for effective social and economic integration in the host country. This is also a decisive and practical means to curb illegal immigration and decrease dangerous forms of social exclusion; |
| --- | --- |

10.

also calls for a practical evaluation of the impact of family reunification. The directive asserts that family reunification is a factor in social and cultural stability which itself promotes integration, fostering economic and social cohesion to the benefit of host local authorities. It must indeed be recognised that the application of the right to family reunification is a step forward for migration policies which demonstrate their maturity by focusing on the stabilisation of immigrants as a vital tool for effective social and economic integration in the host country. This is also a decisive and practical means to curb illegal immigration and decrease dangerous forms of social exclusion;

| 11. | notes that every European constitution views the family tie as a source of specific duties of economic and social solidarity. Promoting this tie among immigrant families through more robust recognition of the right to family reunification would therefore appear to be a way to encourage foreigners to realise that the many obligations (both administrative and organisational) imposed upon them are not merely the result of repressive policies or police requirements; they are part of a more general project working towards the overall development of society, to which they are actively called upon to contribute, not only by claiming rights but also by acknowledging duties which underpin the principles of public mindedness and responsibility towards others; |
| --- | --- |

11.

notes that every European constitution views the family tie as a source of specific duties of economic and social solidarity. Promoting this tie among immigrant families through more robust recognition of the right to family reunification would therefore appear to be a way to encourage foreigners to realise that the many obligations (both administrative and organisational) imposed upon them are not merely the result of repressive policies or police requirements; they are part of a more general project working towards the overall development of society, to which they are actively called upon to contribute, not only by claiming rights but also by acknowledging duties which underpin the principles of public mindedness and responsibility towards others;

| 12. | with this goal in mind, hopes that particular attention will be given to protecting the ‘nuclear family’ (the focus of the directive) and, within this frame of reference, to the right to reunification of minor children, who merit specific and stronger protection. As regards other types of family, in relation to the rules and customs of the migrant's State of origin, believes that evaluating individual or specific cases should be left up to the Member States; if, however, as a result of the consultation, the European Commission concludes that it would be necessary to adopt a common definition of ‘family’ at the European level, this definition has to be consistent with the definitions included in other EU instruments; |
| --- | --- |

12.

with this goal in mind, hopes that particular attention will be given to protecting the ‘nuclear family’ (the focus of the directive) and, within this frame of reference, to the right to reunification of minor children, who merit specific and stronger protection. As regards other types of family, in relation to the rules and customs of the migrant's State of origin, believes that evaluating individual or specific cases should be left up to the Member States; if, however, as a result of the consultation, the European Commission concludes that it would be necessary to adopt a common definition of ‘family’ at the European level, this definition has to be consistent with the definitions included in other EU instruments;

| 13. | considering the importance of these general principles and evaluations, does not believe that there is any need to substantially curtail individual States' margin of discretion, which is recognised by the directive and confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty. Nonetheless, points out that the States must act with due regard for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in order to give the regions and local communities a stronger role in the application of integration policy and to provide them with a stable, legally sound frame of reference. |
| --- | --- |

13.

considering the importance of these general principles and evaluations, does not believe that there is any need to substantially curtail individual States' margin of discretion, which is recognised by the directive and confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty. Nonetheless, points out that the States must act with due regard for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in order to give the regions and local communities a stronger role in the application of integration policy and to provide them with a stable, legally sound frame of reference.

II.   QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE GREEN PAPER

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

The concept of family and the requirements of family relationships

| 14. | considers that, without prejudice to the right of every third-country national residing legally in the EU to be reunited with their family members, it is understandable that this right should be made subject to specific conditions, always provided that it is without prejudice to the spirit of the directive which aims to facilitate their integration and stabilisation; |
| --- | --- |

14.

considers that, without prejudice to the right of every third-country national residing legally in the EU to be reunited with their family members, it is understandable that this right should be made subject to specific conditions, always provided that it is without prejudice to the spirit of the directive which aims to facilitate their integration and stabilisation;

| 15. | considers that the current wording of the directive might create legal uncertainty as well as doubts as to interpretation, and calls for an evaluation of the case for establishing at European level a minimum length of residence which would reconcile the need for stability with respect for the right to a family life, using circular-migration type models when having recourse to voluntary return programmes; |
| --- | --- |

15.

considers that the current wording of the directive might create legal uncertainty as well as doubts as to interpretation, and calls for an evaluation of the case for establishing at European level a minimum length of residence which would reconcile the need for stability with respect for the right to a family life, using circular-migration type models when having recourse to voluntary return programmes;

| 16. | suggests that the minimum age laid down for reunification of the spouse should generally be aligned with the age of majority established by the national legislation of the host country, with derogations for a lower age considered on an exceptional basis. This will guarantee the greatest possible uniformity and avoid potential age-based discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

16.

suggests that the minimum age laid down for reunification of the spouse should generally be aligned with the age of majority established by the national legislation of the host country, with derogations for a lower age considered on an exceptional basis. This will guarantee the greatest possible uniformity and avoid potential age-based discrimination;

| 17. | draws attention to the fact that the two derogations to the right to family reunification of minor children (Article 4(1), last paragraph, and Article 4(6)) have rarely been used and so could be repealed. At any rate, recommends that all decisions on this point be taken with a view to the best interests of the child and to assuring the protection of the minor child's rights. On the same grounds, also recommends that the right to reunification of minor children be guaranteed even if there is no marriage tie between the parents, in order to avoid any form of discrimination between legitimate and natural children; |
| --- | --- |

17.

draws attention to the fact that the two derogations to the right to family reunification of minor children (Article 4(1), last paragraph, and Article 4(6)) have rarely been used and so could be repealed. At any rate, recommends that all decisions on this point be taken with a view to the best interests of the child and to assuring the protection of the minor child's rights. On the same grounds, also recommends that the right to reunification of minor children be guaranteed even if there is no marriage tie between the parents, in order to avoid any form of discrimination between legitimate and natural children;

| 18. | as regards the optional clause relating to family members other than the spouse or registered partner and children, considers that the individual Member States should retain a margin of discretion in setting criteria. Notes that the directive in force does not clearly set out (as it should do) the consequences for family members in the event of the death of the sponsor, annulment of the marriage, divorce, the sponsor leaving the Member State, or successful contestation of paternity; |
| --- | --- |

18.

as regards the optional clause relating to family members other than the spouse or registered partner and children, considers that the individual Member States should retain a margin of discretion in setting criteria. Notes that the directive in force does not clearly set out (as it should do) the consequences for family members in the event of the death of the sponsor, annulment of the marriage, divorce, the sponsor leaving the Member State, or successful contestation of paternity;

Integration measures

| 19. | recommends preventive monitoring of the effectiveness of the various measures already in place (pre-departure measures and measures applied in the host country). On the basis of this initial screening, nonetheless recommends against pre-departure measures which might be impossible to implement for the sponsor's family members owing to illiteracy, material costs, distance from towns, etc. and which in practice would preclude the right to reunification; furthermore, considers that where attendance at language classes and/or classes on civic education and/or knowledge of the history and culture of the host society is required after arrival in the host country, the classes should be provided free of charge in order to avoid income-based discrimination, and draw on European Integration Modules; |
| --- | --- |

19.

recommends preventive monitoring of the effectiveness of the various measures already in place (pre-departure measures and measures applied in the host country). On the basis of this initial screening, nonetheless recommends against pre-departure measures which might be impossible to implement for the sponsor's family members owing to illiteracy, material costs, distance from towns, etc. and which in practice would preclude the right to reunification; furthermore, considers that where attendance at language classes and/or classes on civic education and/or knowledge of the history and culture of the host society is required after arrival in the host country, the classes should be provided free of charge in order to avoid income-based discrimination, and draw on European Integration Modules;

Waiting period and reception capacity

| 20. | when evaluating other material conditions which the sponsor residing in the Member State is required to meet (accommodation, health insurance, stable and regular resources), recommends that these conditions should comply with the principle of proportionality and not result in arbitrary restrictions. In particular, hopes that when enacting the directive, the Member States will ensure that their rules regarding these conditions are rooted in objective and verifiable criteria and not in generic provisions which might be interpreted in an arbitrarily restrictive fashion; |
| --- | --- |

20.

when evaluating other material conditions which the sponsor residing in the Member State is required to meet (accommodation, health insurance, stable and regular resources), recommends that these conditions should comply with the principle of proportionality and not result in arbitrary restrictions. In particular, hopes that when enacting the directive, the Member States will ensure that their rules regarding these conditions are rooted in objective and verifiable criteria and not in generic provisions which might be interpreted in an arbitrarily restrictive fashion;

| 21. | suggests that the criterion of the Member State's ‘reception capacity’ as a factor in the evaluation of whether reunification should be approved should be abolished, as it constitutes an additional tool for controlling migration flows, in contrast with the principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

21.

suggests that the criterion of the Member State's ‘reception capacity’ as a factor in the evaluation of whether reunification should be approved should be abolished, as it constitutes an additional tool for controlling migration flows, in contrast with the principles of EU law;

| 22. | considers that the length of the residence permit for the sponsor's family members should be aligned strictly with that of the sponsor, with a view to the possibility of adopting solutions in line with circular migration models when having recourse to voluntary return programmes; |
| --- | --- |

22.

considers that the length of the residence permit for the sponsor's family members should be aligned strictly with that of the sponsor, with a view to the possibility of adopting solutions in line with circular migration models when having recourse to voluntary return programmes;

Asylum issues

| 23. | as regards family reunification of third-country nationals who have been granted some form of specific protection (asylum, status of refugee, subsidiary protection), considers that, in accordance with the Stockholm Programme, the various types of status should be dealt with through specific, separate rules which take account of the specific situation of people who have been granted such protection (including the practical difficulties involved in providing information and documents). The directive on the general arrangements for reunification should therefore not be applied to the family members of foreigners granted some form of protection; the family reunification of these foreigners, including in the case of family ties established subsequent to the entry into the host State, should be the subject of separate rules; |
| --- | --- |

23.

as regards family reunification of third-country nationals who have been granted some form of specific protection (asylum, status of refugee, subsidiary protection), considers that, in accordance with the Stockholm Programme, the various types of status should be dealt with through specific, separate rules which take account of the specific situation of people who have been granted such protection (including the practical difficulties involved in providing information and documents). The directive on the general arrangements for reunification should therefore not be applied to the family members of foreigners granted some form of protection; the family reunification of these foreigners, including in the case of family ties established subsequent to the entry into the host State, should be the subject of separate rules;

Fraud, abuse and procedural issues

| 24. | considers that, unless used as a last resort, the decision taken by a number of Member States to introduce DNA testing for the identification of children could constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality in addition to violation of fundamental rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR); |
| --- | --- |

24.

considers that, unless used as a last resort, the decision taken by a number of Member States to introduce DNA testing for the identification of children could constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality in addition to violation of fundamental rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR);

| 25. | with regard to the fraud which it is feared might be perpetrated by means of marriages of convenience, asks the Commission and/or the Member States to provide data on the real extent of this phenomenon; in the absence of specific cases, believes it would be useful for targeted investigations to be carried out in all the Member States to get a more accurate idea of what is happening and promote good practice in addressing such problems; |
| --- | --- |

25.

with regard to the fraud which it is feared might be perpetrated by means of marriages of convenience, asks the Commission and/or the Member States to provide data on the real extent of this phenomenon; in the absence of specific cases, believes it would be useful for targeted investigations to be carried out in all the Member States to get a more accurate idea of what is happening and promote good practice in addressing such problems;

| 26. | with regard to the costs of family reunification borne by the sponsor, flags the risk that an artificial increase in administrative costs could be used by some States to place arbitrary limits on entry, in clear contrast with the principle of proportionality whereby the means should be suited to the aim pursued: the aim is to promote, not to preclude, the exercise of the right under consideration. The Member States should therefore be asked to set the cost in such a way as to avoid undermining the application of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

26.

with regard to the costs of family reunification borne by the sponsor, flags the risk that an artificial increase in administrative costs could be used by some States to place arbitrary limits on entry, in clear contrast with the principle of proportionality whereby the means should be suited to the aim pursued: the aim is to promote, not to preclude, the exercise of the right under consideration. The Member States should therefore be asked to set the cost in such a way as to avoid undermining the application of the directive;

| 27. | considers that the Member States should be recommended to comply with the deadline for reaching a decision on the request for reunification laid down by the directive; any derogation procedure established by the State for the purpose of extending this deadline beyond any reasonable period is an obstacle to the proper enactment of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

27.

considers that the Member States should be recommended to comply with the deadline for reaching a decision on the request for reunification laid down by the directive; any derogation procedure established by the State for the purpose of extending this deadline beyond any reasonable period is an obstacle to the proper enactment of the directive;

Respect for horizontal clauses

| 28. | with regard to the alleged difficulties in complying with the two mandatory horizontal clauses laid down by the directive, calls on the European Commission to adopt all the instruments and measures enshrined in the treaties and intended to ensure that the Member States comply fully with Community law. |
| --- | --- |

28.

with regard to the alleged difficulties in complying with the two mandatory horizontal clauses laid down by the directive, calls on the European Commission to adopt all the instruments and measures enshrined in the treaties and intended to ensure that the Member States comply fully with Community law.

III.   FINAL COMMENTS

| 29. | The Committee calls for a stronger local-level role in multilevel governance, a crucial condition for a consistent immigration policy which complies with fundamental rights and is capable of promoting the wellbeing of host communities and immigrants. Exemplary experiences of integration have been recorded in many European regions and communities and many ambiguous points in national legislation with regard to the practical interpretation of the directive have been resolved using the practical experience of local institutions. The Committee underlines the need to assemble as much information as possible on this subject and is willing to cooperate fully with the Member States and other European institutions in collecting and disseminating information and best practice where these data are available at local and regional level. |
| --- | --- |

29.

The Committee calls for a stronger local-level role in multilevel governance, a crucial condition for a consistent immigration policy which complies with fundamental rights and is capable of promoting the wellbeing of host communities and immigrants. Exemplary experiences of integration have been recorded in many European regions and communities and many ambiguous points in national legislation with regard to the practical interpretation of the directive have been resolved using the practical experience of local institutions. The Committee underlines the need to assemble as much information as possible on this subject and is willing to cooperate fully with the Member States and other European institutions in collecting and disseminating information and best practice where these data are available at local and regional level.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/11

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Review of EU air quality and emissions policy’

2012/C 225/03

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving the problems has been placed on local and regional authorities; A multilevel approach is required, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) must take responsibility and adopt the measures which can and must be adopted by the relevant level; |
| --- | --- |

—

observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving the problems has been placed on local and regional authorities; A multilevel approach is required, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) must take responsibility and adopt the measures which can and must be adopted by the relevant level;

| — | insists that the EU's immissions and emissions policies must be linked to each other. It is therefore essential that equal levels of ambition and synchronised timeframes be developed for EU source-based and immissions policy during the policy-development phase; |
| --- | --- |

—

insists that the EU's immissions and emissions policies must be linked to each other. It is therefore essential that equal levels of ambition and synchronised timeframes be developed for EU source-based and immissions policy during the policy-development phase;

| — | recommends a strengthening of EU emissions policy, in particular by making the review of the NEC directive ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations; by tightening up the Euro standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter and emissions requirements for other mobile sources; by closing the gaps between EU vehicle emission standards and actual vehicle ‘real world’ emissions; by tackling emissions from shipping and air traffic, and ammonia emissions from agriculture; |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends a strengthening of EU emissions policy, in particular by making the review of the NEC directive ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations; by tightening up the Euro standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter and emissions requirements for other mobile sources; by closing the gaps between EU vehicle emission standards and actual vehicle ‘real world’ emissions; by tackling emissions from shipping and air traffic, and ammonia emissions from agriculture;

| — | recommends that the review of the air quality directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC) in particular reduces the number of substances and the number of target and limit values by focusing on the most polluting substances and on those indicators that best reflect the health aspects; investigates whether particle concentration and EC/BC are more suitable indicators and which form they could be included in the directive; examines the use of the annual average limit value for PM10 on the basis of multi-year average concentrations; extends the possibility of additional derogations for reducing NO2 levels under specific circumstances; and imposes more specific rules on the location of measuring stations in order to ensure comparability. |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends that the review of the air quality directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC) in particular reduces the number of substances and the number of target and limit values by focusing on the most polluting substances and on those indicators that best reflect the health aspects; investigates whether particle concentration and EC/BC are more suitable indicators and which form they could be included in the directive; examines the use of the annual average limit value for PM10 on the basis of multi-year average concentrations; extends the possibility of additional derogations for reducing NO2 levels under specific circumstances; and imposes more specific rules on the location of measuring stations in order to ensure comparability.

| Rapporteur | Cor LAMERS (NL/EPP), Mayor of the municipality of Houten (Burgemeester van Houten) |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Letter from the European Commission vice-president of 19 July 2011 |

Rapporteur

Cor LAMERS (NL/EPP), Mayor of the municipality of Houten (Burgemeester van Houten)

Reference document

Letter from the European Commission vice-president of 19 July 2011

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A.   
  General comments

| 1. | is aware of the Commission's intention to present a comprehensive review of the European air quality policy in 2013, with new long-term objectives for the period after 2020. This review will be very wide ranging, involving:






  — | revising the thematic strategy on air pollution (COM(2005) 446 final); |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

is aware of the Commission's intention to present a comprehensive review of the European air quality policy in 2013, with new long-term objectives for the period after 2020. This review will be very wide ranging, involving:

—

revising the thematic strategy on air pollution (COM(2005) 446 final);

| — | tightening up EU policy on reducing pollution at source; |
| --- | --- |

—

tightening up EU policy on reducing pollution at source;

| — | combining the following directives into a single directive:






  — | the revised version of the directives on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

combining the following directives into a single directive:

—

the revised version of the directives on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC);

| — | the revised version of the directive on national emission ceilings (Directive 2001/81/EC); |
| --- | --- |

—

the revised version of the directive on national emission ceilings (Directive 2001/81/EC);

| 2. | appreciates the European Commission's request for an outlook opinion from the Committee on the future of EU air quality policy; |
| --- | --- |

2.

appreciates the European Commission's request for an outlook opinion from the Committee on the future of EU air quality policy;

| 3. | notes that the opinion (1), as an outlook opinion issued during the expert-group stage of the EU decision-making process, sets out both administrative/policy and technical aspects (recommended legislation and suggested processes); |
| --- | --- |

3.

notes that the opinion (1), as an outlook opinion issued during the expert-group stage of the EU decision-making process, sets out both administrative/policy and technical aspects (recommended legislation and suggested processes);

| 4. | notes that air quality affects people's daily lives and health in both urban and rural areas. Public health and the environment should be at the heart of attempts to improve air quality, but at the same time a balance must be sought between economic development and reducing air pollution. Improving the environment and public health can also stimulate the economy and reduce the economic costs of factors which threaten and damage health; |
| --- | --- |

4.

notes that air quality affects people's daily lives and health in both urban and rural areas. Public health and the environment should be at the heart of attempts to improve air quality, but at the same time a balance must be sought between economic development and reducing air pollution. Improving the environment and public health can also stimulate the economy and reduce the economic costs of factors which threaten and damage health;

| 5. | welcomes the significant improvements in air quality in Europe that have resulted from a combination of EU air quality policy and policy and action in the Member States (at national, regional and local level). The situation has been improving for the last two decades, but the Committee is concerned that this positive trend has stalled recently; |
| --- | --- |

5.

welcomes the significant improvements in air quality in Europe that have resulted from a combination of EU air quality policy and policy and action in the Member States (at national, regional and local level). The situation has been improving for the last two decades, but the Committee is concerned that this positive trend has stalled recently;

| 6. | points out that air pollution causes the greatest problems and hotspots in conurbations. Despite all the measures taken at local and regional level, many European cities will not be able to meet the standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2,5) and NO2 in time, as a result of which a large proportion of Europeans are living in areas with concentrations of air pollution that are harmful to their health; |
| --- | --- |

6.

points out that air pollution causes the greatest problems and hotspots in conurbations. Despite all the measures taken at local and regional level, many European cities will not be able to meet the standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2,5) and NO2 in time, as a result of which a large proportion of Europeans are living in areas with concentrations of air pollution that are harmful to their health;

| 7. | notes, moreover, that rural and peri-urban areas are also affected by air pollution, with a not insignificant impact on the environment, crops and natural habitats; |
| --- | --- |

7.

notes, moreover, that rural and peri-urban areas are also affected by air pollution, with a not insignificant impact on the environment, crops and natural habitats;

| 8. | notes that air pollution must be reduced, but that at the same time our cities must continue to function properly from a social and economic point of view. In most Member States motorised passenger and goods road transport (which is powered primarily by diesel and petrol) is one of the most significant direct source of NO2 air pollution hotspots and there must be a more effective approach than at present, in terms of both emissions standards and containing traffic; |
| --- | --- |

8.

notes that air pollution must be reduced, but that at the same time our cities must continue to function properly from a social and economic point of view. In most Member States motorised passenger and goods road transport (which is powered primarily by diesel and petrol) is one of the most significant direct source of NO2 air pollution hotspots and there must be a more effective approach than at present, in terms of both emissions standards and containing traffic;

| 9. | feels that the key question in reviewing EU air quality policy must be how EU legislation can effect improvements in air quality (i.e. using what type of legislation and which measures). At least the following aspects are important: multilevel governance, an integrated approach, and the practical implementation of EU legislation in Europe's cities. Priority must be given to the workability of the EU directive and problems of implementation in cities and regions; |
| --- | --- |

9.

feels that the key question in reviewing EU air quality policy must be how EU legislation can effect improvements in air quality (i.e. using what type of legislation and which measures). At least the following aspects are important: multilevel governance, an integrated approach, and the practical implementation of EU legislation in Europe's cities. Priority must be given to the workability of the EU directive and problems of implementation in cities and regions;

| 10. | notes that governance must be an important element in the development of new EU air quality legislation. Air pollution has transboundary and national dimensions, and therefore necessitates action at all levels of government (European, national, regional and local). The Committee recommends taking a multilevel approach, with each level of government taking its share of the responsibility and taking those actions that must or can best be taken at that level; |
| --- | --- |

10.

notes that governance must be an important element in the development of new EU air quality legislation. Air pollution has transboundary and national dimensions, and therefore necessitates action at all levels of government (European, national, regional and local). The Committee recommends taking a multilevel approach, with each level of government taking its share of the responsibility and taking those actions that must or can best be taken at that level;

| 11. | highlights the importance of an integrated approach to developing new EU legislation. Pollution must be prevented as far as possible. It is vital to identify the causes of pollution and to tackle emissions at source in the most economically effective and environmentally friendly way possible; |
| --- | --- |

11.

highlights the importance of an integrated approach to developing new EU legislation. Pollution must be prevented as far as possible. It is vital to identify the causes of pollution and to tackle emissions at source in the most economically effective and environmentally friendly way possible;

| 12. | notes that improving public health will require an ambitious EU air quality policy, but that it is impossible to pursue an immissions policy with EU limit values for pollutants without an effective emissions policy with EU measures to tackle pollution at source. The ambitiousness of the revised directive must therefore be closely aligned with that of the national emission ceilings and EU emissions policy (source-based policy). In this connection, the Committee feels that combining the air quality directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC) with the revised version of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) would help to align the different levels of ambition; |
| --- | --- |

12.

notes that improving public health will require an ambitious EU air quality policy, but that it is impossible to pursue an immissions policy with EU limit values for pollutants without an effective emissions policy with EU measures to tackle pollution at source. The ambitiousness of the revised directive must therefore be closely aligned with that of the national emission ceilings and EU emissions policy (source-based policy). In this connection, the Committee feels that combining the air quality directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC) with the revised version of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) would help to align the different levels of ambition;

B.   
  The Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and its implementation in the Member States

The Thematic Strategy

| 13. | feels that the thematic strategy on air pollution has contributed to reducing people's exposure to air pollution and to improving the environment; |
| --- | --- |

13.

feels that the thematic strategy on air pollution has contributed to reducing people's exposure to air pollution and to improving the environment;

| 14. | finds it regrettable that not all of the source-based measures mentioned in the thematic strategy have been implemented in practice, most notably:






  — | development of an integrated approach to the nitrogen cycle; |
| --- | --- | --- |

14.

finds it regrettable that not all of the source-based measures mentioned in the thematic strategy have been implemented in practice, most notably:

—

development of an integrated approach to the nitrogen cycle;

| — | the revision of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC, NEC Directive), which is important in dealing with background concentrations but has unfortunately been repeatedly deferred; |
| --- | --- |

—

the revision of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC, NEC Directive), which is important in dealing with background concentrations but has unfortunately been repeatedly deferred;

Implementation at local and regional level

| 15. | observes that local and regional authorities are working hard to improve air quality, for example by:






  — | promoting more sustainable forms of transport, such as more efficient and attractive public transport, cycle paths, access restrictions for (the most polluting) cars and/or lorries (environmental zones) and promoting clean(er) cars, e.g. by giving them preferential access and/or via parking policy; |
| --- | --- | --- |

15.

observes that local and regional authorities are working hard to improve air quality, for example by:

—

promoting more sustainable forms of transport, such as more efficient and attractive public transport, cycle paths, access restrictions for (the most polluting) cars and/or lorries (environmental zones) and promoting clean(er) cars, e.g. by giving them preferential access and/or via parking policy;

| — | making improvements in the field of transport management, improving traffic flows by imposing speed restrictions and developing innovative logistics concepts for city-centre goods deliveries; |
| --- | --- |

—

making improvements in the field of transport management, improving traffic flows by imposing speed restrictions and developing innovative logistics concepts for city-centre goods deliveries;

| — | preventing resuspended road dust by improving road surfaces and banning the use of studded tyres on city-centre streets; |
| --- | --- |

—

preventing resuspended road dust by improving road surfaces and banning the use of studded tyres on city-centre streets;

| — | improving infrastructure and buildings for example by laying down local ordinances on heating (if national legislation permits), reducing emissions from the production of space heating, promoting district heating, modernising heating installations, creating more space between roads and housing and increasing the amount of green space. With regard to this last point, it should be noted that green spaces alongside roads and verges (insulating vegetation) have little effect: only large green spaces such as parks and woods have demonstrable added value; |
| --- | --- |

—

improving infrastructure and buildings for example by laying down local ordinances on heating (if national legislation permits), reducing emissions from the production of space heating, promoting district heating, modernising heating installations, creating more space between roads and housing and increasing the amount of green space. With regard to this last point, it should be noted that green spaces alongside roads and verges (insulating vegetation) have little effect: only large green spaces such as parks and woods have demonstrable added value;

| 16. | points out that European policy at all levels should be further tightened, especially regarding quantitative reduction and the spatial and sectoral shift away from private and commercial transport by road. But it should be pointed out that compliance with the standards for PM10, PM2,5 and NO2 cannot be assured by such measures alone. The main reasons for this can be divided into three types of obstacle: limited influence, limited options, and limited policy freedom (see points 17, 19 and 22); |
| --- | --- |

16.

points out that European policy at all levels should be further tightened, especially regarding quantitative reduction and the spatial and sectoral shift away from private and commercial transport by road. But it should be pointed out that compliance with the standards for PM10, PM2,5 and NO2 cannot be assured by such measures alone. The main reasons for this can be divided into three types of obstacle: limited influence, limited options, and limited policy freedom (see points 17, 19 and 22);

| 17. | is of the opinion that individual local and regional governments have only a spatially limited influence on improving local air quality (first type of obstacle). Local and regional policy focuses on reducing emissions from local sources, while a large part of local concentrations of fine PM10 and PM2,5 particulates and ozone especially is in fact caused by cross-border and/or trans-regional emissions; |
| --- | --- |

17.

is of the opinion that individual local and regional governments have only a spatially limited influence on improving local air quality (first type of obstacle). Local and regional policy focuses on reducing emissions from local sources, while a large part of local concentrations of fine PM10 and PM2,5 particulates and ozone especially is in fact caused by cross-border and/or trans-regional emissions;

| 18. | points out that the high background concentrations of air pollutants and the often inadequate transposition and revision of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) restrict the prospects of success of the measures taken by local and regional authorities in order to meet EU air quality standards. The accumulation of (local, regional, national and international) emissions results in ‘background concentrations’, which can be so high that even a very small amount of pollution at local level results in limit values being reached or exceeded. In these cases the local and regional authorities affected of course have very little scope for influence; |
| --- | --- |

18.

points out that the high background concentrations of air pollutants and the often inadequate transposition and revision of the directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) restrict the prospects of success of the measures taken by local and regional authorities in order to meet EU air quality standards. The accumulation of (local, regional, national and international) emissions results in ‘background concentrations’, which can be so high that even a very small amount of pollution at local level results in limit values being reached or exceeded. In these cases the local and regional authorities affected of course have very little scope for influence;

| 19. | concludes that local and regional authorities have limited options in what action they can take (second type of obstacle). Urban policy focuses on mobility and spatial planning, and on specific actions to deal with ‘hotspots’. Local and regional authorities can take almost no effective measures based on the nature of the sources; |
| --- | --- |

19.

concludes that local and regional authorities have limited options in what action they can take (second type of obstacle). Urban policy focuses on mobility and spatial planning, and on specific actions to deal with ‘hotspots’. Local and regional authorities can take almost no effective measures based on the nature of the sources;

| 20. | points out that, in drafting their air quality policies, local and regional authorities have anticipated the benefits that would come from the introduction of EU-wide source-based measures. In retrospect, it is apparent that an insufficiently ambitious policy to tackle pollution at source, as well as not always having had the desired effect on European roads (see section D), is a major factor in failures to comply with limit values at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

20.

points out that, in drafting their air quality policies, local and regional authorities have anticipated the benefits that would come from the introduction of EU-wide source-based measures. In retrospect, it is apparent that an insufficiently ambitious policy to tackle pollution at source, as well as not always having had the desired effect on European roads (see section D), is a major factor in failures to comply with limit values at local and regional level;

| 21. | points out that efforts to further reduce local concentrations using only local measures can have a significant impact on everyday life and entail considerable costs. This will require financial resources that many local and regional authorities simply do not have, and powers that they do not officially have in all Member States. Moreover, international and European source-based policy is much more cost-effective; |
| --- | --- |

21.

points out that efforts to further reduce local concentrations using only local measures can have a significant impact on everyday life and entail considerable costs. This will require financial resources that many local and regional authorities simply do not have, and powers that they do not officially have in all Member States. Moreover, international and European source-based policy is much more cost-effective;

| 22. | points out that local and regional authorities have limited powers (third type of obstacle). Unfortunately, no – or insufficient – complementary measures have been taken at national level in many Member States which weakens regional and local authorities even further. For example, not all Member States have developed a national air quality plan, and most have opted not to take an integrated approach to air quality that is binding on all levels of government. There are also cases where the national government has discouraged, or even prevented, local and regional authorities from taking additional or stricter measures: for example, in a number of Member States low-emission zones cannot be introduced by local authorities, but only by the national government. The EU's internal market rules also restrict local and regional policy options. The free movement of goods and persons is after all hampered by the introduction of large environmental zones (e.g. regional zones) and road or bridge closures. Equally, national bans on polluting vehicles are not feasible for the above reasons; |
| --- | --- |

22.

points out that local and regional authorities have limited powers (third type of obstacle). Unfortunately, no – or insufficient – complementary measures have been taken at national level in many Member States which weakens regional and local authorities even further. For example, not all Member States have developed a national air quality plan, and most have opted not to take an integrated approach to air quality that is binding on all levels of government. There are also cases where the national government has discouraged, or even prevented, local and regional authorities from taking additional or stricter measures: for example, in a number of Member States low-emission zones cannot be introduced by local authorities, but only by the national government. The EU's internal market rules also restrict local and regional policy options. The free movement of goods and persons is after all hampered by the introduction of large environmental zones (e.g. regional zones) and road or bridge closures. Equally, national bans on polluting vehicles are not feasible for the above reasons;

| 23. | notes that various Member States are drafting national legislation to allow fines arising from EU letters of formal notice to be charged to local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities are required to meet the limit values using the limited options and resources at their disposal, while European and national levels of government have much more extensive and effective options and resources. Therefore, where the limit values are not complied with, responsibility for paying fines should continue to lie with the Member States. The Committee considers the ‘transfer’ of fines to local and regional authorities to be unjustified, and opposes any such moves; |
| --- | --- |

23.

notes that various Member States are drafting national legislation to allow fines arising from EU letters of formal notice to be charged to local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities are required to meet the limit values using the limited options and resources at their disposal, while European and national levels of government have much more extensive and effective options and resources. Therefore, where the limit values are not complied with, responsibility for paying fines should continue to lie with the Member States. The Committee considers the ‘transfer’ of fines to local and regional authorities to be unjustified, and opposes any such moves;

A multilevel governance approach

| 24. | observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving the problems has been placed on local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

24.

observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving the problems has been placed on local and regional authorities;

| 25. | also notes there is insufficient coordination between Member States in the fight against air pollution. Thus, information and warning thresholds are not the same in neighbouring countries, real-time information exchange between Member States during episodes of pollution is not organised and action plans are not coordinated in the major pollution areas common to several Member States; |
| --- | --- |

25.

also notes there is insufficient coordination between Member States in the fight against air pollution. Thus, information and warning thresholds are not the same in neighbouring countries, real-time information exchange between Member States during episodes of pollution is not organised and action plans are not coordinated in the major pollution areas common to several Member States;

| 26. | stresses that air quality problems cannot be resolved – or EU policy implemented – by any one level of government. A multilevel approach is required, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) must take responsibility and adopt the measures which can and must be adopted by the relevant level; |
| --- | --- |

26.

stresses that air quality problems cannot be resolved – or EU policy implemented – by any one level of government. A multilevel approach is required, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) must take responsibility and adopt the measures which can and must be adopted by the relevant level;

| 27. | points out that local and regional authorities are partly dependent on source-based measures at national and international level to reduce emissions and thereby help to substantially reduce background concentrations. Local and regional authorities can, in turn, develop their own policy on the basis of this, for example by tightening up the rules for access to environmental zones; |
| --- | --- |

27.

points out that local and regional authorities are partly dependent on source-based measures at national and international level to reduce emissions and thereby help to substantially reduce background concentrations. Local and regional authorities can, in turn, develop their own policy on the basis of this, for example by tightening up the rules for access to environmental zones;

| 28. | believes that implementation of air quality legislation is not simply a question of legal implementation (transposition into national law). If permitted under the internal organisation of the given Member State, the Committee recommends that national and/or federal air quality plans and/or reduction programmes be developed, taking an integrated and coordinated approach and taking account of the transnational aspects of the problem. The Committee advocates a multilevel approach and points to the establishment of cross-government teams in the Member States in which experts from the various levels of government work together to draw up national plans and programmes (2). This boosts synergy and consistency between national, regional and local measures; |
| --- | --- |

28.

believes that implementation of air quality legislation is not simply a question of legal implementation (transposition into national law). If permitted under the internal organisation of the given Member State, the Committee recommends that national and/or federal air quality plans and/or reduction programmes be developed, taking an integrated and coordinated approach and taking account of the transnational aspects of the problem. The Committee advocates a multilevel approach and points to the establishment of cross-government teams in the Member States in which experts from the various levels of government work together to draw up national plans and programmes (2). This boosts synergy and consistency between national, regional and local measures;

| 29. | appreciates the European Commission's efforts to draw attention to examples of best practice by local and regional authorities, and calls for this policy to be continued; |
| --- | --- |

29.

appreciates the European Commission's efforts to draw attention to examples of best practice by local and regional authorities, and calls for this policy to be continued;

| 30. | notes that it is important to aim for consistency and synergy with developments at international level, and points out that the emission ceilings in the revised Gothenburg Protocol must be a vital adjunct to the review of the EU directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC); |
| --- | --- |

30.

notes that it is important to aim for consistency and synergy with developments at international level, and points out that the emission ceilings in the revised Gothenburg Protocol must be a vital adjunct to the review of the EU directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC);

C.   
  Consistency and synergy between EU emissions and immissions policy

An integrated approach
   (3)

| 31. | believes that it is important to achieve consistency and synergy between action to tackle the various different pollutants. To this end, it is essential to take an approach that integrates EU air quality policy with other policy areas, in particular climate, industry, transport, housing and energy. Improving the sustainability of transport policy and introducing sustainable forms of energy production and consumption could significantly reduce air pollution; |
| --- | --- |

31.

believes that it is important to achieve consistency and synergy between action to tackle the various different pollutants. To this end, it is essential to take an approach that integrates EU air quality policy with other policy areas, in particular climate, industry, transport, housing and energy. Improving the sustainability of transport policy and introducing sustainable forms of energy production and consumption could significantly reduce air pollution;

| 32. | finds it regrettable that there is often a lack of synergy between measures. Measures with a positive effect in one area can have a negative effect in another. For example, increased used of biomass – such as biodiesel in small-scale installations – may increase emissions of black carbon, which presents risks for air quality and public health. An increase in diesel-fuelled vehicles may reduce CO2 emissions, but have a negative effect on emissions of particulate matter. Technologies to reduce particulate-matter emissions can, in turn, have a negative effect on NO2 emissions from diesel-fuelled vehicles, slowing the reduction of NO2 concentrations. Greater policy integration should prevent such negative consequences as far as possible, and it would be advisable to aim for a ‘win-win’ situation for all the policy areas concerned, or at least establish criteria for when it is preferable to prioritise one or other objective; |
| --- | --- |

32.

finds it regrettable that there is often a lack of synergy between measures. Measures with a positive effect in one area can have a negative effect in another. For example, increased used of biomass – such as biodiesel in small-scale installations – may increase emissions of black carbon, which presents risks for air quality and public health. An increase in diesel-fuelled vehicles may reduce CO2 emissions, but have a negative effect on emissions of particulate matter. Technologies to reduce particulate-matter emissions can, in turn, have a negative effect on NO2 emissions from diesel-fuelled vehicles, slowing the reduction of NO2 concentrations. Greater policy integration should prevent such negative consequences as far as possible, and it would be advisable to aim for a ‘win-win’ situation for all the policy areas concerned, or at least establish criteria for when it is preferable to prioritise one or other objective;

| 33. | feels it would be useful to link the policy for improving air quality with the policy for promoting use of alternative energy sources. Use of alternative energy sources (e.g. installations for use of geothermal energy, solar collectors, etc.) would make a major contribution to improving air quality; |
| --- | --- |

33.

feels it would be useful to link the policy for improving air quality with the policy for promoting use of alternative energy sources. Use of alternative energy sources (e.g. installations for use of geothermal energy, solar collectors, etc.) would make a major contribution to improving air quality;

| 34. | points to the lack of integration between policies to tackle climate change and those regarding air quality. Air quality policy generally has a positive impact in terms of combating climate change, but climate policy has only a limited impact on air pollution, as it follows a different dynamic and a different timescale. Climate policy focuses more on the long term, in contrast to air quality policy, which focuses on the short to medium term; |
| --- | --- |

34.

points to the lack of integration between policies to tackle climate change and those regarding air quality. Air quality policy generally has a positive impact in terms of combating climate change, but climate policy has only a limited impact on air pollution, as it follows a different dynamic and a different timescale. Climate policy focuses more on the long term, in contrast to air quality policy, which focuses on the short to medium term;

| 35. | believes that there is considerable potential for synergies between air quality and environmental noise policy, especially if traffic levels can be reduced, and that a ‘win-win’ situation should also be sought for these two policy areas (4); |
| --- | --- |

35.

believes that there is considerable potential for synergies between air quality and environmental noise policy, especially if traffic levels can be reduced, and that a ‘win-win’ situation should also be sought for these two policy areas (4);

| 36. | calls for more recording of emissions and immissions through an ‘integrated monitoring’ scheme that includes the coordinated collection and evaluation of emissions, an extension of the range of materials, provided that it can be adequately demonstrated that they really affect human health or the environment or else, in the case of evaluation, that it is limited to monitoring through modelling, propagation modelling and the measurement of exposure and effect over space and time, on the express condition that this does not lead to an excessive increase in the administrative burden; |
| --- | --- |

36.

calls for more recording of emissions and immissions through an ‘integrated monitoring’ scheme that includes the coordinated collection and evaluation of emissions, an extension of the range of materials, provided that it can be adequately demonstrated that they really affect human health or the environment or else, in the case of evaluation, that it is limited to monitoring through modelling, propagation modelling and the measurement of exposure and effect over space and time, on the express condition that this does not lead to an excessive increase in the administrative burden;

The link between EU emissions and immissions policies

| 37. | highlights the importance of consistency and synergy between immissions policy (EU limit values) and emissions policy (EU measures to tackle pollution at source): immissions are the result of emission levels, the location of emissions and the transmission and/or dispersal conditions. Moreover, reductions in immissions (concentration levels) can most effectively be achieved by pursuing an ambitious emissions policy; |
| --- | --- |

37.

highlights the importance of consistency and synergy between immissions policy (EU limit values) and emissions policy (EU measures to tackle pollution at source): immissions are the result of emission levels, the location of emissions and the transmission and/or dispersal conditions. Moreover, reductions in immissions (concentration levels) can most effectively be achieved by pursuing an ambitious emissions policy;

| 38. | concludes that the EU's ambitions immissions policy has not automatically led to an ambitious EU emissions policy, and that this has resulted in an imbalance between the two policies; consequently the implementation problems encountered in many European cities (see section B) and the slowdown in improvements to air quality can largely be blamed on the mismatches between EU immissions and emissions policies which therefore need to be addressed in any future development of policies and measures in this area with a view to bring them into a balance:






  a) | the level of ambition shown in the Air Quality Directive so far does not correspond to that of the EU's source-based measures, or to their practical outcome (see section D) and therefore these two objectives must be aligned; |
| --- | --- | --- |

38.

concludes that the EU's ambitions immissions policy has not automatically led to an ambitious EU emissions policy, and that this has resulted in an imbalance between the two policies; consequently the implementation problems encountered in many European cities (see section B) and the slowdown in improvements to air quality can largely be blamed on the mismatches between EU immissions and emissions policies which therefore need to be addressed in any future development of policies and measures in this area with a view to bring them into a balance:

a)

the level of ambition shown in the Air Quality Directive so far does not correspond to that of the EU's source-based measures, or to their practical outcome (see section D) and therefore these two objectives must be aligned;

| b) | The timeframes for EU immissions and emissions policies are not synchronised – the Member States need to meet the air quality standards before the aims of, for example, the Euro standards are achieved in practice on Europe's roads. The impact of the Euro standards (emission values) does not become visible and measurable until a few years after they are implemented, as they are, by definition, only applicable to a small proportion of the vehicle fleet, namely new vehicles; new emissions standards will not have an effect until older vehicles are replaced, and this renewal of the car fleet (and thus the impact of new standards) takes a number of years (real-world improvements); |
| --- | --- |

b)

The timeframes for EU immissions and emissions policies are not synchronised – the Member States need to meet the air quality standards before the aims of, for example, the Euro standards are achieved in practice on Europe's roads. The impact of the Euro standards (emission values) does not become visible and measurable until a few years after they are implemented, as they are, by definition, only applicable to a small proportion of the vehicle fleet, namely new vehicles; new emissions standards will not have an effect until older vehicles are replaced, and this renewal of the car fleet (and thus the impact of new standards) takes a number of years (real-world improvements);

| c) | The Committee asks the European Commission to indicate in the revised thematic strategy the renewal cycle timeframe required under the source-based measures that have been announced, i.e. to indicate at what point after the introduction of the source-based measures it will be possible to meet the limit values under real-world conditions. It is also important to estimate the time needed for the fleet to be renewed with cleaner vehicles. Adjustments to immissions policy should be adapted to this renewal cycle; |
| --- | --- |

c)

The Committee asks the European Commission to indicate in the revised thematic strategy the renewal cycle timeframe required under the source-based measures that have been announced, i.e. to indicate at what point after the introduction of the source-based measures it will be possible to meet the limit values under real-world conditions. It is also important to estimate the time needed for the fleet to be renewed with cleaner vehicles. Adjustments to immissions policy should be adapted to this renewal cycle;

| 39. | points out that new ambitions in terms of air quality (stricter limit values) must be realistic and feasible, and must therefore go hand in hand with (source-based) measures to actually reduce emissions throughout Europe. The EU's immissions and emissions policies must be linked to each other. It is therefore essential that equal levels of ambition and synchronised timeframes be developed for EU source-based and immissions policy (see previous point) during the policy-development phase. The Committee also draws attention to the implementation phase, where a situation could arise whereby: certain source-based measures mentioned in the revised thematic strategy are not taken, or if they do not, in practice, result in the desired reduction in emissions (as specified in emissions policy). The committee proposes that in such a situation the European Commission adopt compensatory measures. This can prevent the current mismatch between emissions and immissions policy re-emerging, confronting regional and local authorities once again with an impossible task; |
| --- | --- |

39.

points out that new ambitions in terms of air quality (stricter limit values) must be realistic and feasible, and must therefore go hand in hand with (source-based) measures to actually reduce emissions throughout Europe. The EU's immissions and emissions policies must be linked to each other. It is therefore essential that equal levels of ambition and synchronised timeframes be developed for EU source-based and immissions policy (see previous point) during the policy-development phase. The Committee also draws attention to the implementation phase, where a situation could arise whereby: certain source-based measures mentioned in the revised thematic strategy are not taken, or if they do not, in practice, result in the desired reduction in emissions (as specified in emissions policy). The committee proposes that in such a situation the European Commission adopt compensatory measures. This can prevent the current mismatch between emissions and immissions policy re-emerging, confronting regional and local authorities once again with an impossible task;

| 40. | in light of this desire for consistency between immissions and emissions policy, proposes the following timeframe for the development of future EU air quality policy:






  a) | presentation of the revised thematic strategy on air pollution at the start of 2013 – the strategy can then go through the EU decision-making process in 2013; |
| --- | --- | --- |

40.

in light of this desire for consistency between immissions and emissions policy, proposes the following timeframe for the development of future EU air quality policy:

a)

presentation of the revised thematic strategy on air pollution at the start of 2013 – the strategy can then go through the EU decision-making process in 2013;

| b) | presentation of the revised Air Quality Directive and EU source-based measures at the end of 2013; |
| --- | --- |

b)

presentation of the revised Air Quality Directive and EU source-based measures at the end of 2013;

| c) | interim evaluation and opportunities for amendment in 2017, in relation to new indicators (see section E); |
| --- | --- |

c)

interim evaluation and opportunities for amendment in 2017, in relation to new indicators (see section E);

D.   
  Emissions policy

EU source-based policy

| 41. | points out that air pollution is primarily caused by road and air transport, shipping, heating, households, industry and factory farming. An ambitious source-based policy is therefore needed (5). Consideration must be given here to the fact that motorised road transport is one of the biggest direct causes of air pollution hotspots in urban areas; |
| --- | --- |

41.

points out that air pollution is primarily caused by road and air transport, shipping, heating, households, industry and factory farming. An ambitious source-based policy is therefore needed (5). Consideration must be given here to the fact that motorised road transport is one of the biggest direct causes of air pollution hotspots in urban areas;

| 42. | welcomes, from an air-quality perspective, the ambitious nature of the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011) 144 final). In order to reach the necessary level of ambition for air quality, however, the Committee calls for a European action plan to be drawn up, including intermediate targets, specific measures (e.g. EU source-based measures) and scheduled evaluations (6); |
| --- | --- |

42.

welcomes, from an air-quality perspective, the ambitious nature of the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (COM(2011) 144 final). In order to reach the necessary level of ambition for air quality, however, the Committee calls for a European action plan to be drawn up, including intermediate targets, specific measures (e.g. EU source-based measures) and scheduled evaluations (6);

| 43. | calls on the EU, in addition to reducing emissions from each mobile or stationary source, to pay attention more systematically than before to reducing the total amount from the individual sources. Such quantitative policy measures have so far been left largely to the municipalities and regions. The contribution of the EU could initially cover the following actions:






  — | giving preference to collective transport rather than individual transport when planning and promoting the development of trans-European networks; |
| --- | --- | --- |

43.

calls on the EU, in addition to reducing emissions from each mobile or stationary source, to pay attention more systematically than before to reducing the total amount from the individual sources. Such quantitative policy measures have so far been left largely to the municipalities and regions. The contribution of the EU could initially cover the following actions:

—

giving preference to collective transport rather than individual transport when planning and promoting the development of trans-European networks;

| — | extending the scope of EU product quality, which until now has focused on the health and environmental impact (‘ecodesign’) of products, to become a component in reducing material and energy use; |
| --- | --- |

—

extending the scope of EU product quality, which until now has focused on the health and environmental impact (‘ecodesign’) of products, to become a component in reducing material and energy use;

| 44. | takes the view that EU emissions policy must be based on standards (and target-based policy, with required targets) so as not to hold back further technological innovations; |
| --- | --- |

44.

takes the view that EU emissions policy must be based on standards (and target-based policy, with required targets) so as not to hold back further technological innovations;

| 45. | recommends the introduction of a prevention requirement similar to the waste framework law, which makes it possible to manage existing resources accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

45.

recommends the introduction of a prevention requirement similar to the waste framework law, which makes it possible to manage existing resources accordingly;

| 46. | points out that the widespread contraventions of limit values for NO2 can mainly be attributed to the inadequate or delayed introduction of emission limits (for motor vehicles) by the EU and therefore urgently recommends tightening up the Euro standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter. It is important to stick closely to the timetable for the introduction of Euro VI/6 standards; |
| --- | --- |

46.

points out that the widespread contraventions of limit values for NO2 can mainly be attributed to the inadequate or delayed introduction of emission limits (for motor vehicles) by the EU and therefore urgently recommends tightening up the Euro standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter. It is important to stick closely to the timetable for the introduction of Euro VI/6 standards;

| 47. | recommends that emissions requirements for other mobile sources such as, inter alia, off-road equipment, retrofitting filters in vehicles, or up-dating European requirements for motorcycles, should also be made stricter; |
| --- | --- |

47.

recommends that emissions requirements for other mobile sources such as, inter alia, off-road equipment, retrofitting filters in vehicles, or up-dating European requirements for motorcycles, should also be made stricter;

| 48. | highlights the gap between EU legislation and actual vehicle emissions on the road. The Euro V/5 standards were (and are) ambitious, but in spite of that this ambition has not resulted in a sharp drop in air pollution. The most important reason for this is that a gap exists between the legal reality of the EU legislation and the actual emissions of road vehicles. It became clear, when Euro-III goods vehicles were introduced, that emissions under real-world driving conditions were higher than expected and did not deliver the expected reduction in emissions. The same problem was observed with the introduction of Euro-IV and Euro-V for diesel-engined goods vehicles and passenger cars respectively and – though to a lesser extent – with regard to NOx emissions from passenger cars. In order to realise the ambition of the EU legislation, the Euro VI/6 standard for vehicle emissions in the test cycle must correspond better to the actual emissions of an average journey in the city; |
| --- | --- |

48.

highlights the gap between EU legislation and actual vehicle emissions on the road. The Euro V/5 standards were (and are) ambitious, but in spite of that this ambition has not resulted in a sharp drop in air pollution. The most important reason for this is that a gap exists between the legal reality of the EU legislation and the actual emissions of road vehicles. It became clear, when Euro-III goods vehicles were introduced, that emissions under real-world driving conditions were higher than expected and did not deliver the expected reduction in emissions. The same problem was observed with the introduction of Euro-IV and Euro-V for diesel-engined goods vehicles and passenger cars respectively and – though to a lesser extent – with regard to NOx emissions from passenger cars. In order to realise the ambition of the EU legislation, the Euro VI/6 standard for vehicle emissions in the test cycle must correspond better to the actual emissions of an average journey in the city;

| 49. | would also point out that, in practice, newly delivered goods vehicles are often subject to technical modification whereby, under real-world conditions, their emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter are higher than might be expected from the type approval test. This practice must be as far as possible be avoided – and made subject to a fine – when Euro VI goods vehicles are introduced. To prevent this problem arising, the Committee would ask the European Commission and the Member States to tighten up legislation, goods vehicle approvals and associated inspections. Consideration must also be given whether technical options are available to prevent such technical modifications from being made in the future; |
| --- | --- |

49.

would also point out that, in practice, newly delivered goods vehicles are often subject to technical modification whereby, under real-world conditions, their emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter are higher than might be expected from the type approval test. This practice must be as far as possible be avoided – and made subject to a fine – when Euro VI goods vehicles are introduced. To prevent this problem arising, the Committee would ask the European Commission and the Member States to tighten up legislation, goods vehicle approvals and associated inspections. Consideration must also be given whether technical options are available to prevent such technical modifications from being made in the future;

| 50. | calls for special consideration to be given to heavy-duty vehicles (buses and lorries) which are generally the most polluting. Medium-duty vehicles (including vans) also generate considerably more NOx than the average car, and EU emissions policy should therefore pay special attention to tightening up the standards on emissions from such vehicles as well as emissions from diesel-engined cars, combining them with appropriate commercial logistics management measures and incentives, together with improvements to local public transport; |
| --- | --- |

50.

calls for special consideration to be given to heavy-duty vehicles (buses and lorries) which are generally the most polluting. Medium-duty vehicles (including vans) also generate considerably more NOx than the average car, and EU emissions policy should therefore pay special attention to tightening up the standards on emissions from such vehicles as well as emissions from diesel-engined cars, combining them with appropriate commercial logistics management measures and incentives, together with improvements to local public transport;

| 51. | notes that brake and tyre wear, together with wear on the road surface and the resuspension of road surface particles, contributes to the high concentrations of particulate matter, and recommends that research into ways of reducing such emissions be undertaken within the European research framework programme. The Committee also suggests that a guide to best practices be drawn up providing recommendations for the use of dust-retention solutions in order to prevent air pollutants from being dispersed again; |
| --- | --- |

51.

notes that brake and tyre wear, together with wear on the road surface and the resuspension of road surface particles, contributes to the high concentrations of particulate matter, and recommends that research into ways of reducing such emissions be undertaken within the European research framework programme. The Committee also suggests that a guide to best practices be drawn up providing recommendations for the use of dust-retention solutions in order to prevent air pollutants from being dispersed again;

| 52. | notes that industry still makes a major contribution to total emissions in Europe, and that efforts to reduce these emissions are regulated in the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU, IED). Ambitious Best Available Technique (BAT) reference documents (BREFs) and the conclusions drawn from these are decisive instruments for reducing background concentrations. In order to ensure that the BATs can still be used in the future, the BREFs and their conclusions need to be revised on a regular basis and be ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations throughout Europe, and the use of exemptions should be minimised (7); |
| --- | --- |

52.

notes that industry still makes a major contribution to total emissions in Europe, and that efforts to reduce these emissions are regulated in the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU, IED). Ambitious Best Available Technique (BAT) reference documents (BREFs) and the conclusions drawn from these are decisive instruments for reducing background concentrations. In order to ensure that the BATs can still be used in the future, the BREFs and their conclusions need to be revised on a regular basis and be ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations throughout Europe, and the use of exemptions should be minimised (7);

| 53. | notes that agricultural holdings contribute to air pollution, with ammonia emissions playing a significant role in acidification and eutrophication. Levels of NH3 will need to be reduced further if nature-related objectives such as the protection of Natura 2000 areas are to be achieved. Efforts to reduce these emissions are regulated in the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU, IED). It is also important for large-scale, industrial agricultural holdings to be able to use the best available techniques in future, and the BAT reference documents (BREFs) therefore need to be revised regularly; |
| --- | --- |

53.

notes that agricultural holdings contribute to air pollution, with ammonia emissions playing a significant role in acidification and eutrophication. Levels of NH3 will need to be reduced further if nature-related objectives such as the protection of Natura 2000 areas are to be achieved. Efforts to reduce these emissions are regulated in the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU, IED). It is also important for large-scale, industrial agricultural holdings to be able to use the best available techniques in future, and the BAT reference documents (BREFs) therefore need to be revised regularly;

| 54. | notes that emissions from shipping may have a significant impact on concentrations of air pollutants in port towns and cities and port areas and along heavily used inland waterways, and also in coastal towns, cities and regions. The Committee urges national authorities to apply the guidelines of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in all European coastal waters. Emission-reducing measures for particulates and NOx emissions should be required for inland waterway vessels; |
| --- | --- |

54.

notes that emissions from shipping may have a significant impact on concentrations of air pollutants in port towns and cities and port areas and along heavily used inland waterways, and also in coastal towns, cities and regions. The Committee urges national authorities to apply the guidelines of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in all European coastal waters. Emission-reducing measures for particulates and NOx emissions should be required for inland waterway vessels;

| 55. | notes that emissions from air traffic contribute to background concentrations of polluting substances. The Committee calls on the EU and national authorities to take the necessary measures and to make the requirements for aircraft emissions stricter; |
| --- | --- |

55.

notes that emissions from air traffic contribute to background concentrations of polluting substances. The Committee calls on the EU and national authorities to take the necessary measures and to make the requirements for aircraft emissions stricter;

Review of the directive on national emission ceilings (Directive 2001/81/EC)

| 56. | points out that the directive on national emission ceilings (NECs) is by far the best instrument for reducing background concentrations. Transboundary air pollution forms a very large proportion of background concentrations in many Member States, amounting to more than 50 % (averaged across the country) for some pollutants. The Committee feels that it is very important for the review of the NEC directive to be ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations throughout Europe, as it will make local and regional air quality policy realistic and feasible; |
| --- | --- |

56.

points out that the directive on national emission ceilings (NECs) is by far the best instrument for reducing background concentrations. Transboundary air pollution forms a very large proportion of background concentrations in many Member States, amounting to more than 50 % (averaged across the country) for some pollutants. The Committee feels that it is very important for the review of the NEC directive to be ambitious enough to reduce background concentrations throughout Europe, as it will make local and regional air quality policy realistic and feasible;

| 57. | notes that the directive on national emission ceilings is a key tool in forcing Member States to take measures at source. For this to be the case, however, the revised NEC directive and EU source-based policy need to be just as ambitious as the directives on air quality (2008/50/EG and 2004/107/EG). The ambitious targets of the air quality directives can only be achieved if these particular elements show ambition. In this connection, the Committee believes that combining the NEC directive with the air quality directives would encourage the harmonisation of the various levels of ambition; |
| --- | --- |

57.

notes that the directive on national emission ceilings is a key tool in forcing Member States to take measures at source. For this to be the case, however, the revised NEC directive and EU source-based policy need to be just as ambitious as the directives on air quality (2008/50/EG and 2004/107/EG). The ambitious targets of the air quality directives can only be achieved if these particular elements show ambition. In this connection, the Committee believes that combining the NEC directive with the air quality directives would encourage the harmonisation of the various levels of ambition;

| 58. | is concerned by the Member States' lack of ambition with regard to the pending revision of the Gothenburg Protocol (which lays down the international agreements for emission ceilings). This revision affects the revision of the NEC directive, and thus also influences the level of ambition shown in new EU air quality legislation. The Committee urges the Member States to be more ambitious in the pending revision of the Gothenburg Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

58.

is concerned by the Member States' lack of ambition with regard to the pending revision of the Gothenburg Protocol (which lays down the international agreements for emission ceilings). This revision affects the revision of the NEC directive, and thus also influences the level of ambition shown in new EU air quality legislation. The Committee urges the Member States to be more ambitious in the pending revision of the Gothenburg Protocol;

| 59. | asks at the very least for a list of elemental or black carbon emissions to be drawn up and for a monitoring process to be set up with a view to identifying new atmospheric pollutants that could in future be included in this protocol; |
| --- | --- |

59.

asks at the very least for a list of elemental or black carbon emissions to be drawn up and for a monitoring process to be set up with a view to identifying new atmospheric pollutants that could in future be included in this protocol;

E.   
  Immissions policy: revision of the air quality directives (2008/50/EC and 2004/107/EC)

General comments on revision of the directives

| 60. | notes that the air quality directives (2008/50/EG and 2004/107/EG) are very important instruments in reducing the exposure of people and the environment to air pollution. The establishment of minimum protection levels has led to action in all EU countries to reduce emissions and to reduce concentrations at hotspots. A reduction in emissions in one country at the same time results in a reduction in transboundary air pollution, which means that neighbouring countries are helping each other to meet the limit values; |
| --- | --- |

60.

notes that the air quality directives (2008/50/EG and 2004/107/EG) are very important instruments in reducing the exposure of people and the environment to air pollution. The establishment of minimum protection levels has led to action in all EU countries to reduce emissions and to reduce concentrations at hotspots. A reduction in emissions in one country at the same time results in a reduction in transboundary air pollution, which means that neighbouring countries are helping each other to meet the limit values;

| 61. | believes that public health and environmental protection must be the starting point for revising the air quality directives. Improving public health will require a higher level of ambition. However, the Committee insists in this regard that the ambitiousness of the revised directive must be carefully aligned with that of the national emission ceilings and EU emissions policy (source-based policy) as previously mentioned (point 57); |
| --- | --- |

61.

believes that public health and environmental protection must be the starting point for revising the air quality directives. Improving public health will require a higher level of ambition. However, the Committee insists in this regard that the ambitiousness of the revised directive must be carefully aligned with that of the national emission ceilings and EU emissions policy (source-based policy) as previously mentioned (point 57);

| 62. | observes that the air quality directives currently contain 27 limit and target values; it also notes that some of the limit values overlap (for example the daily and annual limits for PM10 and the annual limits for PM10 and PM2,5), and that a number of the limit values have not been exceeded for many years in large parts of the EU. The Committee therefore suggests looking into whether the concept of target values does in fact have any added value for substances for which the directives already provide limit values; |
| --- | --- |

62.

observes that the air quality directives currently contain 27 limit and target values; it also notes that some of the limit values overlap (for example the daily and annual limits for PM10 and the annual limits for PM10 and PM2,5), and that a number of the limit values have not been exceeded for many years in large parts of the EU. The Committee therefore suggests looking into whether the concept of target values does in fact have any added value for substances for which the directives already provide limit values;

| 63. | notes that the requirements in the directive to report on the concentrations detected and on the establishment and status of air quality plans take a great deal of time and impose additional administrative burdens on local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

63.

notes that the requirements in the directive to report on the concentrations detected and on the establishment and status of air quality plans take a great deal of time and impose additional administrative burdens on local and regional authorities;

| 64. | feels that, from the perspective of public health and scientific research as well as of better regulation, reducing red tape and facilitating communication with the public, the number of substances and the number of target and limit values could be possibly reduced. This could be achieved by focusing on the most polluting substances and on those indicators that best reflect the health aspects; |
| --- | --- |

64.

feels that, from the perspective of public health and scientific research as well as of better regulation, reducing red tape and facilitating communication with the public, the number of substances and the number of target and limit values could be possibly reduced. This could be achieved by focusing on the most polluting substances and on those indicators that best reflect the health aspects;

Elemental carbon/black carbon

| 65. | recommends that the indicators used for traffic-related pollution should be those that best reflect the health aspects. The current directive provides standards for PM10, PM2,5 and NO2, but some studies indicate that elemental carbon (EC/black carbon) and particle concentration (combustion related aerosol) seem to be better indicators for the components of air pollution linked to motor-vehicle traffic that impact public health. EC/BC is the soot fraction released from the combustion of all carbon-based fuels (including diesel and petrol), for example in vehicle and boat engines. The Committee therefore recommends investigating whether a standard for particle concentration and EC/BC could be introduced; |
| --- | --- |

65.

recommends that the indicators used for traffic-related pollution should be those that best reflect the health aspects. The current directive provides standards for PM10, PM2,5 and NO2, but some studies indicate that elemental carbon (EC/black carbon) and particle concentration (combustion related aerosol) seem to be better indicators for the components of air pollution linked to motor-vehicle traffic that impact public health. EC/BC is the soot fraction released from the combustion of all carbon-based fuels (including diesel and petrol), for example in vehicle and boat engines. The Committee therefore recommends investigating whether a standard for particle concentration and EC/BC could be introduced;

| 66. | points out that a greater focus on EC/BC would be in line with the recommendations of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP); |
| --- | --- |

66.

points out that a greater focus on EC/BC would be in line with the recommendations of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP);

| 67. | proposes that the directive include the possibility of mid-term amendment (using the recast procedure). If research (see point 65) and positive practical experience show that the EC/BC standard is more suitable for use as an indicator its inclusion, and the form in which it would be included, in the directive could be considered; |
| --- | --- |

67.

proposes that the directive include the possibility of mid-term amendment (using the recast procedure). If research (see point 65) and positive practical experience show that the EC/BC standard is more suitable for use as an indicator its inclusion, and the form in which it would be included, in the directive could be considered;

Particulate air pollution

| 68. | points out that the current directive has three limit values and one reduction target for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2,5), as well as various values, annual averages and 24 hour values. This makes it complicated to implement in practice, and imposes unnecessary administrative burdens. The Committee is aware of the discussions concerning simplifying this situation by deleting one of the standards for particulate matter (either PM10 or PM2,5) provided this is duly justified by studies of the effects on health and the environment; it does not wish to take a position on that; |
| --- | --- |

68.

points out that the current directive has three limit values and one reduction target for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2,5), as well as various values, annual averages and 24 hour values. This makes it complicated to implement in practice, and imposes unnecessary administrative burdens. The Committee is aware of the discussions concerning simplifying this situation by deleting one of the standards for particulate matter (either PM10 or PM2,5) provided this is duly justified by studies of the effects on health and the environment; it does not wish to take a position on that;

| 69. | points out that the limit values for PM10 are very difficult to comply with in some places. This may be due to local circumstances, local sources, certain specific meteorological conditions and/or periods of large-scale air pollution. Long-distance goods transport can also contribute significantly to the overall load. With a view to the desired flexibility, the Committee suggests examining whether the annual average limit value could be used for checks on the basis of multi-year average concentrations; |
| --- | --- |

69.

points out that the limit values for PM10 are very difficult to comply with in some places. This may be due to local circumstances, local sources, certain specific meteorological conditions and/or periods of large-scale air pollution. Long-distance goods transport can also contribute significantly to the overall load. With a view to the desired flexibility, the Committee suggests examining whether the annual average limit value could be used for checks on the basis of multi-year average concentrations;

| 70. | observes that the introduction of PM2,5 was received favourably, as this component probably has a closer correlation than PM10 with health effects. There are, however, a number of different values for PM2,5, including for general exposure and a reduction percentage, which makes it difficult for authorities to comply with all aspects of these values. It is as yet unclear whether local and regional authorities will be able to meet the PM2,5 limit value and the reduction percentage, as there is not enough information available and the impact of measures cannot yet be quantified. The Committee recommends that this lack of data be taken into account when evaluating the PM2,5 standards, and that consideration be given to allowing more time to meet the standards in certain cases; |
| --- | --- |

70.

observes that the introduction of PM2,5 was received favourably, as this component probably has a closer correlation than PM10 with health effects. There are, however, a number of different values for PM2,5, including for general exposure and a reduction percentage, which makes it difficult for authorities to comply with all aspects of these values. It is as yet unclear whether local and regional authorities will be able to meet the PM2,5 limit value and the reduction percentage, as there is not enough information available and the impact of measures cannot yet be quantified. The Committee recommends that this lack of data be taken into account when evaluating the PM2,5 standards, and that consideration be given to allowing more time to meet the standards in certain cases;

NOx/NO2

| 71. | proposes that, pending research into another method of formulating this standard, the European Commission should reconsider whether the average hourly concentration for NO2 is really necessary, as the annual limit value appears to be stricter and it is impossible to take measures at local level to reduce average hourly concentrations of NO2; |
| --- | --- |

71.

proposes that, pending research into another method of formulating this standard, the European Commission should reconsider whether the average hourly concentration for NO2 is really necessary, as the annual limit value appears to be stricter and it is impossible to take measures at local level to reduce average hourly concentrations of NO2;

| 72. | proposes that the directive should define citizens' right to see an action plan drawn up when pollutant limit values are exceeded; |
| --- | --- |

72.

proposes that the directive should define citizens' right to see an action plan drawn up when pollutant limit values are exceeded;

| 73. | believes that, in view of the specific issues with reducing NO2 levels in the air, the possibility of extensions (additional derogation) must be extended, provided the Member State in question can show that all reasonable measures have been taken, also in order to limit the distances travelled by motor vehicles, but, despite this, the EU limit value has not been achieved because the engines of vehicles on the road do not meet the emission levels established in the Euro standards (in other words because of inadequate EU source-based policy); |
| --- | --- |

73.

believes that, in view of the specific issues with reducing NO2 levels in the air, the possibility of extensions (additional derogation) must be extended, provided the Member State in question can show that all reasonable measures have been taken, also in order to limit the distances travelled by motor vehicles, but, despite this, the EU limit value has not been achieved because the engines of vehicles on the road do not meet the emission levels established in the Euro standards (in other words because of inadequate EU source-based policy);

Ozone

| 74. | notes that ozone (O3) is formed in the air by the reaction of precursor substances – nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, methane and other volatile organic compounds – in the presence of sunlight. A number of cities, particularly in southern Europe, still have high concentrations of ozone. Local authorities have very little ability to affect ozone concentrations in their own cities, but can help to reduce levels elsewhere by cutting emissions from transport. The Committee suggests that reducing high ozone concentrations in urban areas is primarily a challenge for national and European air quality policy, and that emissions policy on volatile organic compounds is the most effective measure; |
| --- | --- |

74.

notes that ozone (O3) is formed in the air by the reaction of precursor substances – nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, methane and other volatile organic compounds – in the presence of sunlight. A number of cities, particularly in southern Europe, still have high concentrations of ozone. Local authorities have very little ability to affect ozone concentrations in their own cities, but can help to reduce levels elsewhere by cutting emissions from transport. The Committee suggests that reducing high ozone concentrations in urban areas is primarily a challenge for national and European air quality policy, and that emissions policy on volatile organic compounds is the most effective measure;

| 75. | draws attention to an analysis by the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (8) showing that Member States have little influence on annual average ozone concentrations and almost no influence on peak O3 concentrations within their territory. At the same time broader background concentrations of ozone appear to be rising. In the Committee's view, this needs to be taken into account when evaluating the target values for ozone (long-term objectives) and in the associated impact on developments in policy and reporting. Meeting the long-term target values for ozone levels is particularly difficult for the southern countries which are exposed to more hours of sunshine – greater solar radiation – and higher average temperatures, factors that encourage the formation of tropospheric ozone. The CoR recommends that research be undertaken to establish whether this phenomenon can be classified as ‘natural’ air pollution, so that it can be treated in the same way as sea salt or Sahara sand; |
| --- | --- |

75.

draws attention to an analysis by the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (8) showing that Member States have little influence on annual average ozone concentrations and almost no influence on peak O3 concentrations within their territory. At the same time broader background concentrations of ozone appear to be rising. In the Committee's view, this needs to be taken into account when evaluating the target values for ozone (long-term objectives) and in the associated impact on developments in policy and reporting. Meeting the long-term target values for ozone levels is particularly difficult for the southern countries which are exposed to more hours of sunshine – greater solar radiation – and higher average temperatures, factors that encourage the formation of tropospheric ozone. The CoR recommends that research be undertaken to establish whether this phenomenon can be classified as ‘natural’ air pollution, so that it can be treated in the same way as sea salt or Sahara sand;

| 76. | recommends that efforts to reduce ozone concentrations should focus in particular on reducing emissions of ozone precursor gases, by revising the Directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) and by tightening up sectoral legislation for key sources; |
| --- | --- |

76.

recommends that efforts to reduce ozone concentrations should focus in particular on reducing emissions of ozone precursor gases, by revising the Directive on national emission ceilings (2001/81/EC) and by tightening up sectoral legislation for key sources;

Flexibility

| 77. | highlights the fact that weather conditions may have a significant adverse effect on levels of air pollution. For example, the extremely dry start to 2011 in large parts of western Europe resulted in high PM10 concentrations. It was not possible to counteract this effect with local or regional measures, and European legislation needs to take account of this by making provision for years with extreme meteorological conditions, for example by introducing a multiannual average; |
| --- | --- |

77.

highlights the fact that weather conditions may have a significant adverse effect on levels of air pollution. For example, the extremely dry start to 2011 in large parts of western Europe resulted in high PM10 concentrations. It was not possible to counteract this effect with local or regional measures, and European legislation needs to take account of this by making provision for years with extreme meteorological conditions, for example by introducing a multiannual average;

| 78. | points in this connection to the relationship between economic trends and air pollution which should be taken into account in the development of future policies. The current economic crisis is resulting in less economic activity (mobility, industry and shipping), and thus in lower emissions. At the same time, there are also considerably fewer financial resources available for innovation both at the private level (such as renewal of heating systems or vehicles), and at industrial level. Once the economy picks up these trends may well be reversed again. |
| --- | --- |

78.

points in this connection to the relationship between economic trends and air pollution which should be taken into account in the development of future policies. The current economic crisis is resulting in less economic activity (mobility, industry and shipping), and thus in lower emissions. At the same time, there are also considerably fewer financial resources available for innovation both at the private level (such as renewal of heating systems or vehicles), and at industrial level. Once the economy picks up these trends may well be reversed again.

Monitoring (measurements) and modelling (calculations)

| 79. | notes that there are variations between Member States in how measuring stations are sited. As the geographical conditions at the various locations vary, which can influence the air quality values, the Committee recommends that monitoring (measuring) should remain obligatory, but should be improved by imposing more specific rules regarding the location of measuring stations in order to ensure the comparability of measured values; |
| --- | --- |

79.

notes that there are variations between Member States in how measuring stations are sited. As the geographical conditions at the various locations vary, which can influence the air quality values, the Committee recommends that monitoring (measuring) should remain obligatory, but should be improved by imposing more specific rules regarding the location of measuring stations in order to ensure the comparability of measured values;

| 80. | suggests in this connection the establishment of a real-time air pollution exchange and information platform and harmonisation of the information and warning thresholds to make it possible to coordinate the measures adopted by the Member States in acute situations of high air pollution more effectively. |
| --- | --- |

80.

suggests in this connection the establishment of a real-time air pollution exchange and information platform and harmonisation of the information and warning thresholds to make it possible to coordinate the measures adopted by the Member States in acute situations of high air pollution more effectively.

Brussels, 3 May 2012

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  The CoR carried out a consultation of its Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in relation to this opinion. The report on the consultation was published in December 2011.

1

(2)  The Committee recommended establishing teams of this kind in CdR 164/2010 fin.

2

(3)  The Committee has repeatedly made such recommendations: CdR 164/2010 fin and CdR 140/2011 fin.

3

(4)  This recommendation is also made in the CoR opinion on The Environmental Noise Directive – the way forward (CdR 190/2011 rev. 2).

4

The Environmental Noise Directive – the way forward

(5)  The Committee has long been calling for such a policy: CdR 190/2011 rev. 2, CdR 140/2011 fin, CdR 101/2011 fin, CdR 164/2010 fin, CdR 159/2008 fin.

5

(6)  This recommendation was also made in Opinion CdR 101/2011 fin.

6

(7)  This recommendation was also made in the CoR opinion on industrial emissions (CdR 159/2008 fin).

7

(8)  RIVM, Dossier Ozon 2011: een overzicht van de huidige stand van kennis over ozon op leefniveau in Nederland [Ozone dossier 2011: overview of current knowledge on ground-level ozone in the Netherlands], June 2011.

8

Dossier Ozon 2011: een overzicht van de huidige stand van kennis over ozon op leefniveau in Nederland

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/20

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Legislative proposals on the reform of the common fisheries policy’

2012/C 225/04

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | supports the measures of the European Commission, which seek to limit the ongoing reduction of many stocks and guarantee the exploitation of marine biological resources at levels which make it possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield by 2015, insofar as possible; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the measures of the European Commission, which seek to limit the ongoing reduction of many stocks and guarantee the exploitation of marine biological resources at levels which make it possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield by 2015, insofar as possible;

| — | considers that where possible a ban on discards should be gradually introduced, primarily concerning industrial species yet permitting the dumping overboard of marine organisms which can survive once they have been thrown back into the sea; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that where possible a ban on discards should be gradually introduced, primarily concerning industrial species yet permitting the dumping overboard of marine organisms which can survive once they have been thrown back into the sea;

| — | draws attention to the potential risks and negative effects of a compulsory introduction of a system of transferable fishing concessions and recommends such systems should be voluntary and for each Member State's competence; |
| --- | --- |

—

draws attention to the potential risks and negative effects of a compulsory introduction of a system of transferable fishing concessions and recommends such systems should be voluntary and for each Member State's competence;

| — | recognises that the economic and strategic importance of aquaculture justifies measures to promote it through an independent regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognises that the economic and strategic importance of aquaculture justifies measures to promote it through an independent regulation;

| — | calls for increased regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy; fully supports introducing a process which takes into account the specificities and needs of the regions including cooperation with regional advisory councils (RACs), in order to adopt conservation measures and technical measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy to allow for the policy to better address the realities and specificities of individual fisheries, including trans-border problems; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for increased regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy; fully supports introducing a process which takes into account the specificities and needs of the regions including cooperation with regional advisory councils (RACs), in order to adopt conservation measures and technical measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy to allow for the policy to better address the realities and specificities of individual fisheries, including trans-border problems;

| — | welcomes that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will be part of the new Common Strategic Framework and aligned with the other Regional and Rural funds; nevertheless calls for guarantees in relation to funding for fisheries and aquaculture, and for the regions to be involved in the strategic implementation of funds. |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will be part of the new Common Strategic Framework and aligned with the other Regional and Rural funds; nevertheless calls for guarantees in relation to funding for fisheries and aquaculture, and for the regions to be involved in the strategic implementation of funds.

| Rapporteur | Mr Mieczysław STRUK (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products
  COM(2011) 416 final
  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
  COM(2011) 417 final
  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Reporting Obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy
  COM(2011) 418 final
  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy
  COM(2011) 424 final
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy
  COM(2011) 425 final |

Rapporteur

Mr Mieczysław STRUK (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Pomorskie Voivodeship

Reference documents

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Organisation of the Markets in Fishery and Aquaculture Products

COM(2011) 416 final

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 417 final

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Reporting Obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Fisheries Resources under the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 418 final

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 424 final

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy

COM(2011) 425 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Long-term management

| 1. | believes that the Common Fisheries Policy should contribute to long-term sustainable environmental, economic, and social conditions. It should also contribute to a higher standard of living for the fisheries sector, a stable market, and ensure the availability of resources and that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices; |
| --- | --- |

1.

believes that the Common Fisheries Policy should contribute to long-term sustainable environmental, economic, and social conditions. It should also contribute to a higher standard of living for the fisheries sector, a stable market, and ensure the availability of resources and that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices;

| 2. | supports the measures of the European Commission stemming from the declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, which seek to limit the ongoing reduction of many stocks and guarantee the exploitation of marine biological resources at levels which make it possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield by 2015, insofar as possible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

supports the measures of the European Commission stemming from the declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, which seek to limit the ongoing reduction of many stocks and guarantee the exploitation of marine biological resources at levels which make it possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield by 2015, insofar as possible;

| 3. | draws attention to the fact that efforts to reach the goal relating to certain stocks are urgently needed, but that this urgency could have adverse social and economic effects. It is imperative that restrictive and containing measures be accompanied by active restructuring efforts in spheres such as business development, training and secure pension conditions. Financing for these efforts should be sought both at national and regional level, in line with the regions' capacities and powers, and at EU level; |
| --- | --- |

3.

draws attention to the fact that efforts to reach the goal relating to certain stocks are urgently needed, but that this urgency could have adverse social and economic effects. It is imperative that restrictive and containing measures be accompanied by active restructuring efforts in spheres such as business development, training and secure pension conditions. Financing for these efforts should be sought both at national and regional level, in line with the regions' capacities and powers, and at EU level;

| 4. | agrees that the sustainable exploitation of biological resources must be based on the precautionary and eco-system approach with a view to limiting the impact of fishing activities on the environment and reducing and progressively eliminating unwanted catches; |
| --- | --- |

4.

agrees that the sustainable exploitation of biological resources must be based on the precautionary and eco-system approach with a view to limiting the impact of fishing activities on the environment and reducing and progressively eliminating unwanted catches;

| 5. | urges that the objective of sustainable exploitation of biological resources be achieved through a multi-annual approach to fisheries management, establishing as a priority multi-annual plans reflecting the specificities of different fisheries and containing mechanisms ensuring the possibility that necessary decisions can be taken in case of unforeseen events; |
| --- | --- |

5.

urges that the objective of sustainable exploitation of biological resources be achieved through a multi-annual approach to fisheries management, establishing as a priority multi-annual plans reflecting the specificities of different fisheries and containing mechanisms ensuring the possibility that necessary decisions can be taken in case of unforeseen events;

| 6. | believes as a part of the ecosystem approach that the multi-annual plans should where possible cover multiple stocks where those stocks are jointly exploited. For stocks for which no multi-annual plan has been established, exploitation indicators determining maximum sustainable yield should be established by setting catch and/or fishing effort limits.






  a. | Multiannual plans shall set clear objectives, time periods for achieving them and periodic checks. Both the time period and the pace shall be suited to the dynamics of the species in question. |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

believes as a part of the ecosystem approach that the multi-annual plans should where possible cover multiple stocks where those stocks are jointly exploited. For stocks for which no multi-annual plan has been established, exploitation indicators determining maximum sustainable yield should be established by setting catch and/or fishing effort limits.

a.

Multiannual plans shall set clear objectives, time periods for achieving them and periodic checks. Both the time period and the pace shall be suited to the dynamics of the species in question.

| b. | In the implementation and drawing up of multiannual plans, measures shall be proposed which are based on economic prudency, taking account of the need to make the appropriate changes gradually and without imposing excessively short time limits if there is no urgent need. These measures shall be based on objective arguments and be viable from a socio-economic point of view. In parallel, a socio-economic impact study shall be drawn up with contributions from the stakeholders concerned or their legally recognised representatives; |
| --- | --- |

b.

In the implementation and drawing up of multiannual plans, measures shall be proposed which are based on economic prudency, taking account of the need to make the appropriate changes gradually and without imposing excessively short time limits if there is no urgent need. These measures shall be based on objective arguments and be viable from a socio-economic point of view. In parallel, a socio-economic impact study shall be drawn up with contributions from the stakeholders concerned or their legally recognised representatives;

| 7. | recognises that fisheries management based on the best available scientific advice taking into consideration traditional ecological knowledge acquired by fishermen over generations, requires harmonised, reliable and accurate data sets and draws attention to the need for cooperation on data collection with the fisheries sector. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to allocate resources to carrying out research and expert appraisals; emphasises the role of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), as a scientific body which can support the European Commission's action to promote sustainable fisheries management; |
| --- | --- |

7.

recognises that fisheries management based on the best available scientific advice taking into consideration traditional ecological knowledge acquired by fishermen over generations, requires harmonised, reliable and accurate data sets and draws attention to the need for cooperation on data collection with the fisheries sector. Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to allocate resources to carrying out research and expert appraisals; emphasises the role of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), as a scientific body which can support the European Commission's action to promote sustainable fisheries management;

| 8. | considering that data collection is necessary for the economic and socio-economic assessment of stakeholders in the fisheries sector, in aquaculture and in the processing of fisheries and aquaculture products and of employment trends in these industries, the EU should allocate appropriate resources to national and regional bodies to collect such data; |
| --- | --- |

8.

considering that data collection is necessary for the economic and socio-economic assessment of stakeholders in the fisheries sector, in aquaculture and in the processing of fisheries and aquaculture products and of employment trends in these industries, the EU should allocate appropriate resources to national and regional bodies to collect such data;

Access to inshore fishing waters

| 9. | welcomes the European Commission's view that rules in place restricting access to resources within the 12 nautical mile zones of Member States have operated satisfactorily benefiting conservation by restricting fishing effort in the most sensitive part of Union waters. The Committee of the Regions therefore believes that these rules should remain applicable; |
| --- | --- |

9.

welcomes the European Commission's view that rules in place restricting access to resources within the 12 nautical mile zones of Member States have operated satisfactorily benefiting conservation by restricting fishing effort in the most sensitive part of Union waters. The Committee of the Regions therefore believes that these rules should remain applicable;

| 10. | urges that marine biological resources around the outermost regions should continue to be especially protected since they contribute to the preservation of their local economy, having regard to the structural, social and economic situation of those islands; |
| --- | --- |

10.

urges that marine biological resources around the outermost regions should continue to be especially protected since they contribute to the preservation of their local economy, having regard to the structural, social and economic situation of those islands;

| 11. | draws attention to the state of origin principle in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and urges the Member States to comply with its terms in their own exclusive economic zones in order to preserve the viability of endangered river-spawned (anadromous) wild fish stocks; |
| --- | --- |

11.

draws attention to the state of origin principle in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and urges the Member States to comply with its terms in their own exclusive economic zones in order to preserve the viability of endangered river-spawned (anadromous) wild fish stocks;

| 12. | believes also that in their 12 nautical mile zone, and taking account of the environmental and socio-economic implications within a GSA or at a lower level, Member States should be allowed to adopt conservation and management measures applicable to all Union fishing vessels, provided that, where such measures apply to Union fishing vessels from other Member States, the measures adopted are non-discriminatory, prior consultation and appropriate briefing of other interested Member States has taken place and that the Union has not adopted measures specifically addressing conservation and management within that 12 nautical mile zone; |
| --- | --- |

12.

believes also that in their 12 nautical mile zone, and taking account of the environmental and socio-economic implications within a GSA or at a lower level, Member States should be allowed to adopt conservation and management measures applicable to all Union fishing vessels, provided that, where such measures apply to Union fishing vessels from other Member States, the measures adopted are non-discriminatory, prior consultation and appropriate briefing of other interested Member States has taken place and that the Union has not adopted measures specifically addressing conservation and management within that 12 nautical mile zone;

Reducing discards

| 13. | agrees that resources are required to reduce and if possible eliminate the current high levels of unwanted catches and discards, which constitute a substantial waste and affect negatively the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and marine ecosystems as well as the financial viability of fisheries. In light of the above, believes that greater selectivity of fishing gear and improved fishing techniques should be encouraged to reduce discards as much as possible. Where possible a ban on discards should be gradually introduced, primarily concerning industrial species yet permitting the dumping overboard of marine organisms which can survive once they have been thrown back into the sea; |
| --- | --- |

13.

agrees that resources are required to reduce and if possible eliminate the current high levels of unwanted catches and discards, which constitute a substantial waste and affect negatively the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and marine ecosystems as well as the financial viability of fisheries. In light of the above, believes that greater selectivity of fishing gear and improved fishing techniques should be encouraged to reduce discards as much as possible. Where possible a ban on discards should be gradually introduced, primarily concerning industrial species yet permitting the dumping overboard of marine organisms which can survive once they have been thrown back into the sea;

| 14. | considers that landings of unwanted catches should not result in full economic advantages for the operator and that their processing into fish meal is the wrong response to the Commission's environmental objectives; |
| --- | --- |

14.

considers that landings of unwanted catches should not result in full economic advantages for the operator and that their processing into fish meal is the wrong response to the Commission's environmental objectives;

| 15. | also points out that the Basic Regulation does not seem to be the right context for a detailed list of species covered by the landing obligation. It might be better to specify this obligation in the management plans for specific species (single or multi-stock); |
| --- | --- |

15.

also points out that the Basic Regulation does not seem to be the right context for a detailed list of species covered by the landing obligation. It might be better to specify this obligation in the management plans for specific species (single or multi-stock);

Access to resources

| 16. | believes that the current rules already permit Member States wishing to do so to introduce systems of transferable individual quotas for their fleets, with known consequences in terms of speculative trading and concentration. In the light of this, it is not appropriate to impose a requirement on each Member State to establish fishing rights that are transferable or leasable; |
| --- | --- |

16.

believes that the current rules already permit Member States wishing to do so to introduce systems of transferable individual quotas for their fleets, with known consequences in terms of speculative trading and concentration. In the light of this, it is not appropriate to impose a requirement on each Member State to establish fishing rights that are transferable or leasable;

| 17. | further believes that the duration of any system of transferable fishing concessions must be up to the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

17.

further believes that the duration of any system of transferable fishing concessions must be up to the Member States;

| 18. | draws attention to the potential risks and negative effects of a compulsory introduction of a system of transferable fishing concessions and recommends such systems should be voluntary and for each Member State's competence; |
| --- | --- |

18.

draws attention to the potential risks and negative effects of a compulsory introduction of a system of transferable fishing concessions and recommends such systems should be voluntary and for each Member State's competence;

| 19. | urges that Member States, prior to the introduction of a voluntary system of transferable fishing concessions, adjust their own rules to ensure appropriate protection of the interests of inshore fishing and to protect against the negative effects of introducing the system, such as excessive concentration or speculation; |
| --- | --- |

19.

urges that Member States, prior to the introduction of a voluntary system of transferable fishing concessions, adjust their own rules to ensure appropriate protection of the interests of inshore fishing and to protect against the negative effects of introducing the system, such as excessive concentration or speculation;

| 20. | recalls, with regard to eliminating excess capacity, positive experiences with aid for scrapping; |
| --- | --- |

20.

recalls, with regard to eliminating excess capacity, positive experiences with aid for scrapping;

| 21. | considers that specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of the sector in many Member States and the differing socio-economic policy priorities between Member States in relation to fisheries means that a mandatory system of transferable fishing concessions is inappropriate and that the method for the allocation of fishing opportunities and any rules for their transfer should continue to be decided at Member State level; |
| --- | --- |

21.

considers that specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of the sector in many Member States and the differing socio-economic policy priorities between Member States in relation to fisheries means that a mandatory system of transferable fishing concessions is inappropriate and that the method for the allocation of fishing opportunities and any rules for their transfer should continue to be decided at Member State level;

| 22. | also urges that the specific conditions of the outermost regions be taken into account when setting the fishing capacity ceilings for small-scale fleets, by maintaining the current reference levels; |
| --- | --- |

22.

also urges that the specific conditions of the outermost regions be taken into account when setting the fishing capacity ceilings for small-scale fleets, by maintaining the current reference levels;

The external dimension

| 23. | calls on the European Union to promote the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy internationally. To this end, the Union should strive to improve the performance of regional and international organisations in conservation and management of international fish stocks, by promoting decision-making based on science and improved compliance, increased transparency and stakeholder participation, especially fishermen and by combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities; |
| --- | --- |

23.

calls on the European Union to promote the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy internationally. To this end, the Union should strive to improve the performance of regional and international organisations in conservation and management of international fish stocks, by promoting decision-making based on science and improved compliance, increased transparency and stakeholder participation, especially fishermen and by combating illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities;

| 24. | concurs that agreements with third countries on sustainable fisheries management should provide for access rights in exchange for a financial contribution from the Union and should contribute to the establishment of a high quality governance framework in those countries to ensure efficient monitoring, control and surveillance measures for sustainable exploitation of fishing resources; also believes that agreements with third countries should provide the EU fishing fleet, which depends on these agreements, with stability, viability and profitability in order to guarantee its future; |
| --- | --- |

24.

concurs that agreements with third countries on sustainable fisheries management should provide for access rights in exchange for a financial contribution from the Union and should contribute to the establishment of a high quality governance framework in those countries to ensure efficient monitoring, control and surveillance measures for sustainable exploitation of fishing resources; also believes that agreements with third countries should provide the EU fishing fleet, which depends on these agreements, with stability, viability and profitability in order to guarantee its future;

| 25. | urges that fisheries partnership agreements with third countries should establish a legal, economic and environmental framework for fishing activities carried out by EU vessels or for investments made by EU operators in the field of fisheries in line with the relevant measures adopted by international organisations including RFOs. Fisheries agreements are intended inter alia to ensure that fishing activities in third countries take place on the basis of sustainable and mutually satisfactory arrangements; |
| --- | --- |

25.

urges that fisheries partnership agreements with third countries should establish a legal, economic and environmental framework for fishing activities carried out by EU vessels or for investments made by EU operators in the field of fisheries in line with the relevant measures adopted by international organisations including RFOs. Fisheries agreements are intended inter alia to ensure that fishing activities in third countries take place on the basis of sustainable and mutually satisfactory arrangements;

Aquaculture

| 26. | recognises that the economic and strategic importance of aquaculture justifies measures to promote it through an independent regulation dealing with EU guidelines for national strategic plans to improve the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry, by supporting ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development and innovation across the whole production and marketing chain, encouraging local processing and diversification and thus also improving the quality of life in coastal and rural areas, as well as mechanisms to exchange among Member States information and best practices through an open method of coordination of national measures concerning business security, access to Union waters and space, with a particular focus on the compatibility of preserving the environment and developing activity in areas classified under the Natura 2000 network, and administrative simplification of licensing and authorisations; |
| --- | --- |

26.

recognises that the economic and strategic importance of aquaculture justifies measures to promote it through an independent regulation dealing with EU guidelines for national strategic plans to improve the competitiveness of the aquaculture industry, by supporting ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development and innovation across the whole production and marketing chain, encouraging local processing and diversification and thus also improving the quality of life in coastal and rural areas, as well as mechanisms to exchange among Member States information and best practices through an open method of coordination of national measures concerning business security, access to Union waters and space, with a particular focus on the compatibility of preserving the environment and developing activity in areas classified under the Natura 2000 network, and administrative simplification of licensing and authorisations;

| 27. | recognises the need to establish a consultative committee on aquaculture which can genuinely speak for the sector and which includes the necessary representatives from the production sector (professional organisations, producer organisations or chambers of commerce); |
| --- | --- |

27.

recognises the need to establish a consultative committee on aquaculture which can genuinely speak for the sector and which includes the necessary representatives from the production sector (professional organisations, producer organisations or chambers of commerce);

Fisheries market

| 28. | agrees that the unpredictability of fishing activities makes it appropriate to set up a mechanism of storing fishery products for human consumption with a view to fostering greater market stability and to increasing the return on products, in particular by creating added value. This mechanism should also be extended to aquaculture products; |
| --- | --- |

28.

agrees that the unpredictability of fishing activities makes it appropriate to set up a mechanism of storing fishery products for human consumption with a view to fostering greater market stability and to increasing the return on products, in particular by creating added value. This mechanism should also be extended to aquaculture products;

| 29. | recognises that the application of common marketing standards should permit the market to be supplied with sustainable products, to realise the full potential of the internal market in fishery and aquaculture products, and to facilitate commerce based on fair competition, thus helping to improve the profitability of production; |
| --- | --- |

29.

recognises that the application of common marketing standards should permit the market to be supplied with sustainable products, to realise the full potential of the internal market in fishery and aquaculture products, and to facilitate commerce based on fair competition, thus helping to improve the profitability of production;

| 30. | believes that the widening variety of fishery and aquaculture products makes it essential to provide consumers, clearly, intelligibly and understandably, with a minimum amount of mandatory information on the main characteristics of products; |
| --- | --- |

30.

believes that the widening variety of fishery and aquaculture products makes it essential to provide consumers, clearly, intelligibly and understandably, with a minimum amount of mandatory information on the main characteristics of products;

| 31. | urges that the Common Market Organisation be implemented in compliance with international commitments of the Union, in particular with regard to the provisions of the World Trade Organization, without prejudice to the standardisation and approval of health and hygiene measures for products from third countries and the development of a maritime-fisheries commercial practice that encourages the eradication of IUU fishing; |
| --- | --- |

31.

urges that the Common Market Organisation be implemented in compliance with international commitments of the Union, in particular with regard to the provisions of the World Trade Organization, without prejudice to the standardisation and approval of health and hygiene measures for products from third countries and the development of a maritime-fisheries commercial practice that encourages the eradication of IUU fishing;

| 32. | calls for the creation, where possible, of a public certification scheme for EU fisheries products to ensure that they come from appropriately managed fisheries; |
| --- | --- |

32.

calls for the creation, where possible, of a public certification scheme for EU fisheries products to ensure that they come from appropriately managed fisheries;

Regionalisation

| 33. | calls for increased regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy, so that the knowledge and experience of all stakeholders, particularly local and regional authorities, can be used in the Common Fisheries Policy and stresses the importance of macro-economic strategies; |
| --- | --- |

33.

calls for increased regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy, so that the knowledge and experience of all stakeholders, particularly local and regional authorities, can be used in the Common Fisheries Policy and stresses the importance of macro-economic strategies;

| 34. | highlights the growing interactions between recreational fishing, professional fishermen and fishing communities; |
| --- | --- |

34.

highlights the growing interactions between recreational fishing, professional fishermen and fishing communities;

| 35. | fully supports introducing a process which takes into account the specificities and needs of the regions including cooperation with regional advisory councils (RACs), in order to adopt conservation measures and technical measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy to allow for the policy to better address the realities and specificities of individual fisheries, including trans-border problems; |
| --- | --- |

35.

fully supports introducing a process which takes into account the specificities and needs of the regions including cooperation with regional advisory councils (RACs), in order to adopt conservation measures and technical measures for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy to allow for the policy to better address the realities and specificities of individual fisheries, including trans-border problems;

| 36. | furthermore believes that RACs or other similar partnership structures should be strengthened to ensure that local communities are not just consulted but actually participate in the management of their local fishing resources; |
| --- | --- |

36.

furthermore believes that RACs or other similar partnership structures should be strengthened to ensure that local communities are not just consulted but actually participate in the management of their local fishing resources;

| 37. | urges that implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy should take into account interactions with other maritime affairs, recognising that all matters related to Europe's oceans and seas are interlinked, including maritime spatial planning, which strengthens the Integrated Maritime Policy; |
| --- | --- |

37.

urges that implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy should take into account interactions with other maritime affairs, recognising that all matters related to Europe's oceans and seas are interlinked, including maritime spatial planning, which strengthens the Integrated Maritime Policy;

| 38. | stresses that the CFP cannot disregard the protection of aquatic ecosystems and their complexities and interactions given the fragility of transitional waters or river and lake eco-corridors, and their wild fish stocks, paying particular attention to maintaining and replenishing high-value endangered fish stocks, and anadromous and catadromous species in particular; |
| --- | --- |

38.

stresses that the CFP cannot disregard the protection of aquatic ecosystems and their complexities and interactions given the fragility of transitional waters or river and lake eco-corridors, and their wild fish stocks, paying particular attention to maintaining and replenishing high-value endangered fish stocks, and anadromous and catadromous species in particular;

European Maritime Activities and Fisheries Fund

| 39. | is aware that, without appropriate financial support, the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States given the problems encountered in the development of the fishing industry and its management, and the limits on the financial resources of the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

39.

is aware that, without appropriate financial support, the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States given the problems encountered in the development of the fishing industry and its management, and the limits on the financial resources of the Member States;

| 40. | for the above reasons, calls for the creation of appropriate, multiannual EU financial support geared towards the priorities of the Common Fisheries Policy with a view to contributing to the fulfilment of these goals, in particular improving the economic effectiveness of the sector, in particular of the fishing fleet, creating new jobs and introducing modernisation and innovation, including the development of safe and sustainable vessels; |
| --- | --- |

40.

for the above reasons, calls for the creation of appropriate, multiannual EU financial support geared towards the priorities of the Common Fisheries Policy with a view to contributing to the fulfilment of these goals, in particular improving the economic effectiveness of the sector, in particular of the fishing fleet, creating new jobs and introducing modernisation and innovation, including the development of safe and sustainable vessels;

| 41. | calls for financial support for the renewal and modernisation of the outermost regions' fishing fleets to be reintroduced for the 2014-2020 period; |
| --- | --- |

41.

calls for financial support for the renewal and modernisation of the outermost regions' fishing fleets to be reintroduced for the 2014-2020 period;

| 42. | believes that Union financial assistance should be made conditional upon compliance by Member States and operators with the Common Fisheries Policy. Thus such financial assistance should be interrupted, suspended or corrected in cases of non-compliance with the rules of Common Fisheries Policy by Member States and repeated serious infringements of those rules by operators; |
| --- | --- |

42.

believes that Union financial assistance should be made conditional upon compliance by Member States and operators with the Common Fisheries Policy. Thus such financial assistance should be interrupted, suspended or corrected in cases of non-compliance with the rules of Common Fisheries Policy by Member States and repeated serious infringements of those rules by operators;

| 43. | welcomes that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will be part of the new Common Strategic Framework and aligned with the other Regional and Rural funds to enable Integrated Local Development Frameworks and improve simplification of access to funds at the local and regional level; nevertheless calls for guarantees in relation to funding for fisheries and aquaculture, and for the regions to be involved in the strategic implementation of funds; |
| --- | --- |

43.

welcomes that the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) will be part of the new Common Strategic Framework and aligned with the other Regional and Rural funds to enable Integrated Local Development Frameworks and improve simplification of access to funds at the local and regional level; nevertheless calls for guarantees in relation to funding for fisheries and aquaculture, and for the regions to be involved in the strategic implementation of funds;

| 44. | acknowledges the biological, productive and historical value of fish stocks and of lake and river habitats and, therefore, considers the need to provide financial assistance to this sector by the European Union, including with a view to reducing marine catches, decreasing imports and boosting regional competitiveness; |
| --- | --- |

44.

acknowledges the biological, productive and historical value of fish stocks and of lake and river habitats and, therefore, considers the need to provide financial assistance to this sector by the European Union, including with a view to reducing marine catches, decreasing imports and boosting regional competitiveness;

Powers of the European Commission

| 45. | recognises that in order to achieve the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission for the purpose of supplementing or amending non-essential elements of basic legislation; recommends, nevertheless, that such extensive recourse by the Commission to delegated acts should be very carefully evaluated and studied from a legal and political perspective and that care should be taken to ensure that this power is clearly defined as to the purpose, content, scope and duration of the delegated power; |
| --- | --- |

45.

recognises that in order to achieve the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission for the purpose of supplementing or amending non-essential elements of basic legislation; recommends, nevertheless, that such extensive recourse by the Commission to delegated acts should be very carefully evaluated and studied from a legal and political perspective and that care should be taken to ensure that this power is clearly defined as to the purpose, content, scope and duration of the delegated power;

| 46. | urges the Commission to carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work for the adoption of delegated acts, including at expert level and the level of the regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

46.

urges the Commission to carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work for the adoption of delegated acts, including at expert level and the level of the regional authorities;

| 47. | believes that the Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council; |
| --- | --- |

47.

believes that the Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council;

| 48. | strongly supports and encourages the use of ‘Community Led Local Development’ as laid out in the Commission's General Regulation on the Common Strategic Framework to allow the local and regional level to be able to draw resources from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) - alongside the Structural and Rural Development funds; these funds should be coordinated in a flexible framework that strengthens opportunities for their use; local authorities should be involved in the development of the strategic framework and the operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

48.

strongly supports and encourages the use of ‘Community Led Local Development’ as laid out in the Commission's General Regulation on the Common Strategic Framework to allow the local and regional level to be able to draw resources from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) - alongside the Structural and Rural Development funds; these funds should be coordinated in a flexible framework that strengthens opportunities for their use; local authorities should be involved in the development of the strategic framework and the operational programmes;

| 49. | stresses that the success of the Common Fisheries Policy requires an effective system of control, inspection and enforcement, including the fight against IUU fishing activities. The use of modern technologies should be promoted in the framework of the Union system for control, inspection, and enforcement. Member States or the Commission should have the possibility to conduct pilot projects on new control technologies and data management systems; |
| --- | --- |

49.

stresses that the success of the Common Fisheries Policy requires an effective system of control, inspection and enforcement, including the fight against IUU fishing activities. The use of modern technologies should be promoted in the framework of the Union system for control, inspection, and enforcement. Member States or the Commission should have the possibility to conduct pilot projects on new control technologies and data management systems;

| 50. | feels that a review of compliance with the EU Regulation should be undertaken every five years. |
| --- | --- |

50.

feels that a review of compliance with the EU Regulation should be undertaken every five years.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

COM(2011) 425 final

Amendment 1

Recital (5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (5) | At the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002, the Union and its Member States committed to act against the continued decline of many fish stocks. Therefore, the Union should improve its Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that as a matter of priority exploitation levels of marine biological resources stocks are restored and maintained at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yields from the populations of harvested stocks by 2015. Where less scientific information is available, this may require applying proxies to maximum sustainable yield. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(5)

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002, the Union and its Member States committed to act against the continued decline of many fish stocks. Therefore, the Union should improve its Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that as a matter of priority exploitation levels of marine biological resources stocks are restored and maintained at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yields from the populations of harvested stocks by 2015. Where less scientific information is available, this may require applying proxies to maximum sustainable yield.

| (5) | At the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002, the Union and its Member States committed to act against the continued decline of many fish stocks. Therefore, the Union should improve its Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that as a matter of priority exploitation levels of marine biological resources stocks are restored and maintained at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yields from the populations of harvested stocks by 2015. Where less scientific information is available, this may require applying proxies to maximum sustainable yield. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

At the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002, the Union and its Member States committed to act against the continued decline of many fish stocks. Therefore, the Union should improve its Common Fisheries Policy to ensure that as a matter of priority exploitation levels of marine biological resources stocks are restored and maintained at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yields from the populations of harvested stocks by 2015. Where less scientific information is available, this may require applying proxies to maximum sustainable yield.

Reason

The Johannesburg Agreement 2002 acknowledged that for some species and stocks it might not be possible to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield by 2015 and included the words ‘where possible’ to allow for such eventualities. The EU should not attempt to go beyond its international obligations.

Amendment 2

Recital (6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (1) | Fisheries targets were laid down in the Decision by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020, the Common Fisheries Policy should ensure coherence with the biodiversity targets adopted by the European Council, and the targets of Commission Communication ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’, in particular to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(1)

Fisheries targets were laid down in the Decision by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020, the Common Fisheries Policy should ensure coherence with the biodiversity targets adopted by the European Council, and the targets of Commission Communication ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’, in particular to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015.

| (1) | Fisheries targets were laid down in the Decision by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020, the Common Fisheries Policy should ensure coherence with the biodiversity targets adopted by the European Council, and the targets of Commission Communication ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’, in particular to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Fisheries targets were laid down in the Decision by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020, the Common Fisheries Policy should ensure coherence with the biodiversity targets adopted by the European Council, and the targets of Commission Communication ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020’, in particular to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015.

Reason

The Johannesburg Agreement 2002 acknowledged that for some species and stocks it might not be possible to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield by 2015 and included the words ‘where possible’ to allow for such eventualities. The EU should not attempt to go beyond its international obligations.

Amendment 3

Recital (15)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Marine biological resources around the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands should continue to be especially protected since they contribute to the preservation of the local economy of these islands, having regard to the structural, social and economic situation of those islands. The limitation of certain fishing activities in those waters to fishing vessels registered in the ports of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands should therefore be maintained. | Marine biological resources around the should continue to be especially protected since they contribute to the preservation of the local economy of these islands, having regard to the structural, social and economic situation of those islands. The limitation of certain fishing activities in those waters to fishing vessels registered in the ports of the should therefore be maintained. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Marine biological resources around the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands should continue to be especially protected since they contribute to the preservation of the local economy of these islands, having regard to the structural, social and economic situation of those islands. The limitation of certain fishing activities in those waters to fishing vessels registered in the ports of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands should therefore be maintained.

Marine biological resources around the should continue to be especially protected since they contribute to the preservation of the local economy of these islands, having regard to the structural, social and economic situation of those islands. The limitation of certain fishing activities in those waters to fishing vessels registered in the ports of the should therefore be maintained.

Reason

The outermost regions (OR) face problems and should all be taken into account, so as to better support their development, which depends very much on the health of marine resources and the marine environment in general. The amendment is therefore intended to include all the outermost regions of the European Union.

Amendment 4

Recital (18)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (18) | Measures are needed to reduce and eliminate the current high levels of unwanted catches and discards. Indeed, unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste and affect negatively the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and marine ecosystems as well as the financial viability of fisheries. An obligation to land all catches of managed stocks caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels should be established and gradually implemented. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(18)

Measures are needed to reduce and eliminate the current high levels of unwanted catches and discards. Indeed, unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste and affect negatively the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and marine ecosystems as well as the financial viability of fisheries. An obligation to land all catches of managed stocks caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels should be established and gradually implemented.

| (18) | Measures are needed to reduce and eliminate the current high levels of unwanted catches and discards. Indeed, unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste and affect negatively the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and marine ecosystems as well as the financial viability of fisheries. obligation to land all catches of managed in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels should be established and gradually implemented. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Measures are needed to reduce and eliminate the current high levels of unwanted catches and discards. Indeed, unwanted catches and discards constitute a substantial waste and affect negatively the sustainable exploitation of marine biological resources and marine ecosystems as well as the financial viability of fisheries. obligation to land all catches of managed in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels should be established and gradually implemented.

Amendment 5

Recital (29)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| A system of transferable fishing concessions for the majority of managed stocks under the Common Fisheries Policy should be implemented no later than 31 December 2013 for all vessels of 12 meters' length or over and all other vessels fishing with towed gears. Member States may exclude vessels up to 12 meters' length other than vessels using towed gear from transferable fishing concessions. Such a system should contribute to industry-induced fleet reductions and improved economic performance while at the same time creating legally secure and exclusive transferable fishing concession of a Member State's annual fishing opportunities. Since marine biological resources are a common good, transferable fishing concessions should only establish user entitlements to a Member State's part of annual fishing opportunities which may be recalled according to established rules. | A system of transferable fishing concessions for the majority of managed stocks under the Common Fisheries Policy be implemented for all vessels of 12 meters' length or over and all other vessels fishing . Such a system should contribute to industry-induced fleet reductions and improved economic performance while at the same time creating legally secure and exclusive transferable fishing concession of a Member State's annual fishing opportunities. Since marine biological resources are a common good, transferable fishing concessions should only establish user entitlements to a Member State's part of annual fishing opportunities which may be recalled according to established rules. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

A system of transferable fishing concessions for the majority of managed stocks under the Common Fisheries Policy should be implemented no later than 31 December 2013 for all vessels of 12 meters' length or over and all other vessels fishing with towed gears. Member States may exclude vessels up to 12 meters' length other than vessels using towed gear from transferable fishing concessions. Such a system should contribute to industry-induced fleet reductions and improved economic performance while at the same time creating legally secure and exclusive transferable fishing concession of a Member State's annual fishing opportunities. Since marine biological resources are a common good, transferable fishing concessions should only establish user entitlements to a Member State's part of annual fishing opportunities which may be recalled according to established rules.

A system of transferable fishing concessions for the majority of managed stocks under the Common Fisheries Policy be implemented for all vessels of 12 meters' length or over and all other vessels fishing . Such a system should contribute to industry-induced fleet reductions and improved economic performance while at the same time creating legally secure and exclusive transferable fishing concession of a Member State's annual fishing opportunities. Since marine biological resources are a common good, transferable fishing concessions should only establish user entitlements to a Member State's part of annual fishing opportunities which may be recalled according to established rules.

Reason

The introduction of Transferable Fishing Concessions (TFCs) should be a Member State competence and not mandatory.

Amendment 6

Recital (31)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of some small-scale fleets justify the limitation of the mandatory system of transferable fishing concessions to large vessels. The system of transferable fishing concessions should apply to stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated. | Specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of some small-scale fleets justify the system of transferable fishing concessions to large vessels. The system of transferable fishing concessions should apply to stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of some small-scale fleets justify the limitation of the mandatory system of transferable fishing concessions to large vessels. The system of transferable fishing concessions should apply to stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated.

Specific characteristics and socio-economic vulnerability of some small-scale fleets justify the system of transferable fishing concessions to large vessels. The system of transferable fishing concessions should apply to stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated.

Reason

The recital is amended to make it consistent with Article 27(1) and to confirm the voluntary nature of TFCs.

Amendment 7

Article 2(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General Objectives
  1.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities provide long-term sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions and contribute to the availability of food supplies
  2.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure, by 2015, that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
  3.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited.
  4.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall integrate the Union environmental legislation requirements. | General Objectives
  1.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities provide long-term sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions and contribute to the availability of food supplies.
  2.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure, by 2015, that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.
  3.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited.
  4.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall integrate the Union environmental legislation requirements. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General Objectives

1.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities provide long-term sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions and contribute to the availability of food supplies

2.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure, by 2015, that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.

3.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited.

4.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall integrate the Union environmental legislation requirements.

General Objectives

1.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities provide long-term sustainable environmental, economic and social conditions and contribute to the availability of food supplies.

2.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and shall aim to ensure, by 2015, that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.

3.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited.

4.   The Common Fisheries Policy shall integrate the Union environmental legislation requirements.

Reason

The Johannesburg Agreement 2002 acknowledged that for some species and stocks it might not be possible to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield by 2015 and included the words ‘where possible’ to allow for such eventualities. The EU should not attempt to go beyond its international obligations.

Amendment 8

Article 2(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited. | The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited.

The Common Fisheries Policy shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management to ensure that the impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are limited.

Reason

The Johannesburg Agreement 2002 acknowledged that for some species and stocks it might not be possible to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield by 2015 and included the words ‘where possible’ to allow for such eventualities.

Amendment 9

Article 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Specific objectives
  For the purpose of achieving the general objectives set out in Article 2, the Common Fisheries Policy shall in particular:






  a) | eliminate unwanted catches of commercial stocks and gradually ensure that all catches of such stocks are landed; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Specific objectives

For the purpose of achieving the general objectives set out in Article 2, the Common Fisheries Policy shall in particular:

a)

eliminate unwanted catches of commercial stocks and gradually ensure that all catches of such stocks are landed;

| b) | provide conditions for efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fishing industry; |
| --- | --- |

b)

provide conditions for efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fishing industry;

| c) | promote the development of Union aquaculture activities to contribute to food security and employment in coastal and rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

c)

promote the development of Union aquaculture activities to contribute to food security and employment in coastal and rural areas;

| d) | contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities; |
| --- | --- |

d)

contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities;

| e) | take into account the interests of consumers; |
| --- | --- |

e)

take into account the interests of consumers;

| f) | ensure systematic and harmonised data collection and management. |
| --- | --- |

f)

ensure systematic and harmonised data collection and management.

Specific objectives

For the purpose of achieving the general objectives set out in Article 2, the Common Fisheries Policy shall in particular:

| a) | eliminate unwanted catches of commercial and ensure that all catches of such are landed; |
| --- | --- |

a)

eliminate unwanted catches of commercial and ensure that all catches of such are landed;

| b) | provide conditions for efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fishing industry; |
| --- | --- |

b)

provide conditions for efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fishing industry;

| c) | promote the development of Union aquaculture activities to contribute to food security and employment in coastal and rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

c)

promote the development of Union aquaculture activities to contribute to food security and employment in coastal and rural areas;

| | |
| --- | --- |

contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities;

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities; |
| --- | --- |

| | take into account the interests of consumers; |
| --- | --- |

take into account the interests of consumers;

| | ensure systematic and harmonised data collection and management |
| --- | --- |

ensure systematic and harmonised data collection and management

| | |
| --- | --- |

Amendment 10

Article 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Principles of good governance
  The Common Fisheries Policy shall be guided by the following principles of good governance:






  a) | clear definition of responsibilities at the Union, national, regional and local levels; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Principles of good governance

The Common Fisheries Policy shall be guided by the following principles of good governance:

a)

clear definition of responsibilities at the Union, national, regional and local levels;

| b) | establishment of measures in accordance with the best available scientific advice; |
| --- | --- |

b)

establishment of measures in accordance with the best available scientific advice;

| c) | a long-term perspective; |
| --- | --- |

c)

a long-term perspective;

| d) | broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages from conception to implementation of the measures; |
| --- | --- |

d)

broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages from conception to implementation of the measures;

| e) | the primary responsibility of the flag State; |
| --- | --- |

e)

the primary responsibility of the flag State;

| f) | consistence with the integrated maritime policy, and with other Union policies. |
| --- | --- |

f)

consistence with the integrated maritime policy, and with other Union policies.

Principles of good governance

The Common Fisheries Policy shall be guided by the following principles of good governance:

| a) | clear definition of responsibilities at the Union, national, regional and local levels; |
| --- | --- |

a)

clear definition of responsibilities at the Union, national, regional and local levels;

| b) | establishment of measures in accordance with the best available scientific advice; |
| --- | --- |

b)

establishment of measures in accordance with the best available scientific advice;

| | |
| --- | --- |

a long-term perspective;

| | a long-term perspective; |
| --- | --- |

| ) | broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages from conception to implementation of the measures; |
| --- | --- |

)

broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages from conception to implementation of the measures;

| ) | the primary responsibility of the flag State; |
| --- | --- |

)

the primary responsibility of the flag State;

| ) | consistenc with other Union policies. |
| --- | --- |

)

consistenc with other Union policies.

Reason

We believe that the political discretion of the Council and Parliament in the implementation of objectives and principles should be respected when taking decisions in this area, in order to ensure good governance.

Add a new point c) to the principles of good governance of the Common Fisheries Policy. It is crucial that the Common Fisheries Policy be applied where necessary in a gradual and transitional manner.

To highlight the importance of regionalisation in the CFP by giving a greater role to the regional advisory councils.

Paragraph g) puzzles us, since it places the IMP on the same level with the CFP as other Union policies. We believe the CFP to be an integral part of the Integrated Maritime Policy and what matters is internal consistency under the same policy with the same people in charge.

Amendment 11

Article 5

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Definitions
  For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:






  — | ‘Union waters’ means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of the waters adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

—

‘Union waters’ means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of the waters adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;

| — | ‘marine biological resources’ means available and accessible living marine aquatic species, including anadromous and catadromous species through all stages of their life cycle; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘marine biological resources’ means available and accessible living marine aquatic species, including anadromous and catadromous species through all stages of their life cycle;

| — | ‘fresh water biological resources’ means available and accessible living fresh water aquatic species; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fresh water biological resources’ means available and accessible living fresh water aquatic species;

| — | ‘fishing vessel’ means any vessel equipped for commercial fishing of marine biological resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing vessel’ means any vessel equipped for commercial fishing of marine biological resources;

| — | ‘Union fishing vessel’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Union fishing vessel’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;

| — | ‘maximum sustainable yield’ means the maximum catch that may be taken from a fish stock indefinitely; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘maximum sustainable yield’ means the maximum catch that may be taken from a fish stock indefinitely;

| — | ‘precautionary approach to fisheries management’ means an approach according to which the absence of adequate scientific information should not justify postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their environment; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘precautionary approach to fisheries management’ means an approach according to which the absence of adequate scientific information should not justify postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their environment;

| — | ‘ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management’ means an approach ensuring that benefits from living aquatic resources are high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity and integrity of those ecosystems; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management’ means an approach ensuring that benefits from living aquatic resources are high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity and integrity of those ecosystems;

| — | ‘fishing mortality rate’ means the catches of a stock over a given period as a proportion of the average stock available to the fishery in that period; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing mortality rate’ means the catches of a stock over a given period as a proportion of the average stock available to the fishery in that period;

| — | ‘stock’ means a marine biological resource with distinctive characteristics that occurs in a given management area; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘stock’ means a marine biological resource with distinctive characteristics that occurs in a given management area;

| — | ‘catch limit’ means a quantitative limit on landings of a fish stock or group of fish stocks over a given period; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘catch limit’ means a quantitative limit on landings of a fish stock or group of fish stocks over a given period;

| — | ‘conservation reference point’ means values of fish stock population parameters (such as biomass or fishing mortality rate) used in fisheries management, for example with respect to an acceptable level of biological risk or a desired level of yield; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘conservation reference point’ means values of fish stock population parameters (such as biomass or fishing mortality rate) used in fisheries management, for example with respect to an acceptable level of biological risk or a desired level of yield;

| — | ‘safeguard’ means a precautionary measure designed to protect or prevent something undesirable occurring; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘safeguard’ means a precautionary measure designed to protect or prevent something undesirable occurring;

| — | ‘technical measures’ means the measures that regulate the species composition, size composition of catches and impacts on components of the ecosystems resulting from fishing activities through conditioning the use and structure of fishing gear and restriction of access to fishing areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘technical measures’ means the measures that regulate the species composition, size composition of catches and impacts on components of the ecosystems resulting from fishing activities through conditioning the use and structure of fishing gear and restriction of access to fishing areas;

| — | ‘fishing opportunity’ means a quantified legal entitlement to fish, expressed in terms of catches and/or fishing effort and conditions functionally linked thereto which are necessary to quantify them at a certain level; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing opportunity’ means a quantified legal entitlement to fish, expressed in terms of catches and/or fishing effort and conditions functionally linked thereto which are necessary to quantify them at a certain level;

| — | ‘fishing effort’ means the product of the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel; for a group of fishing vessels it is the sum of the fishing effort of all vessels in the group; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing effort’ means the product of the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel; for a group of fishing vessels it is the sum of the fishing effort of all vessels in the group;

| — | ‘transferable fishing concessions’ means revocable user entitlements to a specific part of fishing opportunities allocated to a Member State or established in management plans adopted by a Member State in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (1), which the holder may transfer to other eligible holders of such transferable fishing concessions; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘transferable fishing concessions’ means revocable user entitlements to a specific part of fishing opportunities allocated to a Member State or established in management plans adopted by a Member State in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (1), which the holder may transfer to other eligible holders of such transferable fishing concessions;

| — | ‘individual fishing opportunities’ means annual fishing opportunities allocated to holders of transferable fishing concessions in a Member State on the basis of the proportion of fishing opportunities pertaining to that Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘individual fishing opportunities’ means annual fishing opportunities allocated to holders of transferable fishing concessions in a Member State on the basis of the proportion of fishing opportunities pertaining to that Member State;

| — | ‘fishing capacity’ means a vessel's tonnage in GT (Gross Tonnage) and its power in kW (Kilowatt) as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing capacity’ means a vessel's tonnage in GT (Gross Tonnage) and its power in kW (Kilowatt) as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 (2);

| — | ‘aquaculture’ means the rearing or cultivation of aquatic organisms using techniques designed to increase the production of the organisms in question beyond the natural capacity of the environment, where the organisms remain the property of a natural or legal person throughout the rearing and culture stage, up to and including harvesting; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘aquaculture’ means the rearing or cultivation of aquatic organisms using techniques designed to increase the production of the organisms in question beyond the natural capacity of the environment, where the organisms remain the property of a natural or legal person throughout the rearing and culture stage, up to and including harvesting;

| — | ‘fishing licence’ means a licence as referred to in Article 4(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing licence’ means a licence as referred to in Article 4(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;

| — | ‘fishing authorisation’ means an authorisation as referred to in Article 4(10) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing authorisation’ means an authorisation as referred to in Article 4(10) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;

| — | ‘fishing’ means the collection or capture of aquatic organisms living in their natural environment, or the intentional use of any means allowing such collection or capture; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing’ means the collection or capture of aquatic organisms living in their natural environment, or the intentional use of any means allowing such collection or capture;

| — | ‘fishery products’ means the aquatic organisms resulting from any fishing activity; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishery products’ means the aquatic organisms resulting from any fishing activity;

| — | ‘operator’ means the natural or legal person who operates or holds any enterprise carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of production, processing, marketing, distribution and retail chains of fisheries and aquaculture products; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘operator’ means the natural or legal person who operates or holds any enterprise carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of production, processing, marketing, distribution and retail chains of fisheries and aquaculture products;

| — | ‘serious infringement’ means an infringement as defined in Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 and in Article 90(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘serious infringement’ means an infringement as defined in Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 and in Article 90(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;

| — | ‘end-user of scientific data’ means a body with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data in the fisheries sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘end-user of scientific data’ means a body with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data in the fisheries sector;

| — | ‘surplus of allowable catch’ means that part of the allowable catch which a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘surplus of allowable catch’ means that part of the allowable catch which a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest;

| — | ‘aquaculture products’ mean the aquatic organisms at any stage of their life cycle resulting from any aquaculture activity; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘aquaculture products’ mean the aquatic organisms at any stage of their life cycle resulting from any aquaculture activity;

| — | ‘spawning stock biomass’ means an estimate of the mass of the fish of a particular resource that reproduces at a defined time, including both males and females and including fish that reproduce viviparously; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘spawning stock biomass’ means an estimate of the mass of the fish of a particular resource that reproduces at a defined time, including both males and females and including fish that reproduce viviparously;

| — | ‘Mixed fisheries’ means fisheries where more than one species are present in the area being fished and are vulnerable to being caught in the fishing gear. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Mixed fisheries’ means fisheries where more than one species are present in the area being fished and are vulnerable to being caught in the fishing gear.

| — | ‘sustainable fisheries agreements’ mean international agreements concluded with another state for the purpose of obtaining access to resources or waters in exchange for financial compensation from the Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘sustainable fisheries agreements’ mean international agreements concluded with another state for the purpose of obtaining access to resources or waters in exchange for financial compensation from the Union.

Definitions

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

| — | ‘Union waters’ means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of the waters adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Union waters’ means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of the waters adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;

| — | ‘marine biological resources’ means available and accessible living marine aquatic species, including anadromous and catadromous species through all stages of their life cycle; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘marine biological resources’ means available and accessible living marine aquatic species, including anadromous and catadromous species through all stages of their life cycle;

| — | ‘fresh water biological resources’ means available and accessible living fresh water aquatic species; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fresh water biological resources’ means available and accessible living fresh water aquatic species;

| — | ‘fishing vessel’ means any vessel equipped for commercial fishing of marine biological resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing vessel’ means any vessel equipped for commercial fishing of marine biological resources;

| — | ‘Union fishing vessel’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Union fishing vessel’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Union;

| — | ‘maximum sustainable yield’ means the maximum catch that may be taken from a fish stock ; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘maximum sustainable yield’ means the maximum catch that may be taken from a fish stock ;

| — | ‘precautionary approach to fisheries management’ means an approach according to which the absence of adequate scientific information should not justify postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their environment; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘precautionary approach to fisheries management’ means an approach according to which the absence of adequate scientific information should not justify postponing or failing to take management measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species and non-target species and their environment;

| — | ‘ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management’ means an approach ensuring that benefits from living aquatic resources are high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity and integrity of those ecosystems; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management’ means an approach ensuring that benefits from living aquatic resources are high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operations on marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity and integrity of those ecosystems;

| — | ‘fishing mortality rate’ means the ; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing mortality rate’ means the ;

| — | ‘stock’ means a ; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘stock’ means a ;

| — | ‘catch limit’ means a quantitative limit on landings of a fish stock or group of fish stocks over a given period; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘catch limit’ means a quantitative limit on landings of a fish stock or group of fish stocks over a given period;

| — | ‘conservation reference point’ means values of fish stock population parameters (such as biomass or fishing mortality rate) used in fisheries management, for example with respect to an acceptable level of biological risk or a desired level of yield; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘conservation reference point’ means values of fish stock population parameters (such as biomass or fishing mortality rate) used in fisheries management, for example with respect to an acceptable level of biological risk or a desired level of yield;

| — | ‘safeguard’ means a precautionary measure designed to protect or prevent something undesirable occurring; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘safeguard’ means a precautionary measure designed to protect or prevent something undesirable occurring;

| — | ‘technical measures’ means the measures that regulate the species composition, size composition of catches and impacts on components of the ecosystems resulting from fishing activities through conditioning the use and structure of fishing gear and restriction of access to fishing areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘technical measures’ means the measures that regulate the species composition, size composition of catches and impacts on components of the ecosystems resulting from fishing activities through conditioning the use and structure of fishing gear and restriction of access to fishing areas;

| — | ‘fishing opportunity’ means a quantified legal entitlement to fish, expressed in terms of catches and/or fishing effort and conditions functionally linked thereto which are necessary to quantify them at a certain level; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing opportunity’ means a quantified legal entitlement to fish, expressed in terms of catches and/or fishing effort and conditions functionally linked thereto which are necessary to quantify them at a certain level;

| — | ‘fishing effort’ means the product of the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel; for a group of fishing vessels it is the sum of the fishing effort of all vessels in the group; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing effort’ means the product of the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel; for a group of fishing vessels it is the sum of the fishing effort of all vessels in the group;

| — | ‘transferable fishing concessions’ means revocable user entitlements to a specific part of fishing opportunities allocated to Member State or established in management plans adopted by Member State in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (1), which the holder may transfer to other eligible holders of such transferable fishing concessions; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘transferable fishing concessions’ means revocable user entitlements to a specific part of fishing opportunities allocated to Member State or established in management plans adopted by Member State in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 (1), which the holder may transfer to other eligible holders of such transferable fishing concessions;

| — | ‘individual fishing opportunities’ means annual fishing opportunities allocated to holders of transferable fishing concessions in Member State on the basis of the proportion of fishing opportunities pertaining to Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘individual fishing opportunities’ means annual fishing opportunities allocated to holders of transferable fishing concessions in Member State on the basis of the proportion of fishing opportunities pertaining to Member State;

| — | ‘fishing capacity’ means a vessel's tonnage in GT (Gross Tonnage) and its power in kW (Kilowatt) as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing capacity’ means a vessel's tonnage in GT (Gross Tonnage) and its power in kW (Kilowatt) as defined in Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 (2);

| — | ‘aquaculture’ means the rearing or cultivation of aquatic organisms using techniques designed to increase the production of the organisms in question beyond the natural capacity of the environment, where the organisms remain the property of a natural or legal person throughout the rearing and culture stage, up to and including harvesting; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘aquaculture’ means the rearing or cultivation of aquatic organisms using techniques designed to increase the production of the organisms in question beyond the natural capacity of the environment, where the organisms remain the property of a natural or legal person throughout the rearing and culture stage, up to and including harvesting;

| — | ‘fishing licence’ means a licence as referred to in Article 4(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing licence’ means a licence as referred to in Article 4(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;

| — | ‘fishing authorisation’ means an authorisation as referred to in Article 4(10) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing authorisation’ means an authorisation as referred to in Article 4(10) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;

| — | ‘fishing’ means the collection or capture of aquatic organisms living in their natural environment, or the intentional use of any means allowing such collection or capture; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishing’ means the collection or capture of aquatic organisms living in their natural environment, or the intentional use of any means allowing such collection or capture;

| — | ‘fishery products’ means the aquatic organisms resulting from any fishing activity; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘fishery products’ means the aquatic organisms resulting from any fishing activity;

| — | ‘operator’ means the natural or legal person who operates or holds any enterprise carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of production, processing, marketing, distribution and retail chains of fisheries and aquaculture products; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘operator’ means the natural or legal person who operates or holds any enterprise carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of production, processing, marketing, distribution and retail chains of fisheries and aquaculture products;

| — | ‘serious infringement’ means an infringement as defined in Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 and in Article 90(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘serious infringement’ means an infringement as defined in Article 42(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 and in Article 90(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009;

| — | ‘end-user of scientific data’ means a body with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data in the fisheries sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘end-user of scientific data’ means a body with a research or management interest in the scientific analysis of data in the fisheries sector;

| — | ‘surplus of allowable catch’ means that part of the allowable catch which a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘surplus of allowable catch’ means that part of the allowable catch which a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest;

| — | ‘aquaculture products’ mean the aquatic organisms at any stage of their life cycle resulting from any aquaculture activity; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘aquaculture products’ mean the aquatic organisms at any stage of their life cycle resulting from any aquaculture activity;

| — | ‘spawning stock biomass’ means an estimate of the mass of the fish of a particular resource that reproduces at a defined time, including both males and females and including fish that reproduce viviparously; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘spawning stock biomass’ means an estimate of the mass of the fish of a particular resource that reproduces at a defined time, including both males and females and including fish that reproduce viviparously;

| — | ‘Mixed fisheries’ means fisheries where more than one species are present in the area being fished and are vulnerable to being caught in the fishing gear. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Mixed fisheries’ means fisheries where more than one species are present in the area being fished and are vulnerable to being caught in the fishing gear.

| — | ‘sustainable fisheries agreements’ mean international agreements concluded with another state for the purpose of obtaining access to resources or waters in exchange for financial compensation from the Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘sustainable fisheries agreements’ mean international agreements concluded with another state for the purpose of obtaining access to resources or waters in exchange for financial compensation from the Union.

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

The fishery sector has expanded into new types of operation. It no longer makes sense to limit ‘operators’ to legal or natural persons operating or holding an enterprise. There are also associations and other entities. In some parts of Europe, for example, recreational fishing is of great significance when it comes to recovering fishing stocks. As a result of urbanisation, recreational fishing is well placed everywhere to increase people's understanding of nature. Recreational fishing attracts people to nature and encourages them to take better care of their own physical and mental recuperation and well-being. The volume and economic significance of guided fishing and of fishing tourism in general are growing. Fishing also plays a significant role in the development of tourism industries and therefore helps to sustain the vitality of coastal and riverside communities. Consequently, the term ‘operator’ should be broadened. This is also supported by the fact that recreational fishing, for example, is already part of the CFP by way of both the Control Regulation and new usage and maintenance plans for fish species.

We need any European definition of ‘small-scale coastal fishing’ to be flexible enough to allow for the diversity and specificities of fisheries in Europe's many regions.

Ichthyogenic activities are beginning to play a fundamental role in maintaining high-value fish stocks through re-population, thereby containing alien species occupying important niche habitats.

Amendment 12

Article 6

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General rules on access to waters
  1.   Union fishing vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters other than those referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, subject to the measures adopted under Part III.
  2.   In the waters up to 12 nautical miles from baselines under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, Member States shall be authorised from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 to restrict fishing to fishing vessels that traditionally fish in those waters from ports on the adjacent coast, without prejudice to the arrangements for Union fishing vessels flying the flag of other Member States under existing neighbourhood relations between Member States and the arrangements contained in Annex I, fixing for each Member State the geographical zones within the coastal bands of other Member States where fishing activities are pursued and the species concerned. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.
  3.   In the waters up to 100 nautical miles from the baselines of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, the Member States concerned may from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 restrict fishing to vessels registered in the ports of those islands. Such restrictions shall not apply to Union vessels that traditionally fish in those waters, in so far as those vessels do not exceed the fishing effort traditionally exerted. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.
  4.   The provisions which will follow arrangements set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be adopted by 31 December 2022. | General rules on access to waters
  1.   Union fishing vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters other than those referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, subject to the measures adopted under Part III.
  2.   In the waters up to 12 nautical miles from baselines under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, Member States shall be authorised from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 to restrict fishing to fishing vessels that traditionally fish in those waters from ports on the adjacent coast, without prejudice to the arrangements for Union fishing vessels flying the flag of other Member States under existing neighbourhood relations between Member States and the arrangements contained in Annex I, fixing for each Member State the geographical zones within the coastal bands of other Member States where fishing activities are pursued and the species concerned. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.
  3.   In the waters up to 100 nautical miles from the baselines of , the Member States concerned may from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 restrict fishing to vessels registered in the ports of those islands. Such restrictions shall not apply to Union vessels that traditionally fish in those waters, in so far as those vessels do not exceed the fishing effort traditionally exerted. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.
  4.   The provisions which will follow arrangements set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be adopted by 31 December 2022. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General rules on access to waters

1.   Union fishing vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters other than those referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, subject to the measures adopted under Part III.

2.   In the waters up to 12 nautical miles from baselines under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, Member States shall be authorised from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 to restrict fishing to fishing vessels that traditionally fish in those waters from ports on the adjacent coast, without prejudice to the arrangements for Union fishing vessels flying the flag of other Member States under existing neighbourhood relations between Member States and the arrangements contained in Annex I, fixing for each Member State the geographical zones within the coastal bands of other Member States where fishing activities are pursued and the species concerned. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.

3.   In the waters up to 100 nautical miles from the baselines of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, the Member States concerned may from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 restrict fishing to vessels registered in the ports of those islands. Such restrictions shall not apply to Union vessels that traditionally fish in those waters, in so far as those vessels do not exceed the fishing effort traditionally exerted. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.

4.   The provisions which will follow arrangements set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be adopted by 31 December 2022.

General rules on access to waters

1.   Union fishing vessels shall have equal access to waters and resources in all Union waters other than those referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, subject to the measures adopted under Part III.

2.   In the waters up to 12 nautical miles from baselines under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, Member States shall be authorised from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 to restrict fishing to fishing vessels that traditionally fish in those waters from ports on the adjacent coast, without prejudice to the arrangements for Union fishing vessels flying the flag of other Member States under existing neighbourhood relations between Member States and the arrangements contained in Annex I, fixing for each Member State the geographical zones within the coastal bands of other Member States where fishing activities are pursued and the species concerned. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.

3.   In the waters up to 100 nautical miles from the baselines of , the Member States concerned may from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022 restrict fishing to vessels registered in the ports of those islands. Such restrictions shall not apply to Union vessels that traditionally fish in those waters, in so far as those vessels do not exceed the fishing effort traditionally exerted. Member States shall inform the Commission of the restrictions put in place under this paragraph.

4.   The provisions which will follow arrangements set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be adopted by 31 December 2022.

Reason

The outermost regions (OR) face problems and should all be taken into account, so as to better support their development, which depends very much on the health of marine resources and the marine environment in general. The amendment is therefore intended to include all the outermost regions of the European Union.

Amendment 13

Article 8

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Types of technical measures






  (i) | modifications or additional devices to improve selectivity or to reduce impact on the benthic zone; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Types of technical measures

(i)

modifications or additional devices to improve selectivity or to reduce impact on the benthic zone;

Types of technical measures

| (i) | modifications or additional devices to improve selectivity or to reduce impact; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

modifications or additional devices to improve selectivity or to reduce impact;

Reason

The first part of the amendment does not apply to the English version. It seeks to replace the original Polish term meaning ‘increase’ with the term used in the English version ‘improve’. Article 8 is limited not only to the benthic zone but also includes the pelagic zone and the fishing gear used in this area.

Amendment 14

Article 9

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Multiannual plans
  1.   Multiannual plans providing for conservation measures to maintain or restore fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield shall be established as a priority.
  2.   Multiannual plans shall provide for:






  (a) | the basis for fixing fishing opportunities for the fish stocks concerned on the basis of predefined conservation reference points; and |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Multiannual plans

1.   Multiannual plans providing for conservation measures to maintain or restore fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield shall be established as a priority.

2.   Multiannual plans shall provide for:

(a)

the basis for fixing fishing opportunities for the fish stocks concerned on the basis of predefined conservation reference points; and

| (b) | measures capable of effectively preventing conservation reference points from being transgressed. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

measures capable of effectively preventing conservation reference points from being transgressed.

3.   Multiannual plans shall, where possible, cover either fisheries exploiting single fish stocks or fisheries exploiting a mixture of stocks, taking due account of interactions between stocks and fisheries.

4.   Multiannual plans shall be based on the precautionary approach to fisheries management and shall take into account the limitations of the available data and assessment methods and all quantified sources of uncertainty in a scientifically valid manner.

Multiannual plans

1.   Multiannual plans providing for conservation measures to maintain or restore fish stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield shall be established as a priority.

2.   Multiannual plans shall provide for:

| (a) | the basis for fixing fishing opportunities for the fish stocks concerned on the basis of predefined conservation reference points; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the basis for fixing fishing opportunities for the fish stocks concerned on the basis of predefined conservation reference points;

| (b) | measures capable of effectively preventing conservation reference points from being transgressed |
| --- | --- |

(b)

measures capable of effectively preventing conservation reference points from being transgressed

| | |
| --- | --- |

.

| | . |
| --- | --- |

3.   Multiannual plans shall, where possible, cover either fisheries exploiting single fish stocks or fisheries exploiting a mixture of stocks, taking due account of interactions between stocks and fisheries.

4.   Multiannual plans shall be based on the precautionary approach to fisheries management and shall take into account the limitations of the available data and assessment methods and all quantified sources of uncertainty in a scientifically valid manner.

Reason

The regional advisory councils were introduced by the European Union in 2004 to provide relevant advice in the context of a regionalised approach to the common fisheries policy. They should be involved more effectively in decision-making by being asked for their opinion on the multiannual plans. The plans will then be more readily accepted by stakeholders and thus easier to implement.

The Johannesburg Agreement 2002 acknowledged that for some species and stocks it might not be possible to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield by 2015 and included the words ‘where possible’ to allow for such eventualities. The EU should not attempt to go beyond its international obligations. The multiannual plans set targets for the gradual reduction of discards, using measures adopted at regional level. These reduction measures should be based on a variety of tools which could be put forward by the stakeholders involved: selectivity, spatio-temporal management, the introduction of catch quotas for certain vulnerable species in certain areas. These stakeholders should play a major role in this area, through the strengthened Regional Advisory Councils. The multiannual plans must formally take account of the issues relating to marine protected areas as some of them are home to large-scale fishing activities. The multiannual plans must also include an ecosystem dimension as a guarantee for the maintenance of fish stocks.

It is important to indicate that multiannual plans must also provide for measures to restore good environmental status, otherwise it could deteriorate further, to the detriment of the natural production capacities of marine ecosystems.

The proper management of marine protected areas is one of the objectives of the convention on biological diversity. It is therefore natural that the common fisheries policy should take them into account.

Amendment 15

Article 10

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Objectives of multiannual plans
  1.   Multiannual plans shall provide for adaptations of the fishing mortality rate, resulting in a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains all stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield by 2015.
  2.   In cases where the determination of a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield is not possible, multiannual plans shall provide for precautionary measures ensuring a comparable degree of conservation of the relevant stocks. | Objectives of multiannual plans
  1.   Multiannual plans shall provide for adaptations of the fishing mortality rate, resulting in a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains all stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield by 2015.
  2.   In cases where the determination of a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield is not possible, multiannual plans shall provide for precautionary measures ensuring a comparable degree of conservation of the relevant stocks. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Objectives of multiannual plans

1.   Multiannual plans shall provide for adaptations of the fishing mortality rate, resulting in a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains all stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield by 2015.

2.   In cases where the determination of a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield is not possible, multiannual plans shall provide for precautionary measures ensuring a comparable degree of conservation of the relevant stocks.

Objectives of multiannual plans

1.   Multiannual plans shall provide for adaptations of the fishing mortality rate, resulting in a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains all stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield by 2015.

2.   In cases where the determination of a fishing mortality rate that restores and maintains stocks above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield is not possible, multiannual plans shall provide for precautionary measures ensuring a comparable degree of conservation of the relevant stocks.

Amendment 16

Article 11

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Content of multiannual plans
  A multiannual plan shall include:






  (a) | the scope, in terms of stocks, fishery and the marine ecosystem to which the multiannual plan shall be applied; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Content of multiannual plans

A multiannual plan shall include:

(a)

the scope, in terms of stocks, fishery and the marine ecosystem to which the multiannual plan shall be applied;

| (b) | objectives consistent with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

objectives consistent with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3;

| (c) | quantifiable targets expressed in terms of:






  i) | fishing mortality rates, and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

quantifiable targets expressed in terms of:

i)

fishing mortality rates, and/or

| ii) | spawning stock biomass, and |
| --- | --- |

ii)

spawning stock biomass, and

| iii) | stability of catches. |
| --- | --- |

iii)

stability of catches.

| (d) | clear time frames to reach the quantifiable targets; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

clear time frames to reach the quantifiable targets;

| (e) | technical measures including measures concerning the elimination of unwanted catches; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

technical measures including measures concerning the elimination of unwanted catches;

| (f) | quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of the progress related to achieving the targets of the multiannual plan; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of the progress related to achieving the targets of the multiannual plan;

| (g) | specific measures and objectives for the freshwater part of the life cycle of anadromous and catadromous species; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

specific measures and objectives for the freshwater part of the life cycle of anadromous and catadromous species;

| (h) | minimisation of impacts of fishing on the eco-system; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

minimisation of impacts of fishing on the eco-system;

| (i) | safeguards and criteria activating those safeguards; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

safeguards and criteria activating those safeguards;

| (j) | any other measures suitable to achieve the objectives of multiannual plans; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

any other measures suitable to achieve the objectives of multiannual plans;

Content of multiannual plans

A multiannual plan shall include:

| (a) | the scope, in terms of stocks, fishery and the marine ecosystem to which the multiannual plan shall be applied; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the scope, in terms of stocks, fishery and the marine ecosystem to which the multiannual plan shall be applied;

| (b) | objectives consistent with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

objectives consistent with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3;

| (c) | quantifiable targets expressed in terms of:






  i) | fishing mortality rates, and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

quantifiable targets expressed in terms of:

i)

fishing mortality rates, and/or

| ii) | spawning stock biomass, and |
| --- | --- |

ii)

spawning stock biomass, and

| iii) | stability of catches. |
| --- | --- |

iii)

stability of catches.

| (d) | clear time frames to reach the quantifiable targets; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

clear time frames to reach the quantifiable targets;

| (e) | technical measures including measures concerning the elimination of unwanted catches; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

technical measures including measures concerning the elimination of unwanted catches;

| (f) | quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of the progress related to achieving the targets of the multiannual plan; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and assessment of the progress related to achieving the targets of the multiannual plan;

| (g) | specific measures and objectives for the freshwater part of the life cycle of anadromous and catadromous species; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

specific measures and objectives for the freshwater part of the life cycle of anadromous and catadromous species;

| | |
| --- | --- |

()

| () | minimisation of impacts of fishing on the eco-system; |
| --- | --- |

minimisation of impacts of fishing on the eco-system;

| () | safeguards and criteria activating those safeguards; |
| --- | --- |

()

safeguards and criteria activating those safeguards;

| () | any other measures suitable to achieve the objectives of multiannual plans |
| --- | --- |

()

any other measures suitable to achieve the objectives of multiannual plans

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

| | |
| --- | --- |

Measures targeted towards migratory fish stocks are needed to secure natural diversity and sustainable fishery. The EU's CFP should differentiate anadromous fish stocks, which migrate up rivers in order to spawn. The CFP should distinguish between the principles of fish stock maintenance for anadromous fish stocks and those for other types of fish stock. The principles informing regulation of fishing of migratory fish stocks should be implemented in compliance with Article 66, Section V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which regulates management of anadromous fish stocks separately from that of other fish stocks.

The management of living resources is a dynamic process and it is sometimes necessary to take a quick decision which, given the very bureaucratic and slow nature of the co-decision process, can prove to be especially difficult, as has been seen in the past in the case of the Baltic or the North Sea. Multiannual plans include a clause stating that the plan should be evaluated after three to five years. However, no rapid response mechanism for unforeseen situations requiring swift intervention has been formally drawn up. It should be down to the Member States to define when and what action should be taken in such situations.

Amendment 17

Article 15

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Obligation to land all catches
  1.   All catches of the following fish stocks subject to catch limits caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels outside Union waters shall be brought and retained on board the fishing vessels and recorded and landed, except when used as live bait, in accordance with the following timeframe:






  (a) | At the latest from 1 January 2014:






  — | mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, boarfish, anchovy, argentine, sardinella, capelin; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Obligation to land all catches

1.   All catches of the following fish stocks subject to catch limits caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels outside Union waters shall be brought and retained on board the fishing vessels and recorded and landed, except when used as live bait, in accordance with the following timeframe:

(a)

At the latest from 1 January 2014:

—

mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, boarfish, anchovy, argentine, sardinella, capelin;

| — | bluefin tuna, swordfish, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, other billfish. |
| --- | --- |

—

bluefin tuna, swordfish, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, other billfish.

| (b) | At the latest from 1 January 2015: cod, hake, sole; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

At the latest from 1 January 2015: cod, hake, sole;

| (c) | At the latest from 1 January 2016: haddock, whiting, megrim, anglerfish, plaice, ling, saithe, pollack, lemon sole, turbot, brill, blue ling, black scabbard, roundnose grenadier, orange roughy, Greenland halibut, tusk, redfish and Mediterranean demersal stocks. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

At the latest from 1 January 2016: haddock, whiting, megrim, anglerfish, plaice, ling, saithe, pollack, lemon sole, turbot, brill, blue ling, black scabbard, roundnose grenadier, orange roughy, Greenland halibut, tusk, redfish and Mediterranean demersal stocks.

2.   Minimum conservation reference sizes based on the best available scientific advice shall be established for the fish stocks set out in paragraph 1. The sale of catches of such fish stocks below the minimum conservation reference size shall be restricted for reduction to fish meal or pet food only.

3.   Marketing standards for catches of fish caught in excess of fixed fishing opportunities shall be established in accordance with Article 27 of [the Regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products].

4.   Member States shall ensure that Union fishing vessels flying their flag are equipped to ensure full documentation of all fishing and processing activities for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the obligation to land all catches.

5.   Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to international obligations.

6.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 to specify the measures set out in paragraph 1 for the purpose of complying with the Union's international obligations.

1.    catches of the following fish subject to catch limits caught during fishing activities in Union waters or by Union fishing vessels outside Union waters:

| a) | At the latest from 1 January 2014:






  — | mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, boarfish, anchovy, argentine, sardinella, capelin; |
| --- | --- | --- |

a)

At the latest from 1 January 2014:

—

mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, boarfish, anchovy, argentine, sardinella, capelin;

| — | bluefin tuna, swordfish, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, other billfish. |
| --- | --- |

—

bluefin tuna, swordfish, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, other billfish.

| b) | At the latest from 1 January 2015: cod, hake, sole; |
| --- | --- |

b)

At the latest from 1 January 2015: cod, hake, sole;

| c) | At the latest from 1 January 2016: haddock, whiting, megrim, anglerfish, plaice, ling, saithe, pollack, lemon sole, turbot, brill, blue ling, black scabbard, roundnose grenadier, orange roughy, Greenland halibut, tusk, redfish and Mediterranean demersal stocks. |
| --- | --- |

c)

At the latest from 1 January 2016: haddock, whiting, megrim, anglerfish, plaice, ling, saithe, pollack, lemon sole, turbot, brill, blue ling, black scabbard, roundnose grenadier, orange roughy, Greenland halibut, tusk, redfish and Mediterranean demersal stocks.

2.   Minimum conservation reference sizes based on the best available scientific advice shall be established for the fish stocks set out in paragraph 1. The sale of catches of such fish stocks below the minimum conservation reference size shall be restricted for reduction to fish meal or pet food only.

3.   Marketing standards for catches of fish caught in excess of fixed fishing opportunities shall be established in accordance with Article 27 of [the Regulation on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products].

4.   Member States shall ensure that Union fishing vessels flying their flag are equipped to ensure full documentation of all fishing and processing activities for the purpose of monitoring compliance

5.   Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to international obligations.

6.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 to specify the measures set out in paragraph 1 for the purpose of complying with the Union's international obligations.

Reason

The amendment suggests the drawing up of multiannual discard reduction plans, but the documents under discussion contain no such proposal. The Commission proposes a decision requiring the landing of all catches of commercial species from a given date. Action to implement the Commission decision should be drawn up by the Regional Advisory Councils or the Member States, depending on the situation. It is therefore perhaps inappropriate to speak of multiannual plans, as such plans would have to be much more long-term.

Throwing fish back into the sea is common for a number of different reasons. By developing fishing practices and applying technical solutions to make gear more selective, the amount of unwanted catch can be reduced. The subject of this amendment is included in the policy recommendations at the beginning of our opinion, which represents the view of the CoR, so it should also be added to the amendments.

Amendment 18

Article 16

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Fishing opportunities
  1.   Fishing opportunities allocated to Member States shall ensure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each fish stock or fishery. The interests of each Member State shall be taken into account when new fishing opportunities are allocated.
  2.   By-catch fishing opportunities may be reserved under the total fishing opportunities.
  3.   Fishing opportunities shall comply with quantifiable targets, time frames and margins established in accordance with Article 9(2) and 11(b), (c) and (h).
  4.   Member States may, after notifying the Commission, exchange all or part of the fishing opportunities allocated to them. | Fishing opportunities
  1.   Fishing opportunities allocated to Member States shall ensure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each fish stock or fishery. The interests of each Member State shall be taken into account when new fishing opportunities are allocated.
  2.   By-catch fishing opportunities may be reserved under the total fishing opportunities.
  3.   Fishing opportunities shall comply with quantifiable targets, time frames and margins established in accordance with Article 9(2) and 11(b), (c) and (h).
  4.   Member States may, after notifying the Commission, exchange all or part of the fishing opportunities allocated to them. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Fishing opportunities

1.   Fishing opportunities allocated to Member States shall ensure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each fish stock or fishery. The interests of each Member State shall be taken into account when new fishing opportunities are allocated.

2.   By-catch fishing opportunities may be reserved under the total fishing opportunities.

3.   Fishing opportunities shall comply with quantifiable targets, time frames and margins established in accordance with Article 9(2) and 11(b), (c) and (h).

4.   Member States may, after notifying the Commission, exchange all or part of the fishing opportunities allocated to them.

Fishing opportunities

1.   Fishing opportunities allocated to Member States shall ensure each Member State relative stability of fishing activities for each fish stock or fishery. The interests of each Member State shall be taken into account when new fishing opportunities are allocated.

2.   By-catch fishing opportunities may be reserved under the total fishing opportunities.

3.   Fishing opportunities shall comply with quantifiable targets, time frames and margins established in accordance with Article 9(2) and 11(b), (c) and (h).

4.   Member States may, after notifying the Commission, exchange all or part of the fishing opportunities allocated to them.

Reason

The addition of this new paragraph reflects the current CFP Regulation. The allocation of fishing opportunities should remain a matter for decision by Member States since the allocation of fishing opportunities is the most crucial instrument available to influence the structure and performance of the fisheries sector. These are preferences which are relevant for decision at Member State level in accordance with their socio-economic priorities.

Amendment 19

Article 17

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Conservation measures adopted in accordance with multiannual plans
  1.   In a multiannual plan established pursuant to Articles 9, 10 and 11 Member States may be authorised to adopt measures, in accordance with that multiannual plan, which specify the conservation measures applicable to vessels flying their flag in relation to stocks in Union waters for which they have been allocated fishing opportunities.
  2.   Member States shall ensure that conservation measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 1:






  (a) | are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Conservation measures adopted in accordance with multiannual plans

1.   In a multiannual plan established pursuant to Articles 9, 10 and 11 Member States may be authorised to adopt measures, in accordance with that multiannual plan, which specify the conservation measures applicable to vessels flying their flag in relation to stocks in Union waters for which they have been allocated fishing opportunities.

2.   Member States shall ensure that conservation measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 1:

(a)

are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3;

| (b) | are compatible with the scope and objectives of the multiannual plan; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are compatible with the scope and objectives of the multiannual plan;

| (c) | meet the objectives and quantifiable targets set out in a multiannual plan effectively; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

meet the objectives and quantifiable targets set out in a multiannual plan effectively; and

| (d) | are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation.

Conservation measures adopted in accordance with multiannual plans

1.

In a multiannual plan established pursuant to Articles 9, 10 and 11 Member States may be authorised to adopt measures, in accordance with that multiannual plan, which specify the conservation measures applicable to vessels flying their flag in relation to stocks in Union waters for which they have been allocated fishing opportunities.

.   Member States shall ensure that conservation measures adopted pursuant to paragraph :

| (a) | are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3;

| (b) | are compatible with the scope and objectives of the multiannual plan; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are compatible with the scope and objectives of the multiannual plan;

| (c) | meet the objectives and quantifiable targets set out in a multiannual plan effectively; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

meet the objectives and quantifiable targets set out in a multiannual plan effectively; and

| (d) | are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation.

Reason

The regional advisory councils were introduced by the European Union in 2004 to provide relevant advice in the context of a regionalised approach to the common fisheries policy. They should be involved more effectively in decision-making by being asked for their opinion on the multiannual plans. The plans will then be more readily accepted by stakeholders and thus easier to implement.

Amendment 20

Article 21

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Technical measures
  In a technical measures framework established pursuant to Article 14 Member States may be authorised to adopt measures, in accordance with that framework, which specify the technical measures applicable to vessels flying their flag in relation to stocks in their waters for which they have been allocated fishing opportunities. Member States shall ensure that such technical measures:






  (a) | are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Technical measures

In a technical measures framework established pursuant to Article 14 Member States may be authorised to adopt measures, in accordance with that framework, which specify the technical measures applicable to vessels flying their flag in relation to stocks in their waters for which they have been allocated fishing opportunities. Member States shall ensure that such technical measures:

(a)

are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3;

| (b) | are compatible with the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are compatible with the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14;

| (c) | meet the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14 effectively; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

meet the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14 effectively; and

| (d) | are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation.

Technical measures

In a technical measures framework established pursuant to Article 14 Member States may be authorised to adopt measures, in accordance with that framework, which specify the technical measures applicable to vessels flying their flag in relation to stocks in their waters for which they have been allocated fishing opportunities. Member States shall ensure that such technical measures:

| (a) | are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

are compatible with the objectives set out in Articles 2 and 3;

| (b) | are compatible with the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are compatible with the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14;

| (c) | meet the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14 effectively; and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

meet the objectives set out in measures adopted in accordance with Article 14 effectively; and

| (d) | are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

are no less stringent than those existing in Union legislation.

Reason

The regional advisory councils were introduced by the European Union in 2004 to provide relevant advice in the context of a regionalised approach to the common fisheries policy. They should be involved more effectively in decision-making by being asked for their opinion on the multiannual plans. The plans will then be more readily accepted by stakeholders and thus easier to implement.

Amendment 21

Article 27 (1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Each Member State shall establish a system of transferable fishing concessions no later than 31 December 2013 for






  (a) | all fishing vessels of 12 meters length over all or more; and |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Each Member State shall establish a system of transferable fishing concessions no later than 31 December 2013 for

(a)

all fishing vessels of 12 meters length over all or more; and

| (b) | all fishing vessels under 12 meters length overall fishing with towed gear. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

all fishing vessels under 12 meters length overall fishing with towed gear.

1.   Each Member State establish a system of transferable fishing concessions for

| (a) | all fishing vessels of 12 meters length over all or more; and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

all fishing vessels of 12 meters length over all or more; and

| (b) | all fishing vessels under 12 meters length overall fishing. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

all fishing vessels under 12 meters length overall fishing.

Reason

The introduction of Transferable Fishing Concessions (TFCs) should be encouraged, but it should be a Member State Competence and in their own time. Such TFCs would involve regulated stocks and it is acknowledged elsewhere that the size of the vessel is not material to the rate of exploitation of such stocks.

Amendment 22

Article 27 (2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States may extend the system of transferable fishing concessions to fishing vessels of less than 12 meters length overall and deploying other types of gear than towed gear and shall inform the Commission thereof. | Member States may extend the system of transferable fishing concessions to fishing vessels of less than 12 meters length overall and deploying other types of gear than towed gear and shall inform the Commission thereof. |

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States may extend the system of transferable fishing concessions to fishing vessels of less than 12 meters length overall and deploying other types of gear than towed gear and shall inform the Commission thereof.

Member States may extend the system of transferable fishing concessions to fishing vessels of less than 12 meters length overall and deploying other types of gear than towed gear and shall inform the Commission thereof.

Reason

Does not apply to English text.

Amendment 23

Article 28 (1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Allocation of transferable fishing concessions
  1.   A transferable fishing concession shall establish an entitlement to use the individual fishing opportunities allocated in accordance with Article 29(1). | Allocation of transferable fishing concessions
  1.    transferable fishing concession shall establish an entitlement to use the individual fishing opportunities allocated in accordance with Article 29(1). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Allocation of transferable fishing concessions

1.   A transferable fishing concession shall establish an entitlement to use the individual fishing opportunities allocated in accordance with Article 29(1).

Allocation of transferable fishing concessions

1.    transferable fishing concession shall establish an entitlement to use the individual fishing opportunities allocated in accordance with Article 29(1).

Reason

The adoption of a system of Transferable Fishing Concessions should be optional for Member States. If this agreed it is appropriate to amend the text to reflect that the framework for the management of TFCs is only applicable when that option is taken.

Amendment 24

Article 28 (2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Each Member State shall allocate transferable fishing concessions on the basis of transparent criteria, for each stock or group of stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated in accordance with Article 16, excluding fishing opportunities obtained under sustainable fisheries agreements. | Member State shall allocate transferable fishing concessions on the basis of transparent criteria, for each stock or group of stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated in accordance with Article 16, excluding fishing opportunities obtained under sustainable fisheries agreements. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Each Member State shall allocate transferable fishing concessions on the basis of transparent criteria, for each stock or group of stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated in accordance with Article 16, excluding fishing opportunities obtained under sustainable fisheries agreements.

Member State shall allocate transferable fishing concessions on the basis of transparent criteria, for each stock or group of stocks for which fishing opportunities are allocated in accordance with Article 16, excluding fishing opportunities obtained under sustainable fisheries agreements.

Amendment 25

Article 28 (5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Allocation of transferable fishing concessions
  5.   Member States may limit the period of validity of transferable fishing concessions to a period of at least 15 years, for the purpose of reallocating such concessions. Where Member States have not limited the period of validity of the transferable fishing concessions, they may recall such concessions with a notice of at least 15 years. | Allocation of transferable fishing concessions
  5.   Member States may limit the period of validity of transferable fishing concessions. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Allocation of transferable fishing concessions

5.   Member States may limit the period of validity of transferable fishing concessions to a period of at least 15 years, for the purpose of reallocating such concessions. Where Member States have not limited the period of validity of the transferable fishing concessions, they may recall such concessions with a notice of at least 15 years.

Allocation of transferable fishing concessions

5.   Member States may limit the period of validity of transferable fishing concessions.

Reason

Each Member State should be responsible for how fishing concessions are transferred. Latvia and several other Member States of the European Union already have effective legislation in place for regulating fishing concessions. Creating a new system would further increase red tape and require extra funding whilst providing no guarantee that it would necessarily be more effective than the present mechanism.

Amendment 26

Article 28 (6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 6.   Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions with a shorter notice in the event of an established serious infringement committed by the holder of the concessions. Such recalls shall be operated in a manner which gives full effect to the Common Fisheries Policy, the proportionality principle and, whenever necessary, with immediate effect. | 6.   Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions with a shorter notice in the event of an established serious infringement committed by the holder of the concessions. Such recalls shall be operated in a manner which gives full effect to the Common Fisheries Policy, the proportionality principle and, whenever necessary, with immediate effect. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

6.   Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions with a shorter notice in the event of an established serious infringement committed by the holder of the concessions. Such recalls shall be operated in a manner which gives full effect to the Common Fisheries Policy, the proportionality principle and, whenever necessary, with immediate effect.

6.   Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions with a shorter notice in the event of an established serious infringement committed by the holder of the concessions. Such recalls shall be operated in a manner which gives full effect to the Common Fisheries Policy, the proportionality principle and, whenever necessary, with immediate effect.

Amendment 27

Article 28 (7)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 7.   Notwithstanding paragraph 5 and 6, Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions that have not been used on a fishing vessel for a period of three consecutive years. | 7.   Notwithstanding paragraph 5 and 6, Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions that have not been used on a fishing vessel for a period of consecutive years. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

7.   Notwithstanding paragraph 5 and 6, Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions that have not been used on a fishing vessel for a period of three consecutive years.

7.   Notwithstanding paragraph 5 and 6, Member States may recall transferable fishing concessions that have not been used on a fishing vessel for a period of consecutive years.

Reason

The proposed period of three years is too long and is already becoming an element of speculation, but a degree of flexibility should be allowed in terms of the duration in order not to jeopardise the future of companies experiencing specific situations.

Amendment 28

Article 28 (8)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | Insert new point: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Insert new point:

Amendment 29

Article 29

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Allocation of individual fishing opportunities
  1.   Member States shall allocate individual fishing opportunities to holders of transferable fishing concessions, as referred to in Article 28, on the basis of fishing opportunities allocated to the Member States, or established in management plans adopted by Member States in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.
  2.   Member States shall determine fishing opportunities that, based on the best available scientific advice, can be allocated to fishing vessels flying their flag for species for which the Council has not fixed fishing opportunities.
  3.   Fishing vessels shall undertake fishing activities only when in possession of sufficient individual fishing opportunities to cover all their potential catch.
  4.   Member States may reserve up to 5 % of fishing opportunities. They shall establish objectives and transparent criteria for the allocation of such reserved fishing opportunities. Those fishing opportunities may only be allocated to eligible holders of transferable fishing concessions as set out in Article 28(4).
  5.   When allocating transferable fishing concessions in accordance with Article 28 and when allocating fishing opportunities in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, a Member State may provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear that eliminates unwanted by-catch within the fishing opportunities assigned to that Member State.
  6.   Member States may set fees for the use of individual fishing opportunities to contribute to fisheries management-related costs. | Allocation of individual fishing opportunities
     
     
     
     
  .   When allocating transferable fishing concessions in accordance with Article 28 and when allocating fishing opportunities in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, a Member State may provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear that eliminates unwanted by-catch within the fishing opportunities assigned to that Member State.
  .   Member States may set fees for the use of individual fishing opportunities to contribute to fisheries management-related costs. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Allocation of individual fishing opportunities

1.   Member States shall allocate individual fishing opportunities to holders of transferable fishing concessions, as referred to in Article 28, on the basis of fishing opportunities allocated to the Member States, or established in management plans adopted by Member States in accordance with Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.

2.   Member States shall determine fishing opportunities that, based on the best available scientific advice, can be allocated to fishing vessels flying their flag for species for which the Council has not fixed fishing opportunities.

3.   Fishing vessels shall undertake fishing activities only when in possession of sufficient individual fishing opportunities to cover all their potential catch.

4.   Member States may reserve up to 5 % of fishing opportunities. They shall establish objectives and transparent criteria for the allocation of such reserved fishing opportunities. Those fishing opportunities may only be allocated to eligible holders of transferable fishing concessions as set out in Article 28(4).

5.   When allocating transferable fishing concessions in accordance with Article 28 and when allocating fishing opportunities in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, a Member State may provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear that eliminates unwanted by-catch within the fishing opportunities assigned to that Member State.

6.   Member States may set fees for the use of individual fishing opportunities to contribute to fisheries management-related costs.

Allocation of individual fishing opportunities

.   When allocating transferable fishing concessions in accordance with Article 28 and when allocating fishing opportunities in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, a Member State may provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear that eliminates unwanted by-catch within the fishing opportunities assigned to that Member State.

.   Member States may set fees for the use of individual fishing opportunities to contribute to fisheries management-related costs.

Reason

The allocation of fishing opportunities should remain a matter for decision by Member States.

Amendment 30

Article 31 (1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Transfer of transferable fishing concessions
  1.   Transferable fishing concessions may be fully or partially transferred within a Member State among eligible holders of such concessions.
  2.   A Member State may authorise transfer of transferable fishing concessions to and from other Member States.
  3.   Member States may regulate the transfer of transferable fishing concessions by providing for conditions for their transfer on the basis of transparent and objective criteria. | Transfer of transferable fishing concessions
  1.    concessions may be fully or partially transferred within a Member State among eligible holders of such concessions.
     
  .   Member States may regulate the transfer of transferable fishing concessions by providing for conditions for their transfer on the basis of transparent and objective criteria. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Transfer of transferable fishing concessions

1.   Transferable fishing concessions may be fully or partially transferred within a Member State among eligible holders of such concessions.

2.   A Member State may authorise transfer of transferable fishing concessions to and from other Member States.

3.   Member States may regulate the transfer of transferable fishing concessions by providing for conditions for their transfer on the basis of transparent and objective criteria.

Transfer of transferable fishing concessions

1.    concessions may be fully or partially transferred within a Member State among eligible holders of such concessions.

.   Member States may regulate the transfer of transferable fishing concessions by providing for conditions for their transfer on the basis of transparent and objective criteria.

Reason

The system of Transferable Fishing Concessions should be optional for Member States. The framework for the management of TFCs is only applicable when that option is taken.

Transferable fishing concessions can be transferred within a Member States for the purposes of maintaining the relative stability as set out in Article 16(1). It does not seem appropriate to allow transfers of concessions which may impact on the undisputed general principle of relative stability.

Amendment 31

Article 32 (2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Leasing of individual fishing opportunities
  1.   Individual fishing opportunities may be fully or partially leased within a Member State.
  2.   A Member State may authorise the leasing of individual fishing opportunities to and from other Member States. | Leasing of individual fishing opportunities
  1.   Individual fishing opportunities may be fully or partially leased within a Member State. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Leasing of individual fishing opportunities

1.   Individual fishing opportunities may be fully or partially leased within a Member State.

2.   A Member State may authorise the leasing of individual fishing opportunities to and from other Member States.

Leasing of individual fishing opportunities

1.   Individual fishing opportunities may be fully or partially leased within a Member State.

Reason

Transferable fishing concessions can be leased within a Member States for the purposes of maintaining the relative stability as set out in Article 16(1). It does not seem appropriate to allow leasing of concessions which may impact on the undisputed general principle of relative stability.

Amendment 32

Article 35

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Each Member State fleet shall be subject to fishing capacity ceilings as set out in Annex II.
  2.   Member States may request the Commission to exclude fishing vessels subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions established in accordance with Article 27 from the fishing capacity ceilings established in accordance with paragraph 1. In that case the fishing capacity ceilings shall be re-calculated to take into account the fishing vessels which are not subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions.
  3.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the re-calculation of the fishing capacity ceilings as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. | 1.   Each Member State fleet shall be subject to fishing capacity ceilings as set out in Annex II.
  2.   Member States may request the Commission to exclude fishing vessels subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions established in accordance with Article 27 from the fishing capacity ceilings established in accordance with paragraph 1. In that case the fishing capacity ceilings shall be re-calculated to take into account the fishing vessels which are not subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions.
  3.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the re-calculation of the fishing capacity ceilings as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Each Member State fleet shall be subject to fishing capacity ceilings as set out in Annex II.

2.   Member States may request the Commission to exclude fishing vessels subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions established in accordance with Article 27 from the fishing capacity ceilings established in accordance with paragraph 1. In that case the fishing capacity ceilings shall be re-calculated to take into account the fishing vessels which are not subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions.

3.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the re-calculation of the fishing capacity ceilings as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

1.   Each Member State fleet shall be subject to fishing capacity ceilings as set out in Annex II.

2.   Member States may request the Commission to exclude fishing vessels subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions established in accordance with Article 27 from the fishing capacity ceilings established in accordance with paragraph 1. In that case the fishing capacity ceilings shall be re-calculated to take into account the fishing vessels which are not subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions.

3.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the re-calculation of the fishing capacity ceilings as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

Reason

The outermost regions' fleets are characterised essentially by small-scale vessels used for inshore fishing, by the non-industrial nature of their business, and by the uncertainty of their income. The new reference levels, set on the basis of the fleet situation on 31 December 2010, will have a catastrophic effect on the viability of fisheries in the outermost regions.

Amendment 33

Article 53

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Tasks of Advisory Councils
  1.   Advisory Councils may:






  (a) | submit recommendations and suggestions on matters relating to fisheries management and aquaculture to the Commission or to the Member State concerned; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Tasks of Advisory Councils

1.   Advisory Councils may:

(a)

submit recommendations and suggestions on matters relating to fisheries management and aquaculture to the Commission or to the Member State concerned;

| (b) | inform the Commission and Member States of problems relating to fisheries management and aquaculture in their area of competence; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

inform the Commission and Member States of problems relating to fisheries management and aquaculture in their area of competence;

| (c) | contribute, in close cooperation with scientists, to the collection, supply and analysis of data necessary for the development of conservation measures. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

contribute, in close cooperation with scientists, to the collection, supply and analysis of data necessary for the development of conservation measures.

2.   The Commission and, where relevant, the Member State concerned, shall reply within a reasonable time period to any recommendation, suggestion or information received pursuant to paragraph 1.

Tasks of advisory councils

1.   Advisory Councils :

| a) | |
| --- | --- |

a)

submit recommendations and suggestions on matters relating to fisheries management and aquaculture to the Commission or to the Member State concerned;

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | submit recommendations and suggestions on matters relating to fisheries management and aquaculture to the Commission or to the Member State concerned; |
| --- | --- |

| ) | inform the Commission and Member States of problems relating to fisheries management and aquaculture in their area of competence; |
| --- | --- |

)

inform the Commission and Member States of problems relating to fisheries management and aquaculture in their area of competence;

| ) | contribute, in close cooperation with scientists, to the collection, supply and analysis of data necessary for the development of conservation measures. |
| --- | --- |

)

contribute, in close cooperation with scientists, to the collection, supply and analysis of data necessary for the development of conservation measures.

2.   The Commission and, where relevant, the Member State concerned, shall reply within a reasonable time period to any recommendation, suggestion or information received pursuant to paragraph 1.

Reason

The establishment of decentralised governance should be encouraged in the drawing up of common fisheries policy regulations by strengthening the regional dimension, and also in the drawing up of rules and, principally, in the implementation stage. Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) should play a pivotal role in this decentralised governance (increased powers to submit proposals and more account taken of their opinions), which also means closer involvement by States and the various stakeholders in their work. With their legitimacy thus enhanced, RACs will provide an appropriate framework for holding discussions according to a fishery-by-fishery approach and will be able to carry out scientific monitoring in accordance with regional challenges. RACs should be subject to the financial aid provided for in the EMFF regulation and the composition of RACs will be extended to the Member States and the relevant scientific bodies. Under this new arrangement, an opinion from an RAC ‘extended’ to Member States and all stakeholders would be adopted by consensus. The Commission would finally present a new proposal to the legislator, taking account of the opinions expressed. Where relevant, RACs will also be able to propose regulations to the Commission.

Amendment 34

Article 54

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Composition, functioning and funding of Advisory Councils
  1.   Advisory Councils shall be composed of organizations representing the fisheries operators and other interest groups affected by the Common Fisheries Policy.
  2.   Each Advisory Council shall consist of a general assembly and an executive committee and shall adopt the measures necessary for its organization and to ensure transparency and the respect of all opinions expressed.
  3.   Advisory Councils may apply for Union financial assistance as bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest.
  4.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the composition and the functioning of Advisory Councils. | Composition, functioning and funding of Advisory Councils
  1.   Advisory Councils shall be composed organizations representing the fisheries operators and other interest groups affected by the Common Fisheries Policy.
  2.   Each Advisory Council shall consist of a general assembly and an executive committee and shall adopt the measures necessary for its organization and to ensure transparency and the respect of all opinions expressed.
  3.   Advisory Councils may apply for Union financial assistance as bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest.
  4.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the composition and the functioning of Advisory Councils. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Composition, functioning and funding of Advisory Councils

1.   Advisory Councils shall be composed of organizations representing the fisheries operators and other interest groups affected by the Common Fisheries Policy.

2.   Each Advisory Council shall consist of a general assembly and an executive committee and shall adopt the measures necessary for its organization and to ensure transparency and the respect of all opinions expressed.

3.   Advisory Councils may apply for Union financial assistance as bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest.

4.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the composition and the functioning of Advisory Councils.

Composition, functioning and funding of Advisory Councils

1.   Advisory Councils shall be composed organizations representing the fisheries operators and other interest groups affected by the Common Fisheries Policy.

2.   Each Advisory Council shall consist of a general assembly and an executive committee and shall adopt the measures necessary for its organization and to ensure transparency and the respect of all opinions expressed.

3.   Advisory Councils may apply for Union financial assistance as bodies pursuing an aim of general European interest.

4.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning the composition and the functioning of Advisory Councils.

Reason

To increase their effectiveness and legitimacy, RACs should be extended to include the relevant Member States and scientific bodies, to make their discussions more fruitful and relevant to regional fisheries issues.

COM(2011) 416 final

Amendment 35

Article 8

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| b) | making the best use of unwanted catches of commercial stocks by:






  — | disposing of landed products which do not conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article 39 (2)(a) for uses other than human consumption; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

b)

making the best use of unwanted catches of commercial stocks by:

—

disposing of landed products which do not conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article 39 (2)(a) for uses other than human consumption;

| — | placing on the market of landed products which conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article 39 (2)(a); |
| --- | --- |

—

placing on the market of landed products which conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article 39 (2)(a);

| — | distributing landed products free of charge to philanthropic or charitable purposes. |
| --- | --- |

—

distributing landed products free of charge to philanthropic or charitable purposes.

| b) | making the best use of unwanted catches of commercial stocks by:






  — | disposing of landed products which do not conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article sizes referred to (2)(a) for uses other than human consumption; |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

making the best use of unwanted catches of commercial stocks by:

—

disposing of landed products which do not conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article sizes referred to (2)(a) for uses other than human consumption;

| — | placing on the market of landed products which conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article 39 (2)(a); |
| --- | --- |

—

placing on the market of landed products which conform to the minimum marketing sizes referred to in Article 39 (2)(a);

| — | landed products free of charge philanthropic or charitable purposes. |
| --- | --- |

—

landed products free of charge philanthropic or charitable purposes.

Reason

There is a fundamental difference between free distribution (with the costs borne by the producer organisation) and free access (where the costs may be borne by the producer organisation or the recipient).

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 11.

1

(2)  OJ L 274, 25.9.1986, p. 1.

2

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/46

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Active ageing: innovation — smart health — better lives’

2012/C 225/05

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | calls on the European Commission to launch a European Covenant of Mayors on Demographic Change as a legacy to the European Year 2012 to gather LRAs interested to promote innovation, smart health and better lives solutions in support of active and healthy ageing and to provide administrative and financial support to the Covenant; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls on the European Commission to launch a European Covenant of Mayors on Demographic Change as a legacy to the European Year 2012 to gather LRAs interested to promote innovation, smart health and better lives solutions in support of active and healthy ageing and to provide administrative and financial support to the Covenant;

| — | shares the vision of the EY2012 stakeholders’ coalition of a society for all ages where everyone is empowered to play an active part in society and enjoy equal rights and opportunities in all stages of their life regardless of age, sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, social or economic status, sexual orientation, physical or mental condition, or need for care; |
| --- | --- |

—

shares the vision of the EY2012 stakeholders’ coalition of a society for all ages where everyone is empowered to play an active part in society and enjoy equal rights and opportunities in all stages of their life regardless of age, sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, social or economic status, sexual orientation, physical or mental condition, or need for care;

| — | stresses the importance of consulting and involving older people and their carers actively in the mapping of their needs, the development of solutions and evaluation of their performance. Such participatory approach supports social inclusion and ensures that the services delivered match as closely as possible the actual needs of the recipients; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses the importance of consulting and involving older people and their carers actively in the mapping of their needs, the development of solutions and evaluation of their performance. Such participatory approach supports social inclusion and ensures that the services delivered match as closely as possible the actual needs of the recipients;

| — | recommends that the European Commission involve LRAs more actively in the EU social impact assessment process of the various initiatives implemented to support active and healthy ageing to ensure that the impact on grass root older women and men is adequately assessed. |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends that the European Commission involve LRAs more actively in the EU social impact assessment process of the various initiatives implemented to support active and healthy ageing to ensure that the impact on grass root older women and men is adequately assessed.

| Rapporteur-general | Mr Arnoldas ABRAMAVICIUS (LT/EPP), Mayor of Zarasai District Municipality and Member of the Municipal Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | / |

Rapporteur-general

Mr Arnoldas ABRAMAVICIUS (LT/EPP), Mayor of Zarasai District Municipality and Member of the Municipal Council

Reference document

/

I.   INTRODUCTION

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes the initiative of the Danish Presidency to integrate sub-national authorities in the EU-level dialogue on how to face the demographic challenge and maximise the opportunities of an ageing population. As stated in the CoR Opinion on dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU
   (1) and in the European Parliament Report on the European Year 2012 (2), local and regional authorities (LRAs) in many Member States have key competences in the three areas on which the European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations is based: employment, participation in society and independent living; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the initiative of the Danish Presidency to integrate sub-national authorities in the EU-level dialogue on how to face the demographic challenge and maximise the opportunities of an ageing population. As stated in the CoR Opinion on dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU
   (1) and in the European Parliament Report on the European Year 2012 (2), local and regional authorities (LRAs) in many Member States have key competences in the three areas on which the European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations is based: employment, participation in society and independent living;

| 2. | stresses that addressing the challenges of population ageing is one of the objectives of Europe 2020 strategy. Since LRAs are at the forefront of citizens’ needs and are responsible for the provision of most services that older people require to live a dignified old age, their direct involvement in all EU debates on ageing is therefore crucial to achieve the objectives of Europe 2020 and would help increase social, economic and territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

2.

stresses that addressing the challenges of population ageing is one of the objectives of Europe 2020 strategy. Since LRAs are at the forefront of citizens’ needs and are responsible for the provision of most services that older people require to live a dignified old age, their direct involvement in all EU debates on ageing is therefore crucial to achieve the objectives of Europe 2020 and would help increase social, economic and territorial cohesion;

| 3. | welcomes the European Innovation Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing which seeks to mobilise a wide range of stakeholders at all levels to improve by two the number of years one can expect to live in good health (Healthy Life Year Indicator) and recalls that LRAs have key competences in the three pillars of the EIP-AHA: prevention, screening and early diagnosis; care and cure; and active ageing and independent living; |
| --- | --- |

3.

welcomes the European Innovation Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing which seeks to mobilise a wide range of stakeholders at all levels to improve by two the number of years one can expect to live in good health (Healthy Life Year Indicator) and recalls that LRAs have key competences in the three pillars of the EIP-AHA: prevention, screening and early diagnosis; care and cure; and active ageing and independent living;

| 4. | shares the vision of the EY2012 stakeholders’ coalition of a society for all ages where everyone is empowered to play an active part in society and enjoy equal rights and opportunities in all stages of their life regardless of age, sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, social or economic status, sexual orientation, physical or mental condition, or need for care; |
| --- | --- |

4.

shares the vision of the EY2012 stakeholders’ coalition of a society for all ages where everyone is empowered to play an active part in society and enjoy equal rights and opportunities in all stages of their life regardless of age, sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, social or economic status, sexual orientation, physical or mental condition, or need for care;

| 5. | recommends a positive approach to ageing and shares the vision that innovation can help deliver better services for our ageing population. However, it must be stressed that innovation should not be pursued for the sake of change, but rather as a valuable driver to improve the quality and cost efficiency of the response to increasing and evolving needs in times of financial constraint; |
| --- | --- |

5.

recommends a positive approach to ageing and shares the vision that innovation can help deliver better services for our ageing population. However, it must be stressed that innovation should not be pursued for the sake of change, but rather as a valuable driver to improve the quality and cost efficiency of the response to increasing and evolving needs in times of financial constraint;

| 6. | is of the opinion that the economic and financial crisis makes it more urgent than ever to fundamentally review the way our society functions and to do our utmost to empower everyone, young and old, to contribute actively in the labour market and in their communities and to live independently for as long as possible. The best approach to demographic ageing is the promotion of age-friendly communities where the public space, transport, housing, and local services are conceived with the needs of all generations in mind and where solidarity and cooperation between generations is fostered. Such communities also tend to be more environmentally friendly and conducive to greater social cohesion and better social participation of other vulnerable groups; |
| --- | --- |

6.

is of the opinion that the economic and financial crisis makes it more urgent than ever to fundamentally review the way our society functions and to do our utmost to empower everyone, young and old, to contribute actively in the labour market and in their communities and to live independently for as long as possible. The best approach to demographic ageing is the promotion of age-friendly communities where the public space, transport, housing, and local services are conceived with the needs of all generations in mind and where solidarity and cooperation between generations is fostered. Such communities also tend to be more environmentally friendly and conducive to greater social cohesion and better social participation of other vulnerable groups;

| 7. | stresses the importance of consulting and involving older people and their carers actively in the mapping of their needs, the development of solutions and evaluation of their performance. Such participatory approach supports social inclusion and ensures that the services delivered match as closely as possible the actual needs of the recipients; |
| --- | --- |

7.

stresses the importance of consulting and involving older people and their carers actively in the mapping of their needs, the development of solutions and evaluation of their performance. Such participatory approach supports social inclusion and ensures that the services delivered match as closely as possible the actual needs of the recipients;

| 8. | notes that in the last decade, the concept of silver economy has emerged in various parts of Europe and seeks to develop a wide range of products and services for the growing numbers of older people with health and care needs, reduced mobility and limitations in their daily life activities. The silver economy has extended to other market segments such as wellness, fitness, leisure, travel, culture, communication, entertainment, and access to new technologies. Many SMEs and business clusters in several Member States also specialise in innovative technology for the elderly, such as in the area of home-automation, which presents wonderful growth opportunities. However, it should also be noted that while acknowledging the need for specialised products and services for persons with specific needs, most older people prefer to be able to use ordinary goods and services. Therefore a broader approach based on the concept of Design-for-All - where the needs and expectations of older people and persons with disabilities are mainstreamed - should be promoted together with the development of specialised niche products for very specific needs; |
| --- | --- |

8.

notes that in the last decade, the concept of silver economy has emerged in various parts of Europe and seeks to develop a wide range of products and services for the growing numbers of older people with health and care needs, reduced mobility and limitations in their daily life activities. The silver economy has extended to other market segments such as wellness, fitness, leisure, travel, culture, communication, entertainment, and access to new technologies. Many SMEs and business clusters in several Member States also specialise in innovative technology for the elderly, such as in the area of home-automation, which presents wonderful growth opportunities. However, it should also be noted that while acknowledging the need for specialised products and services for persons with specific needs, most older people prefer to be able to use ordinary goods and services. Therefore a broader approach based on the concept of Design-for-All - where the needs and expectations of older people and persons with disabilities are mainstreamed - should be promoted together with the development of specialised niche products for very specific needs;

| 9. | points to the trend that more and more regional and local authorities are looking to social innovation and ICT-based solutions to improve the quality and cost efficiency of their health and long-term care services both in urban and rural areas where such solutions can help bring crucial services to older people at a cost that is more sustainable for the public and private purse. However, such initiatives require a certain amount of investment and actions that have to be implemented by other levels of governance to move from pilot projects to large scale models which can be deployed at national level or elsewhere in the EU. This is an area in which LRAs need as much support as they can get from both their national government and the EU level; |
| --- | --- |

9.

points to the trend that more and more regional and local authorities are looking to social innovation and ICT-based solutions to improve the quality and cost efficiency of their health and long-term care services both in urban and rural areas where such solutions can help bring crucial services to older people at a cost that is more sustainable for the public and private purse. However, such initiatives require a certain amount of investment and actions that have to be implemented by other levels of governance to move from pilot projects to large scale models which can be deployed at national level or elsewhere in the EU. This is an area in which LRAs need as much support as they can get from both their national government and the EU level;

| 10. | stresses that, while many examples of innovative measures that support active and healthy ageing can be found at the local level and social incubators are often local initiatives, close to the needs they try to address, a project-based approach is not always effective to achieve a critical mass and long-term sustainability. There is a need for a global strategic vision that encompasses issues from across the board in order to achieve inclusive and supportive environments. A clear example is the social innovation launched by the Municipality of Fredericia (DK) which seeks, through prevention, rehabilitation, technology and social networking, to maintain or restore self-help among older people calling for assistance for their daily life activities. Their approach is based on a change of paradigm in the way they perceive senior citizens from „helpless” patients to „citizens with resources”. This initiative was supported as a pilot project by the Danish Ministry of Finances and will now become a model for other Danish municipalities; |
| --- | --- |

10.

stresses that, while many examples of innovative measures that support active and healthy ageing can be found at the local level and social incubators are often local initiatives, close to the needs they try to address, a project-based approach is not always effective to achieve a critical mass and long-term sustainability. There is a need for a global strategic vision that encompasses issues from across the board in order to achieve inclusive and supportive environments. A clear example is the social innovation launched by the Municipality of Fredericia (DK) which seeks, through prevention, rehabilitation, technology and social networking, to maintain or restore self-help among older people calling for assistance for their daily life activities. Their approach is based on a change of paradigm in the way they perceive senior citizens from „helpless” patients to „citizens with resources”. This initiative was supported as a pilot project by the Danish Ministry of Finances and will now become a model for other Danish municipalities;

| 11. | emphasises that the challenges of population ageing have a strong gender dimension which calls for specific attention to be paid to the impact of the current social protection reforms and cuts in social services (in particular child and eldercare) on women’s employability, gender pay gaps and gender pension gaps, as the burden of care for dependent relatives will increase on informal carers - most of whom are women - and they will face a higher risk of poverty and social exclusion in the future if nothing is done to address these inequalities. Problems related to stress and overwork in the female-dominated health and care sector may also create new problems for older women in the future. |
| --- | --- |

11.

emphasises that the challenges of population ageing have a strong gender dimension which calls for specific attention to be paid to the impact of the current social protection reforms and cuts in social services (in particular child and eldercare) on women’s employability, gender pay gaps and gender pension gaps, as the burden of care for dependent relatives will increase on informal carers - most of whom are women - and they will face a higher risk of poverty and social exclusion in the future if nothing is done to address these inequalities. Problems related to stress and overwork in the female-dominated health and care sector may also create new problems for older women in the future.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COR TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

| 12. | feels that a better coordination between the different levels involved in developing solutions for active and healthy ageing is necessary and highlights the need for more multi-level governance in this area. LRAs should not be seen merely as implementing agents but be involved in the whole decision-making and evaluation process; |
| --- | --- |

12.

feels that a better coordination between the different levels involved in developing solutions for active and healthy ageing is necessary and highlights the need for more multi-level governance in this area. LRAs should not be seen merely as implementing agents but be involved in the whole decision-making and evaluation process;

| 13. | advocates that there would be a genuine added value if the EU was to create a framework that would enable public authorities and actors at all levels to benefit from each other’s experience, to build evidence on successful initiatives and learn from failures as this would enable them to avoid repeating mistakes, and help them invest their limited resources on innovative solutions that have proved effective; |
| --- | --- |

13.

advocates that there would be a genuine added value if the EU was to create a framework that would enable public authorities and actors at all levels to benefit from each other’s experience, to build evidence on successful initiatives and learn from failures as this would enable them to avoid repeating mistakes, and help them invest their limited resources on innovative solutions that have proved effective;

| 14. | recommends that the Committee of the Regions is invited to join to the Steering Group of the European Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) to ensure an adequate representation of LRAs in the EIP-AHA decision making process and enable the CoR to act as a multiplier to mobilise a wide range of LRAs to get involved in the implementation of the EIP-AHA as they have competencies in all of its six key action areas; |
| --- | --- |

14.

recommends that the Committee of the Regions is invited to join to the Steering Group of the European Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) to ensure an adequate representation of LRAs in the EIP-AHA decision making process and enable the CoR to act as a multiplier to mobilise a wide range of LRAs to get involved in the implementation of the EIP-AHA as they have competencies in all of its six key action areas;

| 15. | supports the proposal made under the European Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) to set up a European Network on Age-Friendly Environments and welcomes AGE Platform Europe and World Health Organisation efforts to initiate such network. The CoR recommends that EU funds should be allocated for an adequate development of such EU network in close cooperation with WHO; |
| --- | --- |

15.

supports the proposal made under the European Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP-AHA) to set up a European Network on Age-Friendly Environments and welcomes AGE Platform Europe and World Health Organisation efforts to initiate such network. The CoR recommends that EU funds should be allocated for an adequate development of such EU network in close cooperation with WHO;

| 16. | recommends that the Commission should make research into the very old a priority. This group is partly still new, and different stakeholders require more information about it. Research is needed to assess the efficacy and cost-efficiency of measures to promote health and prevent illness over the entire life cycle, and in particular during the final stage of life. There also a need for closer study of how older people who are more difficult to reach can be encouraged to change their habits and lifestyle. The very old need to be included in statistics and research, and people who work with the very old need to be made aware of the results of such research; |
| --- | --- |

16.

recommends that the Commission should make research into the very old a priority. This group is partly still new, and different stakeholders require more information about it. Research is needed to assess the efficacy and cost-efficiency of measures to promote health and prevent illness over the entire life cycle, and in particular during the final stage of life. There also a need for closer study of how older people who are more difficult to reach can be encouraged to change their habits and lifestyle. The very old need to be included in statistics and research, and people who work with the very old need to be made aware of the results of such research;

| 17. | calls on the European Commission to launch a European Covenant of Mayors on Demographic Change as a legacy to the European Year 2012 to gather LRAs interested to promote innovation, smart health and better lives solutions in support of active and healthy ageing and to provide administrative and financial support to the Covenant; |
| --- | --- |

17.

calls on the European Commission to launch a European Covenant of Mayors on Demographic Change as a legacy to the European Year 2012 to gather LRAs interested to promote innovation, smart health and better lives solutions in support of active and healthy ageing and to provide administrative and financial support to the Covenant;

| 18. | notes that while primary competences in the field of active ageing lay with the Member States and their local and regional authorities, the European Union can legislate on matters that affect the functioning of the internal market to remove barriers to the free movement of persons, promote the freedom to provide services and ensure an adequate protection of consumers. The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the EU creates new legal obligations for the EU to ensure that persons with disabilities and older people with impairments will be able to enjoy their right to freedom of movement and to participate fully in the economic and social life of their communities like any other citizens. This calls for EU action to ensure a coordinated response at EU, national and local/regional level. Moreover, the EU can facilitate transnational exchange of experience and promote soft measures such as codes of good practices to support an optimal implementation of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EU Treaties; |
| --- | --- |

18.

notes that while primary competences in the field of active ageing lay with the Member States and their local and regional authorities, the European Union can legislate on matters that affect the functioning of the internal market to remove barriers to the free movement of persons, promote the freedom to provide services and ensure an adequate protection of consumers. The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the EU creates new legal obligations for the EU to ensure that persons with disabilities and older people with impairments will be able to enjoy their right to freedom of movement and to participate fully in the economic and social life of their communities like any other citizens. This calls for EU action to ensure a coordinated response at EU, national and local/regional level. Moreover, the EU can facilitate transnational exchange of experience and promote soft measures such as codes of good practices to support an optimal implementation of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EU Treaties;

| 19. | notes that the European Commission is planning to table a proposal for an Accessibility Act and stresses that an EU legal framework is needed to enforce accessibility across the EU for all essential goods and services and to create a level playing field for all industry, including SMEs. This proposal should be proportionate and must not create additional red tape for SMEs. The adoption of EU wide standards would also be useful to support the industry and create an efficient single market of goods and services designed-for-all. A surveillance system should be set up to ensure the enforcement of legislation and accompanied by plans of action for national, regional and local authorities, as well as support to local actors and SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

19.

notes that the European Commission is planning to table a proposal for an Accessibility Act and stresses that an EU legal framework is needed to enforce accessibility across the EU for all essential goods and services and to create a level playing field for all industry, including SMEs. This proposal should be proportionate and must not create additional red tape for SMEs. The adoption of EU wide standards would also be useful to support the industry and create an efficient single market of goods and services designed-for-all. A surveillance system should be set up to ensure the enforcement of legislation and accompanied by plans of action for national, regional and local authorities, as well as support to local actors and SMEs;

| 20. | reminds that an adequate public procurement legal framework is key at EU, national and local levels to ensure that public investment promotes accessibility for all. Accessibility should also become an essential pre-requirement to receive EU funding (structural, project or research funding), and support is needed to help less advanced regions comply with EU legislation and standards. Financial incentives should be considered to enhance accessibility, notably for public authorities to upgrade existing building and housing as well as to support investment in innovative solutions; |
| --- | --- |

20.

reminds that an adequate public procurement legal framework is key at EU, national and local levels to ensure that public investment promotes accessibility for all. Accessibility should also become an essential pre-requirement to receive EU funding (structural, project or research funding), and support is needed to help less advanced regions comply with EU legislation and standards. Financial incentives should be considered to enhance accessibility, notably for public authorities to upgrade existing building and housing as well as to support investment in innovative solutions;

| 21. | stresses that awareness-raising is needed to accompany key legal measures and make them work as a wake-up to reality. This should be targeted at local and regional authorities, manufacturers, suppliers and services providers, and citizens in general. Education and training policies are important to reinforce and support accessibility: ensuring that engineers, architects, web-designers, builders, town planners (etc.) are properly trained to mainstream the issues of accessibility and apply universal design, is a key requirement; |
| --- | --- |

21.

stresses that awareness-raising is needed to accompany key legal measures and make them work as a wake-up to reality. This should be targeted at local and regional authorities, manufacturers, suppliers and services providers, and citizens in general. Education and training policies are important to reinforce and support accessibility: ensuring that engineers, architects, web-designers, builders, town planners (etc.) are properly trained to mainstream the issues of accessibility and apply universal design, is a key requirement;

| 22. | recalls that life-long-learning and volunteering are key drivers of active and healthy ageing. Adult education and older volunteering should be supported at EU, national and local level to help extend working lives, promote active retirement and support independent living; |
| --- | --- |

22.

recalls that life-long-learning and volunteering are key drivers of active and healthy ageing. Adult education and older volunteering should be supported at EU, national and local level to help extend working lives, promote active retirement and support independent living;

| 23. | recommends therefore that the objectives of the EY2012 on Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations and of the EIP-AHA are mainstreamed in all relevant future EU funding instruments, including the Structural Funds, and procedures to apply are simplified for local and regional actors; welcomes the European Day of Intergenerational Solidarity, which is particularly significant in the European Year 2012 and promotes intergenerational projects between schoolchildren and senior citizens and thus delivers a major contribution to intergenerational dialogue; |
| --- | --- |

23.

recommends therefore that the objectives of the EY2012 on Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations and of the EIP-AHA are mainstreamed in all relevant future EU funding instruments, including the Structural Funds, and procedures to apply are simplified for local and regional actors; welcomes the European Day of Intergenerational Solidarity, which is particularly significant in the European Year 2012 and promotes intergenerational projects between schoolchildren and senior citizens and thus delivers a major contribution to intergenerational dialogue;

| 24. | welcomes the launch of a Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) on innovation for healthy living and active ageing in 2014 and recommends to the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) do their utmost to involve LRAs and local/regional actors in the implementation of this KIC; |
| --- | --- |

24.

welcomes the launch of a Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) on innovation for healthy living and active ageing in 2014 and recommends to the European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT) do their utmost to involve LRAs and local/regional actors in the implementation of this KIC;

| 25. | recommends that the European Commission involve LRAs more actively in the EU social impact assessment process of the various initiatives implemented to support active and healthy ageing to ensure that the impact on grass root older women and men is adequately assessed; |
| --- | --- |

25.

recommends that the European Commission involve LRAs more actively in the EU social impact assessment process of the various initiatives implemented to support active and healthy ageing to ensure that the impact on grass root older women and men is adequately assessed;

| 26. | recalls that active and healthy ageing is a key objective of Europe 2020 and is supported by various flagship initiatives (New skills for new Jobs, Platform against Poverty, Digital Agenda) and a wide range of EU funding instruments available to LRAs as outlined in the brochure co-produced by the Committee of the Regions, the European Commission and AGE Platform Europe on „How to promote active ageing in Europe - EU support to local and regional actors” published in September 2011 as a contribution to the EY2012
   (3)”; |
| --- | --- |

26.

recalls that active and healthy ageing is a key objective of Europe 2020 and is supported by various flagship initiatives (New skills for new Jobs, Platform against Poverty, Digital Agenda) and a wide range of EU funding instruments available to LRAs as outlined in the brochure co-produced by the Committee of the Regions, the European Commission and AGE Platform Europe on „How to promote active ageing in Europe - EU support to local and regional actors” published in September 2011 as a contribution to the EY2012
   (3)”;

| 27. | concludes therefore that there seems to be no issue regarding the compliance of the proposed initiatives with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality as defined in the EU Treaties. |
| --- | --- |

27.

concludes therefore that there seems to be no issue regarding the compliance of the proposed initiatives with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality as defined in the EU Treaties.

III.   CHALLENGES

| 28. | recalls that by 2060, it is believed that the population of young people throughout the EU-27 will decrease by 9 % (4) and the working-age population (15-64) by 15 %. Furthermore, the number of elderly people is expected to increase by a huge 79 %. These demographic changes are the result of a variety of phenomena such as the lower levels of fertility, the increase in life expectancy, total net migration, and the ageing of those being born during the „baby boom” after World War II. It is obvious that these demographic trends will have significant economic, social and budgetary impact at national and regional/local levels. The CoR study on Active Ageing: local and regional solutions
   (5) explains the repercussions quite well when it states that „labour supply and employment will shrink, challenging economic growth, while the demand for services by the ageing population will rise”. Moreover, public expenditures are expected to increase in order to deliver quality service to their ageing population whilst also having to finance health care and pensions for an increasing number of older people. However, most LRAs have suffered drastic budgetary restrictions that are already making it extremely difficult for them to provide dynamic and modern social services of an adequate standard; |
| --- | --- |

28.

recalls that by 2060, it is believed that the population of young people throughout the EU-27 will decrease by 9 % (4) and the working-age population (15-64) by 15 %. Furthermore, the number of elderly people is expected to increase by a huge 79 %. These demographic changes are the result of a variety of phenomena such as the lower levels of fertility, the increase in life expectancy, total net migration, and the ageing of those being born during the „baby boom” after World War II. It is obvious that these demographic trends will have significant economic, social and budgetary impact at national and regional/local levels. The CoR study on Active Ageing: local and regional solutions
   (5) explains the repercussions quite well when it states that „labour supply and employment will shrink, challenging economic growth, while the demand for services by the ageing population will rise”. Moreover, public expenditures are expected to increase in order to deliver quality service to their ageing population whilst also having to finance health care and pensions for an increasing number of older people. However, most LRAs have suffered drastic budgetary restrictions that are already making it extremely difficult for them to provide dynamic and modern social services of an adequate standard;

| 29. | stresses that there are huge disparities between countries and regions in terms of life expectancy of men and women, healthy life year indicators, median ages and dependency ratios. Population ageing is forecasted in almost all 281 regions of the EU27 with only seven regions expected not to see their median age increase by 2030: Wien in Austria, Hamburg and Trier in Germany, Sterea Ellada and Peloponnisos in Greece and West Midlands and North Eastern Scotland in the UK (6). In 2008 dependency ratios varied almost threefold between regions (9.1 % to 26.8 %). In 2030, the variation will be almost fourfold (10.4 % to 37.3 %) (7). This means that regions are not all equal in terms of demographic ageing and this, combined with the current economic crisis, affects some LRAs more than others; |
| --- | --- |

29.

stresses that there are huge disparities between countries and regions in terms of life expectancy of men and women, healthy life year indicators, median ages and dependency ratios. Population ageing is forecasted in almost all 281 regions of the EU27 with only seven regions expected not to see their median age increase by 2030: Wien in Austria, Hamburg and Trier in Germany, Sterea Ellada and Peloponnisos in Greece and West Midlands and North Eastern Scotland in the UK (6). In 2008 dependency ratios varied almost threefold between regions (9.1 % to 26.8 %). In 2030, the variation will be almost fourfold (10.4 % to 37.3 %) (7). This means that regions are not all equal in terms of demographic ageing and this, combined with the current economic crisis, affects some LRAs more than others;

| 30. | stresses also that there are huge disparities between countries and regions in terms of sovereign debt and some are facing very severe cuts in their budgets that may hamper their ability to benefit from EU funding through Structural Funds or ageing related Joint Programmes; |
| --- | --- |

30.

stresses also that there are huge disparities between countries and regions in terms of sovereign debt and some are facing very severe cuts in their budgets that may hamper their ability to benefit from EU funding through Structural Funds or ageing related Joint Programmes;

| 31. | reminds, as stated in its Opinion on a strategy towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems
   (8), that LRAs will remain the largest public sector employer and as a consequence public pensions will continue to be fundamental in ensuring pension systems. These pensions, however, will be increasingly affected by budgetary measures and reforms. Therefore, the ability of LRAs to compensate for this effect should be taken into account to be able to provide all older women and men, with an adequate income including through help and care services provided in-kind. The Committee of the Regions proposed a social dimension to macro economic surveillance as a way to deal with these effects; |
| --- | --- |

31.

reminds, as stated in its Opinion on a strategy towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems
   (8), that LRAs will remain the largest public sector employer and as a consequence public pensions will continue to be fundamental in ensuring pension systems. These pensions, however, will be increasingly affected by budgetary measures and reforms. Therefore, the ability of LRAs to compensate for this effect should be taken into account to be able to provide all older women and men, with an adequate income including through help and care services provided in-kind. The Committee of the Regions proposed a social dimension to macro economic surveillance as a way to deal with these effects;

| 32. | stated in its Opinion on ageing well in the information society
   (9) that ICT solutions can improve the productivity of social and health care services if adapted rightly to the needs of the elderly and reminds that LRAs should be involved in national and EU research on ICT solutions for ageing because they will often be the primary users of the outcomes; |
| --- | --- |

32.

stated in its Opinion on ageing well in the information society
   (9) that ICT solutions can improve the productivity of social and health care services if adapted rightly to the needs of the elderly and reminds that LRAs should be involved in national and EU research on ICT solutions for ageing because they will often be the primary users of the outcomes;

| 33. | recalls, however, that LRAs cannot support active and healthy ageing on their own. To be successful they need a supportive legal, financial and structural environment which requires action to be taken at national and EU level. For example, to deploy ICT initiatives in support to innovation, smart health and better lives across all EU regions, structural investment is needed at EU and national level to extend broadband access and EU legislation is needed to harmonise accessibility criteria and interoperability standards; |
| --- | --- |

33.

recalls, however, that LRAs cannot support active and healthy ageing on their own. To be successful they need a supportive legal, financial and structural environment which requires action to be taken at national and EU level. For example, to deploy ICT initiatives in support to innovation, smart health and better lives across all EU regions, structural investment is needed at EU and national level to extend broadband access and EU legislation is needed to harmonise accessibility criteria and interoperability standards;

| 34. | highlights that the increasing number of pre-conditions, accounting, financial and audit procedures required to access structural funds subsidies, has led to an increased number of projects focusing on measurable results, rather than more innovative and risk-oriented projects which, de facto, take more time to deliver a positive outcome and are harder to measure. In practice, social innovation is currently confronted with barriers that are more often than not linked to incompatible audit or regulatory cultures. Indeed, this issue is not only linked to the use of structural funds, but is problematic in many other EU and national funding instruments; |
| --- | --- |

34.

highlights that the increasing number of pre-conditions, accounting, financial and audit procedures required to access structural funds subsidies, has led to an increased number of projects focusing on measurable results, rather than more innovative and risk-oriented projects which, de facto, take more time to deliver a positive outcome and are harder to measure. In practice, social innovation is currently confronted with barriers that are more often than not linked to incompatible audit or regulatory cultures. Indeed, this issue is not only linked to the use of structural funds, but is problematic in many other EU and national funding instruments;

| 35. | acknowledges, however, that modifications are needed to the way structural funds are implemented to include evidence based conditions in order not to undermine the efforts made to increase the added value and efficiency of EU funds in this area. Denmark and Sweden have such evidence based procedures in place to monitor performance against a set of agreed indicators and feed the information back into the monitoring system to keep improving the quality and cost efficiency of the services they provide and fund. The UK government has recently put in place the social-impact bond, which aims to attract „new investment around such outcomes-based contracts that benefit individuals and communities. Through a Social Impact Bond, private investment is used to pay for interventions, which are delivered by service providers with a proven track record. Financial returns to investors are made by the public sector on the basis of improved social outcomes. If outcomes do not improve, then investors do not recover their investment” (10). |
| --- | --- |

35.

acknowledges, however, that modifications are needed to the way structural funds are implemented to include evidence based conditions in order not to undermine the efforts made to increase the added value and efficiency of EU funds in this area. Denmark and Sweden have such evidence based procedures in place to monitor performance against a set of agreed indicators and feed the information back into the monitoring system to keep improving the quality and cost efficiency of the services they provide and fund. The UK government has recently put in place the social-impact bond, which aims to attract „new investment around such outcomes-based contracts that benefit individuals and communities. Through a Social Impact Bond, private investment is used to pay for interventions, which are delivered by service providers with a proven track record. Financial returns to investors are made by the public sector on the basis of improved social outcomes. If outcomes do not improve, then investors do not recover their investment” (10).

IV.   OPPORTUNITIES

| 36. | notes that countries with high accessibility standards in the build environment, transport and ICT are the countries where the highest levels of employment of both older women and men are found and those which perform best in terms of Healthy Life Year indicators. It is also in these countries that the employment rates of women and persons with disabilities are the highest and where gender equality indicators show the best outcomes (gender income gap, gender pension gap, etc.). This shows that promoting age-friendly local environments in a pro-active way does not hamper the economy, but on the contrary benefits society and the economy in general. Such environments make life easier for everyone and support labour market participation of women, older workers and persons with disabilities and an active and productive participation of retired persons in their communities. They also support informal carers and enable them to reconcile more easily work and care duties; |
| --- | --- |

36.

notes that countries with high accessibility standards in the build environment, transport and ICT are the countries where the highest levels of employment of both older women and men are found and those which perform best in terms of Healthy Life Year indicators. It is also in these countries that the employment rates of women and persons with disabilities are the highest and where gender equality indicators show the best outcomes (gender income gap, gender pension gap, etc.). This shows that promoting age-friendly local environments in a pro-active way does not hamper the economy, but on the contrary benefits society and the economy in general. Such environments make life easier for everyone and support labour market participation of women, older workers and persons with disabilities and an active and productive participation of retired persons in their communities. They also support informal carers and enable them to reconcile more easily work and care duties;

| 37. | welcomes the fact that there are already hundreds of LRAs involved in the World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly Cities programme across the EU and a few Member States have launched national programmes to support LRAs wishing to join the WHO AFC network; |
| --- | --- |

37.

welcomes the fact that there are already hundreds of LRAs involved in the World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly Cities programme across the EU and a few Member States have launched national programmes to support LRAs wishing to join the WHO AFC network;

| 38. | given the increase number of older people suffering of Alzheimer and other forms of dementia, welcomes the initiative taken by some LRAs to create Alzheimer-friendly environments to promote a better inclusion of older persons with dementia and their informal carers in the community; |
| --- | --- |

38.

given the increase number of older people suffering of Alzheimer and other forms of dementia, welcomes the initiative taken by some LRAs to create Alzheimer-friendly environments to promote a better inclusion of older persons with dementia and their informal carers in the community;

| 39. | stresses that creating environments that are designed-for-all and support independent living of older people with disabilities or activity limitations have proved cost efficient. The Swedish experience shows that the decreasing demand for help in Sweden over the past 15 years cannot be explained by improvements in health as there is no evidence of such improvements among the elderly over that period in Sweden. The most likely explanation for the reduced need for elderly care is related to better accessibility standards in housing and transport, and better access to assistive technology, making it easier for older people to manage without help. It is worth noting that Sweden has the best employment rates for older workers and older women of all EU Member States; |
| --- | --- |

39.

stresses that creating environments that are designed-for-all and support independent living of older people with disabilities or activity limitations have proved cost efficient. The Swedish experience shows that the decreasing demand for help in Sweden over the past 15 years cannot be explained by improvements in health as there is no evidence of such improvements among the elderly over that period in Sweden. The most likely explanation for the reduced need for elderly care is related to better accessibility standards in housing and transport, and better access to assistive technology, making it easier for older people to manage without help. It is worth noting that Sweden has the best employment rates for older workers and older women of all EU Member States;

| 40. | highlights however that while LRAs have an important role to play as purchasers of goods and services, notably through public procurement and can thus act as political drivers to promote a positive approach to ageing, the fragmentation of existing and emerging markets for innovative solutions supporting active and healthy ageing needs to be addressed to create a real single market for the silver economy and allow economies of scale for public tenderers and consumers. The upcoming Accessibility Act will seek to address the barriers that prevent the creation of an EU market where local/regional innovative solutions could be more easily modelled and deployed at a larger scale to other EU regions. SMEs are often the forefront of innovation and are closer to the local markets. They often deliver a personalised service and adapt to their consumers’ needs. SMEs would benefit from having clear rules and standards that will ensure them access to an EU wide market and will facilitate interoperability with other goods and services for an optimum outcome. |
| --- | --- |

40.

highlights however that while LRAs have an important role to play as purchasers of goods and services, notably through public procurement and can thus act as political drivers to promote a positive approach to ageing, the fragmentation of existing and emerging markets for innovative solutions supporting active and healthy ageing needs to be addressed to create a real single market for the silver economy and allow economies of scale for public tenderers and consumers. The upcoming Accessibility Act will seek to address the barriers that prevent the creation of an EU market where local/regional innovative solutions could be more easily modelled and deployed at a larger scale to other EU regions. SMEs are often the forefront of innovation and are closer to the local markets. They often deliver a personalised service and adapt to their consumers’ needs. SMEs would benefit from having clear rules and standards that will ensure them access to an EU wide market and will facilitate interoperability with other goods and services for an optimum outcome.

V.   CONCLUSIONS

| 41. | concludes that ensuring the development of accessible and supportive local environments based on the concept of design-for-all will help older workers and women remain in employment for longer and reduce the demand on care and assistance for the rapidly growing number of older people. The CoR is confident that EU action to support active and healthy ageing and solidarity between generations will boost innovation and growth potential across the EU and will bring economic benefits both for public and private actors at local, national and EU levels; |
| --- | --- |

41.

concludes that ensuring the development of accessible and supportive local environments based on the concept of design-for-all will help older workers and women remain in employment for longer and reduce the demand on care and assistance for the rapidly growing number of older people. The CoR is confident that EU action to support active and healthy ageing and solidarity between generations will boost innovation and growth potential across the EU and will bring economic benefits both for public and private actors at local, national and EU levels;

| 42. | agrees with the Danish Presidency approach to ageing and stresses that for social innovation to be used to respond to our ageing society, it is of utmost importance that the EU creates a common framework allowing the potential of social innovation to be fully exploited in the future. An EU common framework in support of social innovation would indeed make it easier for social innovators throughout Europe to act, get funding, network and scale up their ventures. |
| --- | --- |

42.

agrees with the Danish Presidency approach to ageing and stresses that for social innovation to be used to respond to our ageing society, it is of utmost importance that the EU creates a common framework allowing the potential of social innovation to be fully exploited in the future. An EU common framework in support of social innovation would indeed make it easier for social innovators throughout Europe to act, get funding, network and scale up their ventures.

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 212/2009.

1

(2)  Kastler, P7_TA(2011) 0332.

2

(3)  http://bibli.reseauope.net/opac_css/index.php?lvl=author_see&id=264.

3

(4)  Source: Eurostat Population structure and ageing statistics.

4

(5)  www.cor.europa.eu/COR_cms/ui/ViewDocument.aspx?siteid=default&contentID=a18962c0-1f8f-44e9-9f3d-bfa7955830db.

5

(6)  Eurostat, regional EUROPOP 2008.

6

(7)  Ibid.

7

(8)  CdR 319/2010.

8

(9)  CdR 84/2007.

9

(10)  http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/work/sibs.

10

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/52

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Energy efficiency in cities and regions — a focus on the differences between rural districts and cities’

2012/C 225/06

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | demands that energy efficiency must be a central and integral element of energy policies and must be given sufficient priority in the energy policy hierarchy; |
| --- | --- |

—

demands that energy efficiency must be a central and integral element of energy policies and must be given sufficient priority in the energy policy hierarchy;

| — | supports a better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and energy conservation in future EU funding programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports a better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and energy conservation in future EU funding programmes;

| — | calls for stronger measures to influence human behaviour and energy consumption patterns and suggests that this requires a mix of ‘carrot and stick’ measures, demonstrating the economic case but also greater emphasis on mandatory requirements, when necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for stronger measures to influence human behaviour and energy consumption patterns and suggests that this requires a mix of ‘carrot and stick’ measures, demonstrating the economic case but also greater emphasis on mandatory requirements, when necessary;

| — | acknowledges that the current policy focus is on cities to realise current policy objectives, but underlines the need to also address in a more comprehensive and coordinated way the challenges and opportunities that rural areas face when it comes to energy use and production. |
| --- | --- |

—

acknowledges that the current policy focus is on cities to realise current policy objectives, but underlines the need to also address in a more comprehensive and coordinated way the challenges and opportunities that rural areas face when it comes to energy use and production.

| — | calls on Local and Regional Authorities to share energy efficiency and conservation best practice and to enhance energy resilience by planning for and piloting the delivery of their services with minimal energy input levels. |
| --- | --- |

—

calls on Local and Regional Authorities to share energy efficiency and conservation best practice and to enhance energy resilience by planning for and piloting the delivery of their services with minimal energy input levels.

| Rapporteur | Brian MEANEY (IE/EA), State Assembly Clare County Council and Mid-West Regional Authority |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Referral by the Danish Presidency of 12 January 2012 |

Rapporteur

Brian MEANEY (IE/EA), State Assembly Clare County Council and Mid-West Regional Authority

Reference document

Referral by the Danish Presidency of 12 January 2012

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A)   Introduction

1.   emphasises that the Europe 2020 Strategy correctly puts the efficient use of energy at the core of achieving its objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which necessitates the transition to a resource efficient economy. Energy efficiency is not about reducing outputs or economic activity; it is about achieving the same outputs but reducing energy consumption per production unit. This entails the identification and elimination of unnecessary uses of energy as well as more efficient methods of production;

2.   notes with concern that the EU is projected to achieve only half of its 20 % proposed savings from primary energy consumption by 2020. The delivery of the 2020 targets demands a coordinated effort at all levels, EU, national, regional and local. Energy efficiency is a key priority and requires reinforced policies at all levels;

3.   reiterates that for the EU to achieve its objectives of a sustainable, competitive and secure supply of energy, it has to act collectively in a spirit of solidarity and efficiency identifying and deploying existing and emerging technological developments and influencing behaviour change that facilitate and enhance energy efficiency. In this context, the EU should prioritise the introduction of the most efficient and commercially most competitive technologies in the short and medium term;

4.   underlines that not least through local and regional energy bodies, cities regions and local authorities have a key role to play in facilitating, fostering and regulating for more efficient use of energy in their own operations and infrastructure; as well as with consumers and producers of energy. To carry out this work, the CoR recognises that authorities must be empowered in terms of funding and support to be able to play their part in delivering and enhancing energy efficiency measures;

5.   highlights the role of regional and local administrations in setting an example, attracting investment and generating jobs and calls on the EU to promote the preparation of regional and local energy efficiency plans that contribute to national and European energy goals, and the improvement of energy information systems, as well as introducing mechanisms to support these activities;

6.   endorses the United Nations' initiative of the ‘International Year of Sustainable Energy for All’, as it presents a valuable opportunity to raise awareness about the importance of improving energy efficiency and renewable energy at the local, national, regional and international levels. Lack of access to clean, affordable and reliable energy hinders human, social and economic development and is a major impediment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. The transition towards a full conversion to renewable energy needs to go hand in hand with increased efforts to reduce energy consumption and the development of new energy sources, which also means reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.;

7.   further notes that with the economies of India and China only ‘warming up’ China's energy demand is expected to soar by 75 % by 2035 (1); the resultant increasing competition for energy currently imported by the EU could cause supply, distribution and cost challenges that may have severe and multi-layered economic and societal implications. Concrete and feasible action plans must be developed in response to these developments with the aim of meeting needs as quickly as possible from locally available renewable energy sources. City, regional and local authorities should be integral to the development of such plans;

8.   points out that there is an unrealised gain for society in initiating green conversion projects in municipalities and regions, and emphasises in this connection that the European Commission and national governments should earmark substantial funds for making public buildings more energy-efficient;

9.   notes the current debate on the Energy Efficiency Directive and requests that a strong, ambitious text is adopted. Cities and Regions can only benefit from becoming more energy efficient and reducing their energy consumption: they would be able to reduce their reliance on imported fuel, provide up to 2 million local jobs through building and retrofit works (2) and give households considerable savings on their energy bills. Furthermore, the EU would be able to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions further and set itself even more ambitious targets in this area. This proposed Directive is, therefore, a first real step towards alleviating the current crisis. However, all in all it is not really enough as it primarily pursues economic objectives i.e. reducing imports of foreign oil and gas and redirecting these billions of euro into the EU economies, without at the same time developing suitable concrete ideas concerning the massive expansion of renewable energy sources that is necessary; A key way of achieving this is to enable all Member States to take action based on their own circumstances, so as to develop the most effective measures for each country;

10.   specifically regrets in this context the absence of a coherent long-term vision for the renovation of the habitable building stock, requiring renovation and absence of explicit and specific financial assistance commitments for local and regional authorities to promote energy efficiency investments at the local and regional level. It is important in this connection to pay attention to the difference between social objectives and business ones. The renovation of a building must depend on what is economically feasible for the enterprise, while the community must make the social objectives achievable;

11.   recommends that the EU enhance the systems for providing information on energy efficiency, including information relating to both national and regional energy-efficiency policies; systems for evaluating regional energy-saving tracking procedures; energy-efficiency indicators; databases of standards for applicable energy-saving measures, guides to best practice; implementation standards, etc.; agrees with the European association of local authorities Energy Cities in stating that financing is ‘crucial’ for the proposed measures to be delivered. Furthermore, the CoR notes that the proposed Energy Efficiency Directive lacks binding targets, has no meaningful review process and contains easy opt-outs. The CoR therefore welcomes the efforts of the Polish and Danish Presidencies to include the required financing measures and other factors that are still missing in the proposal. The CoR supports the Danish Presidency's work to find a political compromise which ensures that the public authorities can press forward with making their buildings more energy-efficient bearing in mind local and regional circumstances in the Member States these measures. The proposed obligation for energy companies to make an average of 1.5 % energy savings per year is particularly welcome.

12.   emphasises that greater energy efficiency cannot only be achieved through rigid areas of action laid down by central government that do not take into account local and regional circumstances in the Member States and therefore calls for the possibility to implement alternative approaches to achieving energy reduction targets, provided that the same level of reduction in energy consumption is achieved, and for municipalities and regions to be able to propose energy-saving strategies;

13.   notes the dominant compartmentalisation of policy and thinking about energy within the EU. It is carved up by sector (transport, building etc.) to the detriment of consideration of the spatial and territorial inequalities and potential that must be addressed if the whole of the Union is to progress;

14.   requests that appropriate energy management/ conservation measures are developed alongside the improvement of energy efficiency and calls for the development of energy management/ conservation objectives for energy reduction which could assist and surpass the energy reduction targets by improving energy efficiency;

15.   requests acknowledgement, by the Danish EU Presidency, of the role of local and regional authorities in achieving the Europe 2020 energy efficiency targets. Reference to local and regional authorities is almost completely absent from the current Council draft negotiating document on the future Energy Efficiency Directive and from the European Commission's Communication on Energy Roadmap 2050. Further, considers that the revised National Reform Programmes and the country specific recommendations need to more strongly reflect the commitments that have been made on energy efficiency;

16.   welcomes the Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) funding initiative and welcomes the efforts it makes to overcome market barriers. The IEE programme should concentrate on promoting actions relating to behavioural change. However, the Committee calls for the results and recommendations of the IEE projects to be disseminated more resolutely (information, legislation, etc.) throughout the EU, and, similarly, for the 2014-2020 funding for the IEE programme or programmes replacing it to be secured;

17.   As regards the particular territorial dimension of the problem, the CoR would point out that:

| — | EU rural areas use more polluting energy sources than urban areas, consequently substitution of heavy polluting fossil fuels by less polluting fossil fuels as a transitional solution and then above all by renewable energy should be particularly supported; |
| --- | --- |

—

EU rural areas use more polluting energy sources than urban areas, consequently substitution of heavy polluting fossil fuels by less polluting fossil fuels as a transitional solution and then above all by renewable energy should be particularly supported;

| — | despite the catching-up of rural areas, their level of economic development still remains lower than the EU average, particularly in comparison to urban areas. This gap between rural and urban areas is extremely marked in Eastern and Central Europe and is even more worrying, as it rose between 2000 and 2007 due to the quick expansion of the big cities and capitals; |
| --- | --- |

—

despite the catching-up of rural areas, their level of economic development still remains lower than the EU average, particularly in comparison to urban areas. This gap between rural and urban areas is extremely marked in Eastern and Central Europe and is even more worrying, as it rose between 2000 and 2007 due to the quick expansion of the big cities and capitals;

B)   Cities, Regional and Local Authorities

18.   reiterates its call for a better urban-rural balance in sustainable energy policies across the EU and stresses the need to tap the potential of rural areas for the achievement of the Europe 2020 energy efficiency objectives. Indeed, there is considerable potential in rural areas for both energy generation and to reduce consumption - sizeable tracts of land for wind farms or solar power plants are only available in the countryside. At the same time, modern agriculture needs considerable amounts of energy to operate. The potential for energy saving and for developing new energy sources, however, is largely overlooked;

19.   highlights the existence of substantial disparities between urban and rural areas. Energy efficiency in rural areas is in a critical state and needs to be addressed urgently. Rural households and small businesses face several disadvantages with regards to their energy use, particularly due to the nature of households and the quality of the building stock. Rural buildings are significantly older and their renovation is more costly and often beyond the reach of their owners. One reason for this is population density: insulation of individual rural homes cannot benefit from the same economies of scale that urban homes with multiple tenants may have. This situation, which applies to all Member States in various degrees, leads to proportionately higher energy costs in rural areas, where the income per inhabitant is 21 % to 62 % lower in rural areas (3);

20.   highlights that when it comes to energy however, EU energy policy has been determined by the needs of large cities. Investors still focus their attention almost exclusively on infrastructure designed to serve urban areas;

21.   stresses that access to energy is generally more expensive in rural areas and in remote regions. Moreover, energy efficiency is lower due to the scarce uptake of clean technologies and ineffective insulation, and calls for appropriate solutions of governance and funding to enable rural areas across the EU to catch up with urban areas in this respect, especially the potential that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and its LEADER approach presents. Indeed numerous best practices and pilot projects carried out across the EU have already clearly demonstrated that rural areas have the potential to provide for their own energy needs from different sources such as carbon neutral energy sources which do not produce greenhouse gas emissions, biomass, fuel cells, etc.

22.   considers that ESF support for capacity-building especially in up skilling workers which could also cover the use of traditional techniques involving typical materials from the region, should recognise and take into account the differing needs of urban and rural areas so that rural workers should not be left behind. Otherwise, this would cause a gap in skills needed to implement technologies appropriate to rural areas and exacerbate the energy divide between these areas;

23.   highlights that education policy can play a significant role in raising awareness of energy efficiency and influencing the required human behavioural changes; suggests that a benchmarking of existing educational initiatives be undertaken to identify best practice and develop curricula that can incorporate sustainability studies at the earliest stages of the formal learning process; furthermore, calls for the next ‘Erasmus for All’ programme to develop knowledge alliances, between the university sector and ‘green businesses’ to develop new curricula to address innovation and skills gaps in the energy efficiency and conservation sector.

24.   emphasises that local and regional authorities can also contribute to achieving energy efficiency gains by mainstreaming environmental factors in public procurement procedures. Welcomes the proposal for Directive on new public procurement rules adopted by the Commission (4). This proposal requires that local and regional authorities may take into account environmental factors, including energy efficiency in the public procurement procedures. The assessment of tenders using MEAT (Most Economical Advantageous Tender) by Local and Regional Authorities should be encouraged to take account of the Energy savings over the lifetime of the tender proposal;

C)   Consumers

25.   underlines that there is also a social dimension whereby fuel poverty may particularly impinge on lower income groups, more in some countries than others. Even with the reasons and consequences of fuel poverty, there are also important differences between urban and rural areas which need to be considered for appropriate action, and which are not necessarily correlated with the overall energy efficiency of certain countries or regions;

26.   requests measures to place consumers in a position, when they are dealing with producers/suppliers, where in order to negotiate benefits in exchange for changed usage patterns i.e. where individuals shift usage to off-peak hours en masse, they should be supported to achieve the discounts appropriate to bulk purchasers. Similarly, the deployment of advanced smart network technology for measuring consumption and billing should be supported as a public good making it possible to increase the energy efficiency levels of suppliers (through efficient management of the network, better maintenance of networks and equipment, etc.) and consumers (through better knowledge of consumption meters, billing, contracting services, network services, smart interactive consumption, etc. Furthermore, commercial resistance to same should not be tolerated and its generalised introduction should take place ahead of schedule. It is important to ensure that the installation of advanced metering equipment does not lead to major increases in charges to consumers;

27.   welcomes the renewal and continuation of the Energy Star labelling programme associated with the proposal for an energy-efficiency labelling programme for office equipment and notes that the proposal for a Regulation COM(2012) 109 final provides for the renewal of the Energy Star agreement in connection with a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the European Union on the coordination of energy-efficiency labelling programmes for office equipment (COM (2012) 108 final).Use of There the Energy Star labels should be encouraged. It is noted that high energy costs will encourage the sale of highly energy efficient appliances. Furthermore, labelling displaying embodied manufacturing energy should be considered by the commission.

D)   Financing

28.   recalling the opinion on Climate Change and the Future of the EU (5), remains concerned with the ongoing focus on austerity measures overshadowing any issues pertaining to the real economy in the context of the future EU Budget 2014-2020, especially the urgently required increase of the EU budget available for local and regional, urban and rural, sustainable energy investment as requested in previous CoR opinions; However, welcomes the inclusion of the ‘shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors’ as an investment priority under the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) (6) but emphasises that while the Funds under the CSF must be used to address identified regional challenges, there must also be a balance between sustainable production and energy efficiency;

29.   regrets that the ear-marking of financing, such as national energy efficiency funds, has not been considered by the Council as a provision to be included within the text of the Energy Efficiency Directive; highlights the need to strongly promote the role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) through national and local credit institutions with a view to financing investments in energy efficiency;

30.   requests that the Danish Presidency ensure that future grant assistance in promoting space heating and cooling efficiency measures are linked to measured savings achieved in energy consumption for each individual facility;

31.   requests that the European Commission make provision in the upcoming EU Budget for the proposed Energy Efficiency Directive and ensure that enough, funds are attributed to energy efficiency in rural housing;

32.   highlights the fact that a major problem for rural areas lies in the capacity of local and regional levels to access funding which already exists:

| — | financial mechanisms (ELENA, etc.) and funds dedicated to energy efficiency (EEEF etc.); |
| --- | --- |

—

financial mechanisms (ELENA, etc.) and funds dedicated to energy efficiency (EEEF etc.);

| — | the experience of the current funding period shows that for a number of different reasons the funds set aside for energy efficiency from the Structural Funds cannot be fully exploited. Therefore, in the financial framework 2014-2020, which even makes provision for a higher percentage of funds than before to be dedicated to energy efficiency, care must be taken to facilitate access by local and regional authorities to these funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

the experience of the current funding period shows that for a number of different reasons the funds set aside for energy efficiency from the Structural Funds cannot be fully exploited. Therefore, in the financial framework 2014-2020, which even makes provision for a higher percentage of funds than before to be dedicated to energy efficiency, care must be taken to facilitate access by local and regional authorities to these funds;

33.   underlines that there are other financial tools such as energy performance contracts, public-public partnerships, and national and regional energy efficiency funds, which encourage work on energy efficiency at a time when public money is in increasingly short supply. Indeed, in the current situation of limited public resources and difficulties faced by many small and medium size businesses, particular attention should be paid to ensure the best possible balance in EU spending between large scale infrastructure on one hand and decentralised energy production which is the very essence of rural energy; in addition, urges the EU to promote and regulate at European level energy services businesses as bodies which finance investments in efficiency and are thus able to access special European funds;

34.   believes that in order to improve access to financing, instruments are needed to help consumers and public authorities meet co-financing requirements as well as put together innovative plans that attract the provision of credit;

35.   recalls that the CoR Europe2020 survey carried out in early 2010 on ‘Sustainable Energy Policies’ revealed that local and regional initiatives are usually multi-sectoral, integrated actions which simultaneously contribute towards competitiveness, growth and employment. It is therefore important to reflect this reality appropriately in the future design of the EU budget;

36.   requests that capacity be provided to local and regional authorities to build energy efficiency into their rural and urban planning requirements;

E)   Logistics

37.   wishes to highlight the significance of developing EU-wide logistics systems which could realise greater efficiency in freight transport such as a ‘CELS’ Central European Logistics System. This would entail a unified mapping system integrating all European transport modes into a single representation from rail, road, air, sea and inland waterways;

38.   considers that CELS could provide the visual mapping and cost analysis assistance to promote green, economical, efficient linking of intermodal transport. It would be an online freight transport directory with which operators from road, rail, air, inland waterways and sea can register, enabling it to become the most comprehensive directory of all freight operators. It also has the potential to identify which routes are suitable for combined transport permitting the shortest possible road routes;

39.   stresses the value of integrated cross-sectoral sustainable energy policies for rural areas, encompassing both energy efficiency in buildings transport, etc, and decentralised production of renewable energy;

F)   Conclusions

40.   in this context, believes that Cohesion Policy can provide a framework for a coordinated approach to this complex challenge. The inter-linkages between the Europe 2020 objectives require a clear awareness from EU policy makers that improvements in all areas of the Europe 2020 Strategy can be achieved if the measures increasing efficient energy use are widely implemented across the EU;

41.   points to the need for better balancing of the EU internal/external dimension of energy supply, promoting research and implementation of energy efficiency at least as much as investment in new fossil fuel pipelines from third countries, and might remind the European Commission that energy efficiency still requires billions of euros to be invested in housing and transport sectors. Energy management/ conservation must also be recognised as an ongoing necessity and addressed accordingly;

42.   reiterates that Member States should introduce a consultation process involving regional and local actors in the drafting of national energy efficiency plans (bottom-up approach), ensuring that national plans are consistent with local and regional targets and means; calls for local and regional actors to also be involved in the follow-up phase, as the authorities responsible for implementation;

43.   again puts emphasis on the Covenant of Mayors initiative as a tangible proof of local government's commitment to promote energy efficiency and addressing the climate change challenge but observes that there is no common reporting methodology used by the signatories of the Covenant of Mayors. The Covenant of Mayors is an initiative requiring regions to report on their energy efficiency performance by means of strict and common reporting criteria (7);

44.   urges the Commission to take action without delay to turn the idea of interconnected EU-wide energy distribution networks into a reality. This will enable the EU to secure a reliable energy supply for all its citizens, and is also important in security-policy terms in order to reduce Europe's dependence on fossil fuels from authoritarian regimes.

45.   Key Messages – Action Points

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| a) | demands that energy efficiency must be a central and integral element of energy policies and must be given sufficient priority in the energy policy hierarchy; |
| --- | --- |

a)

demands that energy efficiency must be a central and integral element of energy policies and must be given sufficient priority in the energy policy hierarchy;

| (b) | supports a better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and energy conservation in future EU funding programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

supports a better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and energy conservation in future EU funding programmes;

| (c) | calls for stronger measures to influence human behaviour and energy consumption patterns and suggests that this requires a mix of ‘carrot and stick’ measures, demonstrating the economic case but also greater emphasis on mandatory requirements, when necessary; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

calls for stronger measures to influence human behaviour and energy consumption patterns and suggests that this requires a mix of ‘carrot and stick’ measures, demonstrating the economic case but also greater emphasis on mandatory requirements, when necessary;

| (d) | acknowledges that the current policy focus is on cities to realise current policy objectives, but underlines the need to also address in a more comprehensive and coordinated way the challenges and opportunities that rural areas face when it comes to energy use and production; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

acknowledges that the current policy focus is on cities to realise current policy objectives, but underlines the need to also address in a more comprehensive and coordinated way the challenges and opportunities that rural areas face when it comes to energy use and production;

| (e) | calls on Local and Regional Authorities to share energy efficiency and conservation best practice and to enhance energy resilience by planning for and piloting the delivery of their services with minimal energy input levels. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

calls on Local and Regional Authorities to share energy efficiency and conservation best practice and to enhance energy resilience by planning for and piloting the delivery of their services with minimal energy input levels.

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  IEA Global Energy Report 2011.

1

(2)  EU Commission.

2

(3)  Eurostat.

3

(4)  COM(2011) 896 final.

4

(5)  Outlook Opinion on Climate Change Mainstreaming and the Future of the EU Budget (CdR 104/2011).

5

(6)  Proposal for a Regulation laying down common provisions on the ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD, EMFF covered by the Common Strategic Framework (COM(2011) 615 final).

6

(7)  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2012_thinkbooklet.pdf

7

---

III Preparatory acts

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

95th plenary session held on 3 and 4 May 2012

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/58

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Proposal for a general regulation on the funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework’

2012/C 225/07

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | calls for an ambitious budget for the future cohesion policy (2014-2020) in order to fulfil the ambitions of the Treaty and of the Europe 2020 Strategy; also calls for criteria other than GDP to be taken into account in the evaluation of levels of development and the distribution of resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for an ambitious budget for the future cohesion policy (2014-2020) in order to fulfil the ambitions of the Treaty and of the Europe 2020 Strategy; also calls for criteria other than GDP to be taken into account in the evaluation of levels of development and the distribution of resources;

| — | supports the structure proposed by the Commission, i.e. the identification of two major goals (‘investment in growth and jobs’ and ‘territorial cooperation’), keeping the ESF within the sphere of cohesion policy, and the creation of a new category of ‘transition regions’ providing the safety net for regions no longer eligible for full convergence support; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the structure proposed by the Commission, i.e. the identification of two major goals (‘investment in growth and jobs’ and ‘territorial cooperation’), keeping the ESF within the sphere of cohesion policy, and the creation of a new category of ‘transition regions’ providing the safety net for regions no longer eligible for full convergence support;

| — | calls for greater flexibility in the distribution of the Structural Funds, adapting more realistically to territories' needs, through the direct involvement of local and regional authorities; this flexibility should apply to the distribution between the ERDF and the ESF and the thematic concentration of the Funds on certain Europe 2020 goals; in this regard, calls for the minimum thresholds laid down in the specific regulations be significantly lowered or made more flexible; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for greater flexibility in the distribution of the Structural Funds, adapting more realistically to territories' needs, through the direct involvement of local and regional authorities; this flexibility should apply to the distribution between the ERDF and the ESF and the thematic concentration of the Funds on certain Europe 2020 goals; in this regard, calls for the minimum thresholds laid down in the specific regulations be significantly lowered or made more flexible;

| — | supports the strategic approach of the Common Strategic Framework, integrating all funds intended for regional purposes, which will mean better coordination with the EAFRD and the EMFF; also wishes greater account to be taken of the principle of territorial cohesion, through urban actions, local development actions, ITIs and Joint Action Plans, but would like more attention to be paid to regions undergoing industrial conversion or with demographic handicaps; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the strategic approach of the Common Strategic Framework, integrating all funds intended for regional purposes, which will mean better coordination with the EAFRD and the EMFF; also wishes greater account to be taken of the principle of territorial cohesion, through urban actions, local development actions, ITIs and Joint Action Plans, but would like more attention to be paid to regions undergoing industrial conversion or with demographic handicaps;

| — | calls for the possibility of multi-fund programmes (ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF) to be encouraged and that the European Commission adopts any measure for the setting-up and implementation of these programmes with due respect of the proportionality principle; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for the possibility of multi-fund programmes (ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF) to be encouraged and that the European Commission adopts any measure for the setting-up and implementation of these programmes with due respect of the proportionality principle;

| — | rejects macroeconomic conditionality, as well as the performance reserve, considering them to be contrary to the primary objective of cohesion policy; conversely, supports the creation of a flexibility reserve, made up of automatic decommitment resources and funding experimental initiatives; also backs the principle of ex ante conditionality, which is streamlined and preventive rather than repressive; |
| --- | --- |

—

rejects macroeconomic conditionality, as well as the performance reserve, considering them to be contrary to the primary objective of cohesion policy; conversely, supports the creation of a flexibility reserve, made up of automatic decommitment resources and funding experimental initiatives; also backs the principle of ex ante conditionality, which is streamlined and preventive rather than repressive;

| — | insists on genuine simplification of the management rules, particularly with regard to control and audit authorities, revenue-generating activities and flat-rate costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

insists on genuine simplification of the management rules, particularly with regard to control and audit authorities, revenue-generating activities and flat-rate costs.

| Rapporteur | Ms MARINI (IT/PES), President of the Region of Umbria |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006
  COM(2011) 615 final |

Rapporteur

Ms MARINI (IT/PES), President of the Region of Umbria

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006

COM(2011) 615 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

A.   
  Community budget and allocation of the funds

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

For an appropriate, balanced Community budget

| 1. | points out that the European Union needs a budget capable of guaranteeing an effective cohesion policy and fulfilling the ambitions of the Europe 2020 strategy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

points out that the European Union needs a budget capable of guaranteeing an effective cohesion policy and fulfilling the ambitions of the Europe 2020 strategy;

| 2. | calls for the EU contribution to remain at least at the same level for each category of regions as under the current planning period; |
| --- | --- |

2.

calls for the EU contribution to remain at least at the same level for each category of regions as under the current planning period;

| 3. | emphasises that the current situation of serious economic, financial and social crisis is establishing a settled balance of underemployment across the EU, with a strong, albeit uneven, impact on all regions of the EU. In this context, the Structural Funds are a crucial source of funding for combating the crisis and supporting the development of European regions; |
| --- | --- |

3.

emphasises that the current situation of serious economic, financial and social crisis is establishing a settled balance of underemployment across the EU, with a strong, albeit uneven, impact on all regions of the EU. In this context, the Structural Funds are a crucial source of funding for combating the crisis and supporting the development of European regions;

Limiting problems of absorption

| 4. | calls on the Commission to undertake suitable initiatives in order to mitigate the problems of absorption encountered by some Member States, namely by improving the management of the EU funds (particularly in terms of simplified and innovative management and control systems) and encouraging a results-oriented approach; |
| --- | --- |

4.

calls on the Commission to undertake suitable initiatives in order to mitigate the problems of absorption encountered by some Member States, namely by improving the management of the EU funds (particularly in terms of simplified and innovative management and control systems) and encouraging a results-oriented approach;

Towards fairer, more balanced distribution criteria

| 5. | believes that the economic and financial crisis underscores the need for timely, comparable GDP figures and other complementary indicators, in order to establish more accurately the real level of development of European regions (1), without prejudice to the appropriate concentration of resources in regions that are lagging behind in their development; |
| --- | --- |

5.

believes that the economic and financial crisis underscores the need for timely, comparable GDP figures and other complementary indicators, in order to establish more accurately the real level of development of European regions (1), without prejudice to the appropriate concentration of resources in regions that are lagging behind in their development;

| 6. | considers that, with a view to the distribution of resources, proper attention must be paid to the specific features of Member States with significant internal economic disparities; is concerned, in particular, about the criteria for distributing resources allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy – with reference to the multiannual financial framework – as social, economic and structural differences are not taken into account; |
| --- | --- |

6.

considers that, with a view to the distribution of resources, proper attention must be paid to the specific features of Member States with significant internal economic disparities; is concerned, in particular, about the criteria for distributing resources allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy – with reference to the multiannual financial framework – as social, economic and structural differences are not taken into account;

B.   
  Cohesion policy structure

Simplified structure

| 7. | supports the identification of two major goals (investment for growth and jobs, and territorial cooperation), which simplify the structure of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

7.

supports the identification of two major goals (investment for growth and jobs, and territorial cooperation), which simplify the structure of cohesion policy;

| 8. | endorses the creation of a category of transition regions, to be funded principally by resources released by regions and Member States which are no longer covered by the convergence objective and the Cohesion Fund, without reducing the level of support provided for the other two categories of region, and also welcomes the proposed safety net for regions no longer eligible for full convergence support. The new region will make it possible to provide better support both for regions moving out of the convergence objective and for other regions whose per capita GDP is between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average. This new category will allow EU support to be adjusted in line with the different levels of development and mitigate the threshold effects observed during the current programming period. These arrangements should apply to all CSF funds; |
| --- | --- |

8.

endorses the creation of a category of transition regions, to be funded principally by resources released by regions and Member States which are no longer covered by the convergence objective and the Cohesion Fund, without reducing the level of support provided for the other two categories of region, and also welcomes the proposed safety net for regions no longer eligible for full convergence support. The new region will make it possible to provide better support both for regions moving out of the convergence objective and for other regions whose per capita GDP is between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average. This new category will allow EU support to be adjusted in line with the different levels of development and mitigate the threshold effects observed during the current programming period. These arrangements should apply to all CSF funds;

| 9. | considers that the arrangements relating to the regional aid guidelines for 2014-2020 should also be compatible with the structure of future cohesion policy and that there must be no conflict between cohesion policy and competition law when it comes to the designation of assisted areas; |
| --- | --- |

9.

considers that the arrangements relating to the regional aid guidelines for 2014-2020 should also be compatible with the structure of future cohesion policy and that there must be no conflict between cohesion policy and competition law when it comes to the designation of assisted areas;

Towards an appropriate role for the European Social Fund in cohesion policy

| 10. | is pleased that the ESF will remain in the sphere of cohesion policy as a key instrument for jobs, for improving people's skills and for social inclusion; |
| --- | --- |

10.

is pleased that the ESF will remain in the sphere of cohesion policy as a key instrument for jobs, for improving people's skills and for social inclusion;

| 11. | insists however that in accordance with the subsidiarity principle regional and competent local authorities should be responsible for choosing investment priorities and distributing the Structural Funds between the ERDF and the ESF; |
| --- | --- |

11.

insists however that in accordance with the subsidiarity principle regional and competent local authorities should be responsible for choosing investment priorities and distributing the Structural Funds between the ERDF and the ESF;

C.   
  Principles common to all the funds

For stronger partnership and multilevel governance

| 12. | insists that, in accordance with the principle of multilevel governance and with the division of competences within each country, the local and regional authorities in every Member State should be fully involved in preparing, negotiating and implementing the various strategy documents, i.e. the Common Strategic Framework and in particular the Partnership Contract; Territorial Pacts between local, regional, and national authorities, should also be an option available to formalise partnership arrangements in conjunction with national governments; |
| --- | --- |

12.

insists that, in accordance with the principle of multilevel governance and with the division of competences within each country, the local and regional authorities in every Member State should be fully involved in preparing, negotiating and implementing the various strategy documents, i.e. the Common Strategic Framework and in particular the Partnership Contract; Territorial Pacts between local, regional, and national authorities, should also be an option available to formalise partnership arrangements in conjunction with national governments;

| 13. | considers it unfair that local and regional authorities should be placed on the same footing as the economic and social partners with regard to partnership, when as representatives of the general interests of the municipalities which they administer, the authorities co-manage – taking into consideration the institutional framework of the Member States – and co-fund the Cohesion policy projects; |
| --- | --- |

13.

considers it unfair that local and regional authorities should be placed on the same footing as the economic and social partners with regard to partnership, when as representatives of the general interests of the municipalities which they administer, the authorities co-manage – taking into consideration the institutional framework of the Member States – and co-fund the Cohesion policy projects;

For a co-financing rate tailored to the regions' level of development

| 14. | reiterates its support for the principle of European co-financing, which guarantees that local and regional actors are aware of their responsibilities; |
| --- | --- |

14.

reiterates its support for the principle of European co-financing, which guarantees that local and regional actors are aware of their responsibilities;

| 15. | believes that VAT should be eligible, if this is not recoverable; |
| --- | --- |

15.

believes that VAT should be eligible, if this is not recoverable;

| 16. | believes that there should be a distinction between stakeholders from the civil society and the public sector partners. The competent local and regional authorities, or their representatives, should be an integral part of the negotiation process for the preparation of the Partnership Contract or Agreement at Member State level and not just at regional level; |
| --- | --- |

16.

believes that there should be a distinction between stakeholders from the civil society and the public sector partners. The competent local and regional authorities, or their representatives, should be an integral part of the negotiation process for the preparation of the Partnership Contract or Agreement at Member State level and not just at regional level;

D.   
  Link between cohesion policy and the europe 2020 strategy

For harmonious, flexible thematic concentration

| 17. | takes note of the principle of thematic concentration on key Europe 2020 goals and the objectives stated in Article 174 TFEU as set out in a table of EU areas of interest, but expresses concern regarding the lack of flexibility in the choice of thematic objectives, which should be determined on the basis of territorial analysis; |
| --- | --- |

17.

takes note of the principle of thematic concentration on key Europe 2020 goals and the objectives stated in Article 174 TFEU as set out in a table of EU areas of interest, but expresses concern regarding the lack of flexibility in the choice of thematic objectives, which should be determined on the basis of territorial analysis;

| 18. | therefore calls for real flexibility for all funds under the Common Strategic Framework, so that each managing authority has the widest margin possible to identify the thematic objectives on which its funds will be concentrated; more generally, calls for the minimum thresholds laid down in the specific regulations to be significantly lowered or made more flexible; |
| --- | --- |

18.

therefore calls for real flexibility for all funds under the Common Strategic Framework, so that each managing authority has the widest margin possible to identify the thematic objectives on which its funds will be concentrated; more generally, calls for the minimum thresholds laid down in the specific regulations to be significantly lowered or made more flexible;

E.   
  Strategic approach and governance of cohesion policy

Common Strategic Framework: towards better integration of the funds intended for regional purposes

| 19. | supports improved integration of the funds, and is pleased that the EAFRD and the EMFF are being included in the Common Strategic Framework, with the specific nature of each fund being preserved; |
| --- | --- |

19.

supports improved integration of the funds, and is pleased that the EAFRD and the EMFF are being included in the Common Strategic Framework, with the specific nature of each fund being preserved;

| 20. | agrees that the Common Strategic Framework should be approved by the Parliament and the European Council, and argues that it should be approved by the broadest possible range of EU institutions; accordingly is in favour of appending the Common Strategic Framework to the General Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

20.

agrees that the Common Strategic Framework should be approved by the Parliament and the European Council, and argues that it should be approved by the broadest possible range of EU institutions; accordingly is in favour of appending the Common Strategic Framework to the General Regulation;

| 21. | highlights the need for the mechanisms set out in the Common Strategic Framework to be sufficiently flexible to allow real integration with regional policies and local development policies; |
| --- | --- |

21.

highlights the need for the mechanisms set out in the Common Strategic Framework to be sufficiently flexible to allow real integration with regional policies and local development policies;

| 22. | considers that the CSF should facilitate primarily a bottom-up territorial approach and integration of funding. CSF recommendations shall not be over prescriptive, in order to allow enough flexibility in choosing the means by which one can achieve thematic objectives and investment priorities as defined in the structural and cohesion funds regulations; |
| --- | --- |

22.

considers that the CSF should facilitate primarily a bottom-up territorial approach and integration of funding. CSF recommendations shall not be over prescriptive, in order to allow enough flexibility in choosing the means by which one can achieve thematic objectives and investment priorities as defined in the structural and cohesion funds regulations;

| 23. | stresses that the Common Strategic Framework should properly link the thematic objectives of Article 9 of the General Regulation with the investment priorities listed in the ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF regulations, providing legal certainty on whether priorities can match and while avoiding gaps and overlaps between them so that multi-fund, but also multi-thematic, priority projects will be deliverable in an integrated and seamless fashion; |
| --- | --- |

23.

stresses that the Common Strategic Framework should properly link the thematic objectives of Article 9 of the General Regulation with the investment priorities listed in the ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD and EMFF regulations, providing legal certainty on whether priorities can match and while avoiding gaps and overlaps between them so that multi-fund, but also multi-thematic, priority projects will be deliverable in an integrated and seamless fashion;

Partnership Contract: more contract than partnership

| 24. | calls for regional and competent local authorities, as the bodies responsible for funding and implementing cohesion policy, and in line with their respective institutional systems, to be fully involved in preparing, negotiating, implementing and amending partnership contracts (Article 13(2)); |
| --- | --- |

24.

calls for regional and competent local authorities, as the bodies responsible for funding and implementing cohesion policy, and in line with their respective institutional systems, to be fully involved in preparing, negotiating, implementing and amending partnership contracts (Article 13(2));

| 25. | insists specifically that in the context of the contract, and in line with their respective institutional systems, the regional authorities should be directly involved in setting the internal conditionalities and the resulting penalties (Article 14); |
| --- | --- |

25.

insists specifically that in the context of the contract, and in line with their respective institutional systems, the regional authorities should be directly involved in setting the internal conditionalities and the resulting penalties (Article 14);

| 26. | expresses concern regarding the potential delays triggered by the obligation to submit the Partnership Contract and the operational programmes at the same time, and so again asks that the programmes be submitted within six months of the submission of the contract; |
| --- | --- |

26.

expresses concern regarding the potential delays triggered by the obligation to submit the Partnership Contract and the operational programmes at the same time, and so again asks that the programmes be submitted within six months of the submission of the contract;

Operational programmes: for regionalised, integrated management

| 27. | recommends that regional and local authorities, in accordance with their respective institutional systems should be closely involved in managing the European funds and is strongly in favour of multi-fund programmes; |
| --- | --- |

27.

recommends that regional and local authorities, in accordance with their respective institutional systems should be closely involved in managing the European funds and is strongly in favour of multi-fund programmes;

| 28. | points out that improved harmonisation of common provisions for the implementation of the funds would promote integration and boost their effectiveness and impact, as well as reduce the administrative burden to the final recipient; |
| --- | --- |

28.

points out that improved harmonisation of common provisions for the implementation of the funds would promote integration and boost their effectiveness and impact, as well as reduce the administrative burden to the final recipient;

| 29. | calls on the Commission to issue an evaluation of the functioning, impact and added value of current macroregional strategies; |
| --- | --- |

29.

calls on the Commission to issue an evaluation of the functioning, impact and added value of current macroregional strategies;

F.   
  Planning geared towards results and evaluation

Macroeconomic conditionality: a double penalty for Member States

| 30. | firmly rejects the proposals aiming to establish a link between cohesion policy and compliance with the stability pact (macroeconomic conditionality); the Committee of the Regions believes that macroeconomic conditionality and cohesion policy pursue different goals; |
| --- | --- |

30.

firmly rejects the proposals aiming to establish a link between cohesion policy and compliance with the stability pact (macroeconomic conditionality); the Committee of the Regions believes that macroeconomic conditionality and cohesion policy pursue different goals;

| 31. | therefore considers that regional authorities must not be penalised as a result of certain Member States' failure to comply with their obligations, particularly as regards the national deficit (Article 21); |
| --- | --- |

31.

therefore considers that regional authorities must not be penalised as a result of certain Member States' failure to comply with their obligations, particularly as regards the national deficit (Article 21);

For streamlined ex ante conditionality which is preventive rather than repressive

| 32. | backs the principle of ex ante conditionality, in order to ensure that the fundamental prerequisites are in place for making effective investments, based on the evaluation of previous experience. It is important to avoid burdening cohesion policy with responsibilities that do not belong to it and increasing red tape; |
| --- | --- |

32.

backs the principle of ex ante conditionality, in order to ensure that the fundamental prerequisites are in place for making effective investments, based on the evaluation of previous experience. It is important to avoid burdening cohesion policy with responsibilities that do not belong to it and increasing red tape;

| 33. | nonetheless, is concerned that conditionality relating to a third party (such as the failure to transpose EU directives) might prejudice the preparation and implementation of programmes and projects at regional and local level. The CoR therefore considers that ex-ante conditionalities should be restricted to areas that are directly related to the implementation of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

33.

nonetheless, is concerned that conditionality relating to a third party (such as the failure to transpose EU directives) might prejudice the preparation and implementation of programmes and projects at regional and local level. The CoR therefore considers that ex-ante conditionalities should be restricted to areas that are directly related to the implementation of cohesion policy;

| 34. | calls on the Commission to ensure that this ex ante conditionality does not lead to the suspension of payments or to financial corrections, with the exception of conditionalities with which the Member State has undertaken to comply; |
| --- | --- |

34.

calls on the Commission to ensure that this ex ante conditionality does not lead to the suspension of payments or to financial corrections, with the exception of conditionalities with which the Member State has undertaken to comply;

Performance reserve

| 35. | is concerned about the creation of a performance reserve since this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, which could encourage the development of unambitious projects and discourage innovation; draws attention to the Court of Auditor's opinion 7/2011 which noted that a ‘performance reserve existed in the 2000-2006 period but had limited success due to the very limited amount of expenditure that had been completed in time for the mid-term review and the lack of an appropriate methodology for assessing progress achieved by programmes’; |
| --- | --- |

35.

is concerned about the creation of a performance reserve since this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, which could encourage the development of unambitious projects and discourage innovation; draws attention to the Court of Auditor's opinion 7/2011 which noted that a ‘performance reserve existed in the 2000-2006 period but had limited success due to the very limited amount of expenditure that had been completed in time for the mid-term review and the lack of an appropriate methodology for assessing progress achieved by programmes’;

| 36. | conversely, supports the creation of a flexibility reserve made up of automatic decommitment resources and used to fund experimental initiatives in the area of smart, sustainable or inclusive growth or to intervene during a crisis; |
| --- | --- |

36.

conversely, supports the creation of a flexibility reserve made up of automatic decommitment resources and used to fund experimental initiatives in the area of smart, sustainable or inclusive growth or to intervene during a crisis;

Performance framework as steering mechanism

| 37. | points out that the framework for performance review establishes interim objectives for each priority for the years 2016 and 2018. In the Committee's view, this mechanism must steer and monitor the objectives pursued throughout the planning period and not trigger the application of financial corrections to the priority axes concerned in the event of failure to achieve the objectives set on the basis of the final progress report, as this failure may be due to socio-economic circumstances and the resultant necessary policy changes made by national and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

37.

points out that the framework for performance review establishes interim objectives for each priority for the years 2016 and 2018. In the Committee's view, this mechanism must steer and monitor the objectives pursued throughout the planning period and not trigger the application of financial corrections to the priority axes concerned in the event of failure to achieve the objectives set on the basis of the final progress report, as this failure may be due to socio-economic circumstances and the resultant necessary policy changes made by national and regional authorities;

| 38. | considers that no purpose is served by adding this new provision to the (macroeconomic, ex ante and ex post) conditionalities proposed by the Commission, to the ex ante, in itinere and ex post review system, and to the specific targets and performance indicators. The Committee calls for a stronger link with the evaluation measures set out in Articles 48, 49 and 50; |
| --- | --- |

38.

considers that no purpose is served by adding this new provision to the (macroeconomic, ex ante and ex post) conditionalities proposed by the Commission, to the ex ante, in itinere and ex post review system, and to the specific targets and performance indicators. The Committee calls for a stronger link with the evaluation measures set out in Articles 48, 49 and 50;

For an increase in advance payments

| 39. | welcomes the proposal requiring managing authorities to disburse money to beneficiaries before applying to the Commission for reimbursement, and calls for a more flexible and generous advance payment system with a view to boosting managing authorities' liquidity levels; |
| --- | --- |

39.

welcomes the proposal requiring managing authorities to disburse money to beneficiaries before applying to the Commission for reimbursement, and calls for a more flexible and generous advance payment system with a view to boosting managing authorities' liquidity levels;

Penalties and financial corrections: towards an approach which is preventive rather than repressive

| 40. | asks that, if a Member State in the grip of deep financial crisis receives EU aid, the Commission should be able to amend the Partnership Contract and the operational programmes in the course of constructive dialogue with the Member State and the local authorities concerned. The Committee hopes that the Commission's experts will assist national and regional authorities and boost their capacity to manage the European funds effectively; |
| --- | --- |

40.

asks that, if a Member State in the grip of deep financial crisis receives EU aid, the Commission should be able to amend the Partnership Contract and the operational programmes in the course of constructive dialogue with the Member State and the local authorities concerned. The Committee hopes that the Commission's experts will assist national and regional authorities and boost their capacity to manage the European funds effectively;

G.   
  Reinforcing the principle of cohesion

Promotion of local urban development and integrated territorial investments

| 41. | strongly agrees with the focus on integrated urban development and, more particularly, welcomes the Commission's proposals on local development and integrated territorial investments which should be key delivery instruments of the next programming period; requests further information on the implementation of these new provisions; |
| --- | --- |

41.

strongly agrees with the focus on integrated urban development and, more particularly, welcomes the Commission's proposals on local development and integrated territorial investments which should be key delivery instruments of the next programming period; requests further information on the implementation of these new provisions;

| 42. | hopes that these provisions will be applied particularly carefully to guarantee that integrated local development is carried out efficiently, such as coordinating the contribution of the various funds – specifically, the ERDF and EAFRD in peri-urban and functional areas – integrating them, identifying project areas and drawing up a coherent strategy; |
| --- | --- |

42.

hopes that these provisions will be applied particularly carefully to guarantee that integrated local development is carried out efficiently, such as coordinating the contribution of the various funds – specifically, the ERDF and EAFRD in peri-urban and functional areas – integrating them, identifying project areas and drawing up a coherent strategy;

| 43. | strongly welcomes the fact that Community Led Local Development incentives are provided with an additional co-financing rate of 10 % and requests that this also be extended to the Integrated Territorial Investments, and considers that the organisation and functioning of the Local Action Groups must be agreed between the Managing Authorities and the local partners at the national level; |
| --- | --- |

43.

strongly welcomes the fact that Community Led Local Development incentives are provided with an additional co-financing rate of 10 % and requests that this also be extended to the Integrated Territorial Investments, and considers that the organisation and functioning of the Local Action Groups must be agreed between the Managing Authorities and the local partners at the national level;

| 44. | demands that the rule whereby public authorities cannot hold more than 49 % of voting rights be reviewed in those cases where institutionalised local development partnerships are already in place; |
| --- | --- |

44.

demands that the rule whereby public authorities cannot hold more than 49 % of voting rights be reviewed in those cases where institutionalised local development partnerships are already in place;

| 45. | stresses the need for Local Development to be seen as a holistic concept whereby Integrated Territorial Investments, urban actions, Joint Action Plans, can be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

45.

stresses the need for Local Development to be seen as a holistic concept whereby Integrated Territorial Investments, urban actions, Joint Action Plans, can be delivered;

For appropriate intervention in support of regions with specific geographic and demographic features

| 46. | urges that particular attention be paid to regions undergoing industrial conversion and regions with serious permanent natural or demographic handicaps that make them comparatively lag behind in economic and territorial cohesion terms, as well as outermost regions (Articles 174 and 349 TFEU); |
| --- | --- |

46.

urges that particular attention be paid to regions undergoing industrial conversion and regions with serious permanent natural or demographic handicaps that make them comparatively lag behind in economic and territorial cohesion terms, as well as outermost regions (Articles 174 and 349 TFEU);

Continued support for the establishment of links between regions through infrastructure funding

| 47. | is concerned that no provision has been made for financing infrastructure, particularly high-speed ICT networks, in developed regions; |
| --- | --- |

47.

is concerned that no provision has been made for financing infrastructure, particularly high-speed ICT networks, in developed regions;

H.   
  Simplifying the rules for management, control and audit

For further simplification in management and shared responsibility for controls

| 48. | insists on genuine simplification of the provisions for implementing the funds, which will help managing, control and audit authorities and facilitate access to financing for beneficiaries; |
| --- | --- |

48.

insists on genuine simplification of the provisions for implementing the funds, which will help managing, control and audit authorities and facilitate access to financing for beneficiaries;

| 49. | is concerned about the fact that the support for administrative capacity is limited for the ESF to Member States with less developed regions or eligible to the Cohesion Fund while this is not the case for ERDF although national systems for the two Funds are subject to similar requirements; |
| --- | --- |

49.

is concerned about the fact that the support for administrative capacity is limited for the ESF to Member States with less developed regions or eligible to the Cohesion Fund while this is not the case for ERDF although national systems for the two Funds are subject to similar requirements;

| 50. | hopes that a more results-oriented approach will lead to stronger emphasis on delivery, quality and efficiency in the use of the funds, rather than focusing on rules and total expenditure; |
| --- | --- |

50.

hopes that a more results-oriented approach will lead to stronger emphasis on delivery, quality and efficiency in the use of the funds, rather than focusing on rules and total expenditure;

| 51. | believes that the Commission's excessive use of delegated acts (there are some fifty references to this instrument in the regulation) may lead to delays in the use of the funds and therefore proposes that a Commission implementing regulation be used initially to establish all the implementing rules; |
| --- | --- |

51.

believes that the Commission's excessive use of delegated acts (there are some fifty references to this instrument in the regulation) may lead to delays in the use of the funds and therefore proposes that a Commission implementing regulation be used initially to establish all the implementing rules;

For greater coordination and proportionality of controls

| 52. | expresses doubts concerning the designation of an accrediting body at ministerial level which is an additional unnecessary layer of control that would be responsible for accrediting managing authorities and for certification based on a preliminary control, believing that accreditation should focus on the systems rather than on the managing authorities; |
| --- | --- |

52.

expresses doubts concerning the designation of an accrediting body at ministerial level which is an additional unnecessary layer of control that would be responsible for accrediting managing authorities and for certification based on a preliminary control, believing that accreditation should focus on the systems rather than on the managing authorities;

| 53. | highlights the risk that improper application of the proportionality principle may result in unequal treatment of the Member States. Checks and audits are liable to present much more of a burden for those Member States which receive the most funding; furthermore, a level of control proportionate to the programmes' financial dimension might steer authorities away from adopting multi-fund programmes; |
| --- | --- |

53.

highlights the risk that improper application of the proportionality principle may result in unequal treatment of the Member States. Checks and audits are liable to present much more of a burden for those Member States which receive the most funding; furthermore, a level of control proportionate to the programmes' financial dimension might steer authorities away from adopting multi-fund programmes;

| 54. | believes that the proposed annual clearance of accounts should be optional to enable only those managing authorities who so wish to simplify the closure procedure at the end of the period and reduce the duration for conserving accounting documents (Articles 67, 76, 77, 131); |
| --- | --- |

54.

believes that the proposed annual clearance of accounts should be optional to enable only those managing authorities who so wish to simplify the closure procedure at the end of the period and reduce the duration for conserving accounting documents (Articles 67, 76, 77, 131);

| 55. | wishes to avoid the proliferation of controls by national or regional audit authorities, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the operators themselves, and proposes that joint local audit missions be organised in order to avoid overlaps and promote a common analysis (Article 65(2)); |
| --- | --- |

55.

wishes to avoid the proliferation of controls by national or regional audit authorities, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the operators themselves, and proposes that joint local audit missions be organised in order to avoid overlaps and promote a common analysis (Article 65(2));

Towards genuinely simplified, business-friendly financial engineering

| 56. | considers that further clarification is needed in relation to the use of financial instruments with regard to their accounting in the use of EU funds, their supervision and their ownership. Supports however the use of financial engineering instruments to enhance the funds' impact provided that it is an addition to and not at the expense of the grant element of Cohesion policy and that support is limited to conventional forms of financial instruments (equity participations, loans, guarantees), and not to opaque financial instruments such as derivatives or structured financial instruments; |
| --- | --- |

56.

considers that further clarification is needed in relation to the use of financial instruments with regard to their accounting in the use of EU funds, their supervision and their ownership. Supports however the use of financial engineering instruments to enhance the funds' impact provided that it is an addition to and not at the expense of the grant element of Cohesion policy and that support is limited to conventional forms of financial instruments (equity participations, loans, guarantees), and not to opaque financial instruments such as derivatives or structured financial instruments;

| 57. | considers too restrictive the requirement that financial instruments – in accordance with the aims of the programme – be used within two years of their activation and for a period of at least ten years after the closure of the programme; |
| --- | --- |

57.

considers too restrictive the requirement that financial instruments – in accordance with the aims of the programme – be used within two years of their activation and for a period of at least ten years after the closure of the programme;

Joint action plan: an innovation to be trialled

| 58. | welcomes the Commission's proposal that joint action plans be drawn up, including a group of projects carried out under the responsibility of the beneficiary in the context of one or more operational programmes, in exchange for a substantial reduction in the rules on management and control; regrets, however, that infrastructure projects are excluded; |
| --- | --- |

58.

welcomes the Commission's proposal that joint action plans be drawn up, including a group of projects carried out under the responsibility of the beneficiary in the context of one or more operational programmes, in exchange for a substantial reduction in the rules on management and control; regrets, however, that infrastructure projects are excluded;

| 59. | calls for the Commission, the Member State and the local authorities associated with the programme to be party to drawing up the joint action plan, in view of the scale of the resources involved, and calls for the threshold to be lowered to EUR 5 million; |
| --- | --- |

59.

calls for the Commission, the Member State and the local authorities associated with the programme to be party to drawing up the joint action plan, in view of the scale of the resources involved, and calls for the threshold to be lowered to EUR 5 million;

Revenue-generating operations: need for greater flexibility

| 60. | calls for the reinstatement of the 2000-2006 rules setting a single specific (reduced) intervention rate for revenue-generating operations; |
| --- | --- |

60.

calls for the reinstatement of the 2000-2006 rules setting a single specific (reduced) intervention rate for revenue-generating operations;

Flat-rate costs: a simplification measure which has yet to be introduced

| 61. | welcomes the Commission's proposal regarding the various types of simplified grants and urges managing authorities and beneficiaries to make extensive use of standard scales of unit costs, flat-rate amounts and flat-rate financing; |
| --- | --- |

61.

welcomes the Commission's proposal regarding the various types of simplified grants and urges managing authorities and beneficiaries to make extensive use of standard scales of unit costs, flat-rate amounts and flat-rate financing;

| 62. | calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt as swiftly as possible a fair, equitable and verifiable calculation method and methods and scales of unit costs to enable project operators to use them when planning begins, taking due account of previous experience in the current planning period. |
| --- | --- |

62.

calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt as swiftly as possible a fair, equitable and verifiable calculation method and methods and scales of unit costs to enable project operators to use them when planning begins, taking due account of previous experience in the current planning period.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital 14

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission should adopt by delegated act a Common Strategic Framework which translates the objectives of the Union into key actions for the CSF Funds, in order to provide clearer strategic direction to the programming process at the level of Member States and regions. The Common Strategic Framework should facilitate sectoral and territorial coordination of Union intervention under the CSF Funds and with other relevant Union policies and instruments. | a Common Strategic Framework which translates the objectives of the Union into key actions for the CSF Funds, in order to provide clearer strategic direction to the programming process at the level of Member States and regions. The Common Strategic Framework should facilitate sectoral and territorial coordination of Union intervention under the CSF Funds and with other relevant Union policies and instruments. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission should adopt by delegated act a Common Strategic Framework which translates the objectives of the Union into key actions for the CSF Funds, in order to provide clearer strategic direction to the programming process at the level of Member States and regions. The Common Strategic Framework should facilitate sectoral and territorial coordination of Union intervention under the CSF Funds and with other relevant Union policies and instruments.

a Common Strategic Framework which translates the objectives of the Union into key actions for the CSF Funds, in order to provide clearer strategic direction to the programming process at the level of Member States and regions. The Common Strategic Framework should facilitate sectoral and territorial coordination of Union intervention under the CSF Funds and with other relevant Union policies and instruments.

Reason

Delegated acts enable the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general scope which supplement or amend non-essential aspects of a legislative act. The Common Strategic Framework aims to establish common guidelines and rules for all jointly managed funds; it therefore contains essential aspects which should be submitted to all the EU institutions and amended as necessary.

Amendment 2

Recital 16

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| On the basis of the Common Strategic Framework adopted by the Commission, each Member State should prepare, in cooperation with its partners and in dialogue with the Commission, a Partnership Contract. The Partnership Contract should translate the elements set out in the Common Strategic Framework into the national context and set out firm commitments to the achievement of Union objectives through the programming of the CSF Funds. | On the basis of the Common Strategic Framework adopted by the Commission, each Member State, should prepare, in cooperation with its partners and in dialogue with the Commission, a Partnership Contract. The Partnership Contract should translate the elements set out in the Common Strategic Framework into the national context and set out commitments to the achievement of Union objectives through the programming of the CSF Funds. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

On the basis of the Common Strategic Framework adopted by the Commission, each Member State should prepare, in cooperation with its partners and in dialogue with the Commission, a Partnership Contract. The Partnership Contract should translate the elements set out in the Common Strategic Framework into the national context and set out firm commitments to the achievement of Union objectives through the programming of the CSF Funds.

On the basis of the Common Strategic Framework adopted by the Commission, each Member State, should prepare, in cooperation with its partners and in dialogue with the Commission, a Partnership Contract. The Partnership Contract should translate the elements set out in the Common Strategic Framework into the national context and set out commitments to the achievement of Union objectives through the programming of the CSF Funds.

Reason

In their capacity of institutions responsible for funding and implementing cohesion policy, regional and local authorities should be fully involved in drawing up, negotiating, implementing and amending it.

Amendment 3

Recital 18

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| A performance framework should be defined for each programme with a view to monitoring progress towards the objectives and targets set for each programme over the course of the programming period. The Commission should undertake a performance review in cooperation with the Member States in 2017 and 2019. A performance reserve should be foreseen and allocated in 2019 where milestones set in the performance framework have been attained. Due to their diversity and multi-country character, there should be no performance reserve for ‘European Territorial Cooperation’ programmes. In cases where the shortfall in the achievement of milestones or targets is significant, the Commission should be able to suspend payments to the programme or, at the end of the programming period, apply financial corrections, in order to ensure that the Union budget is not used in a wasteful or inefficient way. | A performance framework should be defined for each programme with a view to monitoring progress towards the objectives and targets set for each programme over the course of the programming period. The Commission should undertake a performance review in cooperation with the Member States in 2017 and 2019. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

A performance framework should be defined for each programme with a view to monitoring progress towards the objectives and targets set for each programme over the course of the programming period. The Commission should undertake a performance review in cooperation with the Member States in 2017 and 2019. A performance reserve should be foreseen and allocated in 2019 where milestones set in the performance framework have been attained. Due to their diversity and multi-country character, there should be no performance reserve for ‘European Territorial Cooperation’ programmes. In cases where the shortfall in the achievement of milestones or targets is significant, the Commission should be able to suspend payments to the programme or, at the end of the programming period, apply financial corrections, in order to ensure that the Union budget is not used in a wasteful or inefficient way.

A performance framework should be defined for each programme with a view to monitoring progress towards the objectives and targets set for each programme over the course of the programming period. The Commission should undertake a performance review in cooperation with the Member States in 2017 and 2019.

Reason

The amendment reflects the opposition to creating a national-level performance reserve because of concerns that this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, consequently giving priority to unambitious projects and discouraging innovation.

The Committee would however support the creation of a flexibility reserve made up of automatic decommitment resources and used to fund experimental initiatives in the area of smart, sustainable or inclusive growth or to intervene during a crisis.

Amendment 4

Recital 19

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Establishing a closer link between cohesion policy and the economic governance of the Union will ensure that the effectiveness of expenditure under the CSF Funds is underpinned by sound economic policies and that the CSF Funds can, if necessary, be redirected to addressing the economic problems a country is facing. This process has to be gradual, starting with amendments to the Partnership Contract and to the programmes in support of Council recommendations to address macroeconomic imbalances and social and economic difficulties. Where, despite the enhanced use of CSF funds, a Member State fails to take effective action in the context of the economic governance process, the Commission should have the right to suspend all or part of the payments and commitments. Decisions on suspensions should be proportionate and effective, taking into account the impact of the individual programmes for addressing the economic and social situation in the relevant Member State and previous amendments to the Partnership Contract. When deciding on suspensions, the Commission should also respect equality of treatment between Member States, taking into account in particular the impact of the suspension on the economy of the Member State concerned. The suspensions should be lifted and funds be made available again to the Member State concerned as soon as the Member State takes the necessary action. | Establishing a closer link between cohesion policy and the economic governance of the Union will ensure that the effectiveness of expenditure under the CSF Funds is underpinned by sound economic policies and that the CSF Funds can, if necessary, be redirected to addressing the economic problems a country is facing. This process has to be gradual, starting with amendments to the Partnership Contract and to the programmes in support of Council recommendations to address macroeconomic imbalances and social and economic difficulties. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Establishing a closer link between cohesion policy and the economic governance of the Union will ensure that the effectiveness of expenditure under the CSF Funds is underpinned by sound economic policies and that the CSF Funds can, if necessary, be redirected to addressing the economic problems a country is facing. This process has to be gradual, starting with amendments to the Partnership Contract and to the programmes in support of Council recommendations to address macroeconomic imbalances and social and economic difficulties. Where, despite the enhanced use of CSF funds, a Member State fails to take effective action in the context of the economic governance process, the Commission should have the right to suspend all or part of the payments and commitments. Decisions on suspensions should be proportionate and effective, taking into account the impact of the individual programmes for addressing the economic and social situation in the relevant Member State and previous amendments to the Partnership Contract. When deciding on suspensions, the Commission should also respect equality of treatment between Member States, taking into account in particular the impact of the suspension on the economy of the Member State concerned. The suspensions should be lifted and funds be made available again to the Member State concerned as soon as the Member State takes the necessary action.

Establishing a closer link between cohesion policy and the economic governance of the Union will ensure that the effectiveness of expenditure under the CSF Funds is underpinned by sound economic policies and that the CSF Funds can, if necessary, be redirected to addressing the economic problems a country is facing. This process has to be gradual, starting with amendments to the Partnership Contract and to the programmes in support of Council recommendations to address macroeconomic imbalances and social and economic difficulties.

Reason

The Committee of the Regions is staunchly opposed to the macroeconomic conditionality provisions. Applying penalties or financial incentives linked to the growth and stability pact with the aim of guaranteeing compliance with macroeconomic conditions risks penalising heavily regional and local authorities which are not responsible for the Member States' failure to comply with these requirements.

Amendment 5

Recital 29

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Alignment of the monitoring and reporting arrangements of the CSF Funds is necessary to simplify management arrangements at all levels. It is important to ensure proportionate reporting requirements but also the availability of comprehensive information on progress made at key review points. Therefore it is necessary that reporting requirements reflect information needs in given years and are aligned with the timing of the performance reviews. | Alignment of the monitoring and reporting arrangements of the CSF Funds is necessary to simplify management arrangements at all levels. It is important to ensure proportionate reporting requirements but also the availability of comprehensive information on progress made at key review points. Therefore it is necessary that reporting requirements reflect information needs in given years . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Alignment of the monitoring and reporting arrangements of the CSF Funds is necessary to simplify management arrangements at all levels. It is important to ensure proportionate reporting requirements but also the availability of comprehensive information on progress made at key review points. Therefore it is necessary that reporting requirements reflect information needs in given years and are aligned with the timing of the performance reviews.

Alignment of the monitoring and reporting arrangements of the CSF Funds is necessary to simplify management arrangements at all levels. It is important to ensure proportionate reporting requirements but also the availability of comprehensive information on progress made at key review points. Therefore it is necessary that reporting requirements reflect information needs in given years .

Reason

As regards the framework for performance review, a mechanism for steering and monitoring the objectives pursued throughout the programming period should be established.

Amendment 6

Recital 43

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In accordance with the principles of shared management, Member States should have the primary responsibility, through their management and control systems, for the implementation and control of the operations in programmes. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the control over the selection and implementation of operations and the functioning of the management and control system, the functions of the managing authority should be specified. | In accordance with the principles of shared management, Member States should have the primary responsibility, through their management and control systems, for the implementation and control of the operations in programmes. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the control over the selection and implementation of operations and the functioning of the management and control system, the functions of the managing authority should be specified. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In accordance with the principles of shared management, Member States should have the primary responsibility, through their management and control systems, for the implementation and control of the operations in programmes. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the control over the selection and implementation of operations and the functioning of the management and control system, the functions of the managing authority should be specified.

In accordance with the principles of shared management, Member States should have the primary responsibility, through their management and control systems, for the implementation and control of the operations in programmes. In order to strengthen the effectiveness of the control over the selection and implementation of operations and the functioning of the management and control system, the functions of the managing authority should be specified.

Reason

The funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework fall within the scope of regional policy: consequently, no mention of the participating authorities under the regulation governing the funds must overlook those principally involved, who are the regional and local authorities.

Amendment 7

Recital 44

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In order to provide assurance ex ante on the set up and design of the main systems of management and control, Member States should designate an accrediting body that is responsible for the accreditation and withdrawal of accreditation of managing and control bodies. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In order to provide assurance ex ante on the set up and design of the main systems of management and control, Member States should designate an accrediting body that is responsible for the accreditation and withdrawal of accreditation of managing and control bodies.

Reason

The aim is to avoid the proliferation of bodies and actors which would make the management and control system still more complex.

Amendment 8

New recital after recital 55

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

Up until now, the concern for establishing common provisions for the various funds has not been implemented as regards the establishment of transitional arrangements and the associated EU participation (co-financing rates). Whilst transitional arrangements are being introduced for the ERDF and the ESF (including a safety net), there are none for the EAFRD. This would result in significantly different funding conditions for the implementation of the funds. This runs counter to the harmonisation that is being sought. It is therefore essential for these transitional arrangements to apply also to the EAFRD

Amendment 9

Recital 58

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In order to strengthen the focus on results and achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives and targets, five per cent of the resources for the ‘Investment for growth and jobs’ goal should be set aside as a performance reserve for each Fund, and category of region in each Member State. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In order to strengthen the focus on results and achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives and targets, five per cent of the resources for the ‘Investment for growth and jobs’ goal should be set aside as a performance reserve for each Fund, and category of region in each Member State.

Reason

The amendment reflects the opposition to creating a national-level performance reserve because of concerns that this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, consequently giving priority to unambitious projects and discouraging innovation.

The Committee would however support the creation of a flexibility reserve made up of automatic decommitment resources and used to fund experimental initiatives in the area of smart, sustainable or inclusive growth or to intervene during a crisis; this reserve would be linked to the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the European Union Solidarity Fund.

Amendment 10

Recital 84

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The process of annual clearance of accounts should be accompanied by an annual closure of completed operations (for the ERDF and the CF) or expenditure (for the ESF). In order to reduce the costs associated with the final closure of operational programmes, to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and to provide legal certainty, annual closure should be obligatory thereby limiting the period during which the supporting documents need to be maintained and during which operations can be audited and financial corrections imposed. | The process of annual clearance of accounts be accompanied by an annual closure of completed operations (for the ERDF and the CF) or expenditure (for the ESF). In order to reduce the costs associated with the final closure of operational programmes, to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and to provide legal certainty, annual closure thereby limiting the period during which the supporting documents need to be maintained and during which operations can be audited and financial corrections imposed. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The process of annual clearance of accounts should be accompanied by an annual closure of completed operations (for the ERDF and the CF) or expenditure (for the ESF). In order to reduce the costs associated with the final closure of operational programmes, to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and to provide legal certainty, annual closure should be obligatory thereby limiting the period during which the supporting documents need to be maintained and during which operations can be audited and financial corrections imposed.

The process of annual clearance of accounts be accompanied by an annual closure of completed operations (for the ERDF and the CF) or expenditure (for the ESF). In order to reduce the costs associated with the final closure of operational programmes, to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and to provide legal certainty, annual closure thereby limiting the period during which the supporting documents need to be maintained and during which operations can be audited and financial corrections imposed.

Reason

It is considered that the proposed annual clearance of accounts is, in reality, introducing annual closure that will increase the administration burden, introduce mandatory financial corrections for irregularities detected by the European Commission and/or European Court of Auditors and reduce the flexibility of declaring and substituting ‘overbooking’ expenditure that currently exists in the 2007-2013 period.

Amendment 11

Recital 87

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The frequency of audits on operations should be proportionate to the extent of the Union's support from the Funds. In particular, the number of audits carried out should be reduced where the total eligible expenditure for an operation does not exceed EUR 100 000. Nevertheless, it should be possible to carry out audits at any time where there is evidence of an irregularity or fraud, or, following closure of a completed operation, as part of an audit sample. In order that the level of auditing by the Commission is proportionate to the risk, the Commission should be able to reduce its audit work in relation to operational programmes where there are no significant deficiencies or where the audit authority can be relied on. | The frequency of audits on operations should be proportionate to the extent of the Union's support from the Funds. In particular, where the total eligible expenditure for an operation does not exceed EUR . Nevertheless, it should be possible to carry out audits at any time where there is evidence of an irregularity or fraud, or, following closure of a completed operation, as part of an audit sample. In order that the level of auditing by the Commission is proportionate to the risk, the Commission should be able to reduce its audit work in relation to operational programmes where there are no significant deficiencies or where the audit authority can be relied on. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The frequency of audits on operations should be proportionate to the extent of the Union's support from the Funds. In particular, the number of audits carried out should be reduced where the total eligible expenditure for an operation does not exceed EUR 100 000. Nevertheless, it should be possible to carry out audits at any time where there is evidence of an irregularity or fraud, or, following closure of a completed operation, as part of an audit sample. In order that the level of auditing by the Commission is proportionate to the risk, the Commission should be able to reduce its audit work in relation to operational programmes where there are no significant deficiencies or where the audit authority can be relied on.

The frequency of audits on operations should be proportionate to the extent of the Union's support from the Funds. In particular, where the total eligible expenditure for an operation does not exceed EUR . Nevertheless, it should be possible to carry out audits at any time where there is evidence of an irregularity or fraud, or, following closure of a completed operation, as part of an audit sample. In order that the level of auditing by the Commission is proportionate to the risk, the Commission should be able to reduce its audit work in relation to operational programmes where there are no significant deficiencies or where the audit authority can be relied on.

Reason

In order to ensure real proportionality in the monitoring of operational programmes, the Committee proposes that where the total eligible expenditure does not exceed EUR 250 000 operations should be subject to no more than one audit.

Amendment 12

Recital 88

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In order to supplement and amend certain non-essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of a code of conduct on the objectives and criteria to support the implementation of partnership, the adoption of a Common Strategic Framework, additional rules on the allocation of the growth and competitiveness reserve, the definition of the area and population covered by the local development strategies, detailed rules on financial instruments (ex ante assessment, eligibility of expenses, types of activities not supported, combination of support, transfer and management of assets, payment requests, and capitalisation of annual instalments), the definition of the flat rate for revenue generating operations, the responsibilities of Member States concerning the procedure for reporting irregularities and recovery of sums unduly paid, the model of management declaration of assurance on the functioning of the management and control system, the conditions of national audits, the accreditation criteria for managing authorities and certifying authorities, the identification of commonly accepted data carriers, the level of financial correction to be applied, the amendment of annexes and the specific measures necessary for the facilitation of transition from Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. The Commission should also be empowered to amend Annexes I and IV in order to address future adaptation needs. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. | In order to supplement and amend certain non-essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of a code of conduct on the objectives and criteria to support the implementation of partnership, detailed rules on financial instruments (ex ante assessment, eligibility of expenses, types of activities not supported, combination of support, transfer and management of assets, payment requests, and capitalisation of annual instalments), the definition of the flat rate for revenue generating operations, the responsibilities of Member States concerning the procedure for reporting irregularities and recovery of sums unduly paid, the model of management declaration of assurance on the functioning of the management and control system, the conditions of national audits, the accreditation criteria for managing authorities and certifying authorities, the identification of commonly accepted data carriers, the level of financial correction to be applied, the amendment of annexes and the specific measures necessary for the facilitation of transition from Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. The Commission should also be empowered to amend Annexes I and IV in order to address future adaptation needs. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In order to supplement and amend certain non-essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of a code of conduct on the objectives and criteria to support the implementation of partnership, the adoption of a Common Strategic Framework, additional rules on the allocation of the growth and competitiveness reserve, the definition of the area and population covered by the local development strategies, detailed rules on financial instruments (ex ante assessment, eligibility of expenses, types of activities not supported, combination of support, transfer and management of assets, payment requests, and capitalisation of annual instalments), the definition of the flat rate for revenue generating operations, the responsibilities of Member States concerning the procedure for reporting irregularities and recovery of sums unduly paid, the model of management declaration of assurance on the functioning of the management and control system, the conditions of national audits, the accreditation criteria for managing authorities and certifying authorities, the identification of commonly accepted data carriers, the level of financial correction to be applied, the amendment of annexes and the specific measures necessary for the facilitation of transition from Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. The Commission should also be empowered to amend Annexes I and IV in order to address future adaptation needs. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

In order to supplement and amend certain non-essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of a code of conduct on the objectives and criteria to support the implementation of partnership, detailed rules on financial instruments (ex ante assessment, eligibility of expenses, types of activities not supported, combination of support, transfer and management of assets, payment requests, and capitalisation of annual instalments), the definition of the flat rate for revenue generating operations, the responsibilities of Member States concerning the procedure for reporting irregularities and recovery of sums unduly paid, the model of management declaration of assurance on the functioning of the management and control system, the conditions of national audits, the accreditation criteria for managing authorities and certifying authorities, the identification of commonly accepted data carriers, the level of financial correction to be applied, the amendment of annexes and the specific measures necessary for the facilitation of transition from Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. The Commission should also be empowered to amend Annexes I and IV in order to address future adaptation needs. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

Reason

By means of delegated acts, the legislator delegates to the European Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts which supplement or amend various aspects of a legislative act. The proposal to delete part of the recital is consistent with the positions set out in the opinion, with particular reference to Article 12 (Common Strategic Framework), Article 18 (Performance reserve) and Article 29 (Local development strategies).

Amendment 13

Recital 90

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission should be empowered to adopt, by means of implementing acts, as regards all CSF Funds, decisions approving the Partnership Contracts, decisions allocating the performance reserve and decisions suspending payments linked to Member States' economic policies; and as regards the Funds, decisions adopting operational programmes, decisions approving major projects, decisions suspending payments and decisions on financial corrections. | The Commission should be empowered to adopt, by means of implementing acts, as regards all CSF Funds, decisions approving the Partnership Contracts, decisions adopting operational programmes, decisions approving major projects, decisions suspending payments and decisions on financial corrections. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission should be empowered to adopt, by means of implementing acts, as regards all CSF Funds, decisions approving the Partnership Contracts, decisions allocating the performance reserve and decisions suspending payments linked to Member States' economic policies; and as regards the Funds, decisions adopting operational programmes, decisions approving major projects, decisions suspending payments and decisions on financial corrections.

The Commission should be empowered to adopt, by means of implementing acts, as regards all CSF Funds, decisions approving the Partnership Contracts, decisions adopting operational programmes, decisions approving major projects, decisions suspending payments and decisions on financial corrections.

Reason

The amendment reflects the opposition to creating a national-level performance reserve because of concerns that this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, consequently giving priority to unambitious projects and discouraging innovation.

Amendment 14

Article 5(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Partnership and multi-level governance
  1.   For the Partnership Contract and each programme respectively, a Member State shall organise a partnership with the following partners:






  (a) | competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Partnership and multi-level governance

1.   For the Partnership Contract and each programme respectively, a Member State shall organise a partnership with the following partners:

(a)

competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities;

| (b) | economic and social partners; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

economic and social partners; and

| (c) | bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination.

Partnership and multi-level governance

1.   For the Partnership Contract and each programme respectively, Member State shall organise a partnership with the following partners:

| (a) | other public authorities; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

other public authorities;

| (b) | economic and social partners; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

economic and social partners; and

| (c) | bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, non-governmental organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination.

Reason

The amendment aims to point out that, in accordance with the principle of multilevel governance, local and regional authorities in every Member State should be fully involved in drawing up, negotiating and implementing the various strategic documents, i.e. the Common Strategic Framework, the Partnership Contract and the operational programmes. It is considered to be unfair that local and regional authorities should be placed on the same footing as the economic and social partners with regard to partnership, when as representatives of the general interests of the citizens and territories that they administer, they are responsible for co-managing and co-funding the Structural Funds.

Amendment 15

Article 9(6) and (11)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Thematic objectives
  [...]






  6) | protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Thematic objectives

[...]

6)

protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;

[...]

| 11) | enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration. |
| --- | --- |

11)

enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration.

Thematic objectives

[...]

| 6) | protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; |
| --- | --- |

6)

protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency;

[...]

| 11) | enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration . |
| --- | --- |

11)

enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration .

Reason

Article 9(6):

It is crucial to include protection of cultural heritage among the thematic objectives of Common Strategic Framework funds. What is more, this proposal is consistent with Article 5(6)(c) of the proposal for a Regulation for the European Regional Development Fund.

Article 9(11):

Technical assistance should also facilitate strategic bottom-up intervention. Territorial Agenda 2020 endorsed by the Member States in 2011 provides very useful recommendations as regards territorial development in the EU.

Amendment 16

Article 11

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Common Strategic Framework shall establish:






  (a) | for each thematic objective, the key actions to be supported by each CSF Fund; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Common Strategic Framework shall establish:

(a)

for each thematic objective, the key actions to be supported by each CSF Fund;

| (b) | the key territorial challenges for urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas, as well as for areas with particular territorial features referred to in Articles 174 and 349 of the Treaty, to be addressed by the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the key territorial challenges for urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas, as well as for areas with particular territorial features referred to in Articles 174 and 349 of the Treaty, to be addressed by the CSF Funds;

| (c) | horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds;

| (d) | priority areas for cooperation activities for each of the CSF Funds, where appropriate, taking account of macro-regional and sea basin strategies; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

priority areas for cooperation activities for each of the CSF Funds, where appropriate, taking account of macro-regional and sea basin strategies;

| (e) | coordination mechanisms among the CSF Funds, and with other relevant Union policies and instruments, including external instruments for cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

coordination mechanisms among the CSF Funds, and with other relevant Union policies and instruments, including external instruments for cooperation;

| (f) | mechanisms for ensuring the coherence and consistency of the programming of the CSF Funds with the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

mechanisms for ensuring the coherence and consistency of the programming of the CSF Funds with the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty.

The Common Strategic Framework shall establish:

| (a) | for each thematic objective, the key actions to be supported by each CSF Fund; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

for each thematic objective, the key actions to be supported by each CSF Fund;

| | |
| --- | --- |

()

| () | horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds;

| | |
| --- | --- |

()

| () | coordination mechanisms among the CSF Funds, and with other relevant Union policies and instruments, including external instruments for cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

coordination mechanisms among the CSF Funds, and with other relevant Union policies and instruments, including external instruments for cooperation;

| () | mechanisms for ensuring the coherence and consistency of the programming of the CSF Funds with the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

()

mechanisms for ensuring the coherence and consistency of the programming of the CSF Funds with the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty.

Reason

The key actions proposed by the Commission within the Common Strategic Framework constitute a new form of concentration. Furthermore, the territorial features should be addressed by means of operational programmes. The same applies to interaction between the regional strategies included in the programmes and the macroregional strategies, where present.

Amendment 17

Article 12

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 142 on the Common Strategic Framework within 3 months of the adoption of this Regulation.
  Where there are major changes in the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the Commission shall review and, where appropriate, adopt, by delegated act in accordance with Article 142, a revised Common Strategic Framework.
  Within 6 months of adoption of a revised Common Strategic Framework, Member States shall propose amendments, where necessary, to their Partnership Contract and programmes to ensure their consistency with the revised Common Strategic Framework. | Common Strategic Framework .
  Where there are major changes in the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the Commission shall review and, where appropriate, adopt, by delegated act in accordance with Article 142, a revised Common Strategic Framework.
  Within 6 months of adoption of a revised Common Strategic Framework, Member States shall propose amendments, where necessary, to their Partnership Contract and programmes to ensure their consistency with the revised Common Strategic Framework. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 142 on the Common Strategic Framework within 3 months of the adoption of this Regulation.

Where there are major changes in the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the Commission shall review and, where appropriate, adopt, by delegated act in accordance with Article 142, a revised Common Strategic Framework.

Within 6 months of adoption of a revised Common Strategic Framework, Member States shall propose amendments, where necessary, to their Partnership Contract and programmes to ensure their consistency with the revised Common Strategic Framework.

Common Strategic Framework .

Where there are major changes in the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the Commission shall review and, where appropriate, adopt, by delegated act in accordance with Article 142, a revised Common Strategic Framework.

Within 6 months of adoption of a revised Common Strategic Framework, Member States shall propose amendments, where necessary, to their Partnership Contract and programmes to ensure their consistency with the revised Common Strategic Framework.

Reason

Delegated acts enable the legislator to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general scope which supplement or amend non-essential aspects of a legislative act. The Common Strategic Framework aims to establish common guidelines and rules for all jointly managed funds; it therefore contains essential aspects which should be submitted to all the EU institutions and amended as necessary.

Amendment 18

Article 13

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Preparation of the Partnership Contract
  1.   Each Member State shall prepare a Partnership Contract for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.
  2.   The Partnership Contract shall be drawn up by Member States in cooperation with the partners referred to in Article 5. The Partnership Contract shall be prepared in dialogue with the Commission.
  3.   The Partnership Contract shall cover all support from the CSF Funds in the Member State concerned.
  4.   Each Member State shall transmit its Partnership Contract to the Commission within 3 months of the adoption of the Common Strategic Framework. | Preparation of the Partnership Contract
  1.   Each Member State shall prepare a Partnership Contract for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.
     
     The Partnership Contract shall be drawn up by Member States in cooperation with the partners referred to in Article 5. The Partnership Contract shall be prepared in dialogue with the Commission.
     The Partnership Contract shall cover all support from the CSF Funds in the Member State concerned.
     Each Member State shall transmit its Partnership Contract to the Commission within months of the adoption of the Common Strategic Framework. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Preparation of the Partnership Contract

1.   Each Member State shall prepare a Partnership Contract for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.

2.   The Partnership Contract shall be drawn up by Member States in cooperation with the partners referred to in Article 5. The Partnership Contract shall be prepared in dialogue with the Commission.

3.   The Partnership Contract shall cover all support from the CSF Funds in the Member State concerned.

4.   Each Member State shall transmit its Partnership Contract to the Commission within 3 months of the adoption of the Common Strategic Framework.

Preparation of the Partnership Contract

1.   Each Member State shall prepare a Partnership Contract for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.

The Partnership Contract shall be drawn up by Member States in cooperation with the partners referred to in Article 5. The Partnership Contract shall be prepared in dialogue with the Commission.

The Partnership Contract shall cover all support from the CSF Funds in the Member State concerned.

Each Member State shall transmit its Partnership Contract to the Commission within months of the adoption of the Common Strategic Framework.

Reason

In their capacity of institutions responsible for funding and implementing cohesion policy, local and regional authorities should be fully involved in drawing up, negotiating, implementing and amending it. In view of the quantity and sheer detail of the information requested, the fact that the programmes must be submitted at the same time as the contract (as stipulated in Article 23(3)) and the need to ensure that the partnership operates effectively, a longer period of time is necessary.

Amendment 19

Article 14

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Content of the Partnership Contract
  The Partnership Contract shall set out:






  (a) | arrangements to ensure alignment with the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including:






  (i) | an analysis of disparities and development needs with reference to the thematic objectives and key actions defined in the Common Strategic Framework and the targets set in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4) of the Treaty; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Content of the Partnership Contract

The Partnership Contract shall set out:

(a)

arrangements to ensure alignment with the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including:

(i)

an analysis of disparities and development needs with reference to the thematic objectives and key actions defined in the Common Strategic Framework and the targets set in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4) of the Treaty;

| (ii) | a summary analysis of the ex ante evaluations of the programmes justifying the selection of the thematic objectives and the indicative allocations of the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

a summary analysis of the ex ante evaluations of the programmes justifying the selection of the thematic objectives and the indicative allocations of the CSF Funds;

| (iii) | for each thematic objective, a summary of the main results expected for each of the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

for each thematic objective, a summary of the main results expected for each of the CSF Funds;

| (iv) | the indicative allocation of support by the Union by thematic objective at national level for each of the CSF Funds, as well as the total indicative amount of support foreseen for climate change objectives; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the indicative allocation of support by the Union by thematic objective at national level for each of the CSF Funds, as well as the total indicative amount of support foreseen for climate change objectives;

| (v) | the main priority areas for cooperation, taking account, where appropriate, of macro-regional and sea basin strategies; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

the main priority areas for cooperation, taking account, where appropriate, of macro-regional and sea basin strategies;

| (vi) | horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds;

| (vii) | the list of the programmes under the ERDF, the ESF and the CF, except those under the European territorial cooperation goal, and of the programmes of the EAFRD and the EMFF, with the respective indicative allocations by CSF Fund and by year; |
| --- | --- |

(vii)

the list of the programmes under the ERDF, the ESF and the CF, except those under the European territorial cooperation goal, and of the programmes of the EAFRD and the EMFF, with the respective indicative allocations by CSF Fund and by year;

| b) | an integrated approach to territorial development supported by the CSF Funds setting out:






  i) | the mechanisms at national and regional level that ensure coordination between the CSF Funds and other Union and national funding instruments and with the EIB; |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

an integrated approach to territorial development supported by the CSF Funds setting out:

i)

the mechanisms at national and regional level that ensure coordination between the CSF Funds and other Union and national funding instruments and with the EIB;

| ii) | the arrangements to ensure an integrated approach to the use of the CSF Funds for the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28, 29 and 99 accompanied, where appropriate, by a list of the cities to participate in the urban development platform referred to in Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

the arrangements to ensure an integrated approach to the use of the CSF Funds for the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28, 29 and 99 accompanied, where appropriate, by a list of the cities to participate in the urban development platform referred to in Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation;

[....]

| e) | arrangements to ensure efficient implementation of the CSF Funds, including:






  i) | an assessment of whether there is a need to reinforce the administrative capacity of the authorities and, where appropriate, beneficiaries, and actions to be taken for this purpose; |
| --- | --- | --- |

e)

arrangements to ensure efficient implementation of the CSF Funds, including:

i)

an assessment of whether there is a need to reinforce the administrative capacity of the authorities and, where appropriate, beneficiaries, and actions to be taken for this purpose;

| ii) | a summary of the actions planned and corresponding targets in the programmes to achieve a reduction in the administrative burden for beneficiaries; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

a summary of the actions planned and corresponding targets in the programmes to achieve a reduction in the administrative burden for beneficiaries;

| iii) | an assessment of the existing systems for electronic data exchange, and the actions planned to permit all exchanges of information between beneficiaries and authorities responsible for management and control of programmes to be carried out solely by electronic data exchange. |
| --- | --- |

iii)

an assessment of the existing systems for electronic data exchange, and the actions planned to permit all exchanges of information between beneficiaries and authorities responsible for management and control of programmes to be carried out solely by electronic data exchange.

Content of the Partnership Contract

The Partnership Contract shall set out:

| (a) | arrangements to ensure alignment with the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including:






  (i) | an analysis of disparities and development needs with reference to the thematic objectives and key actions defined in the Common Strategic Framework and the targets set in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4) of the Treaty; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

arrangements to ensure alignment with the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, including:

(i)

an analysis of disparities and development needs with reference to the thematic objectives and key actions defined in the Common Strategic Framework and the targets set in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under Article 148(4) of the Treaty;

| | |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

| (ii) | for each thematic objective, a summary of the main results expected for each of the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

for each thematic objective, a summary of the main results expected for each of the CSF Funds;

| | |
| --- | --- |

()

| | |
| --- | --- |

| () | horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

horizontal principles and policy objectives for the implementation of the CSF Funds;

| (v) | the list of the programmes under the ERDF, the ESF and the CF, except those under the European territorial cooperation goal, and of the programmes of the EAFRD and the EMFF, with the respective indicative allocations by CSF Fund and by year; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

the list of the programmes under the ERDF, the ESF and the CF, except those under the European territorial cooperation goal, and of the programmes of the EAFRD and the EMFF, with the respective indicative allocations by CSF Fund and by year;

| b) | an integrated approach to territorial development supported by the CSF Funds setting out:






  i) | the mechanisms at national and regional level that ensure coordination between the CSF Funds and other Union and national funding instruments and with the EIB; |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

an integrated approach to territorial development supported by the CSF Funds setting out:

i)

the mechanisms at national and regional level that ensure coordination between the CSF Funds and other Union and national funding instruments and with the EIB;

| ii) | the arrangements to ensure an integrated approach to the use of the CSF Funds for the territorial development of urban, , rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28, 29 and 99 accompanied, where appropriate, by a list of the cities to participate in the urban development platform referred to in Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

the arrangements to ensure an integrated approach to the use of the CSF Funds for the territorial development of urban, , rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28, 29 and 99 accompanied, where appropriate, by a list of the cities to participate in the urban development platform referred to in Article 7 of the ERDF Regulation;

[....]

| e) | arrangements to ensure efficient implementation of the CSF Funds, including: | |
| --- | --- | --- |

e)

arrangements to ensure efficient implementation of the CSF Funds, including:

i)

| i) | a summary of the actions planned and corresponding targets in the programmes to achieve a reduction in the administrative burden for beneficiaries; |
| --- | --- |

a summary of the actions planned and corresponding targets in the programmes to achieve a reduction in the administrative burden for beneficiaries;

| ii) | an assessment of the existing systems for electronic data exchange, and the actions planned to permit all exchanges of information between beneficiaries and authorities responsible for management and control of programmes to be carried out solely by electronic data exchange. |
| --- | --- |

ii)

an assessment of the existing systems for electronic data exchange, and the actions planned to permit all exchanges of information between beneficiaries and authorities responsible for management and control of programmes to be carried out solely by electronic data exchange.

Reason

There is no need to include in the Partnership Contract data already provided and negotiated in the operational programmes; these provisions are redundant and run counter to simplification. Furthermore, the Member States cannot assume responsibility for commitments made previously at regional and local level.

As far as the integrated approach to the use of the CSF Funds is concerned, this is also vital in peri-urban areas, otherwise there is a risk that the latter will be deprived of both the funding allocated for rural areas and the funding allocated to cities, just when the number of peri-urban areas in the EU is increasing.

Finally, in relation to European Territorial Cooperation (ETC), because of its multilateral nature this cannot be controlled via the Partnership Contract instrument. It should therefore explicitly be left outside of the latter's scope.

Amendment 20

Article 16

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Thematic concentration
  Member States shall concentrate support, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules, on actions bringing the greatest added value in relation to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, addressing the challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, and taking into account national and regional needs. | Thematic concentration
  Member States shall concentrate support, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules, on actions bringing the greatest added value in relation to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, addressing the challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, and taking into account national and regional needs. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Thematic concentration

Member States shall concentrate support, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules, on actions bringing the greatest added value in relation to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, addressing the challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, and taking into account national and regional needs.

Thematic concentration

Member States shall concentrate support, in accordance with the Fund-specific rules, on actions bringing the greatest added value in relation to the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, addressing the challenges identified in the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the relevant Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, and taking into account national and regional needs.

Reason

The Committee endorses the principle of concentrating the bulk of resources on a limited number of thematic objectives/investment priorities, but considers that the choice of objectives and priorities should be left to the managing authorities which will adapt the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy and the Common Strategic Framework to local conditions.

Amendment 21

Article 17

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Ex ante conditionalities

  1.   Ex ante conditionalities shall be defined for each CSF Fund in the Fund-specific rules.
  2.   Member States shall assess whether the applicable ex ante conditionalities are fulfilled.
  3.   Where ex ante conditionalities are not fulfilled at the date of transmission of the Partnership Contract, Member States shall set out in the Partnership Contract a summary of the actions to be taken at national or regional level and the timetable for their implementation, to ensure their fulfilment not later than two years after the adoption of the Partnership Contract or by 31 December 2016, whichever is earlier.
  4.   Member States shall set out the detailed actions relating to the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities, including the timetable for their implementation, in the relevant programmes.
  5.   The Commission shall assess the information provided on the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities in the framework of its assessment of the Partnership Contract and programmes. It may decide, when adopting a programme, to suspend all or part of interim payments to the programme pending the satisfactory completion of actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality. The failure to complete actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality by the deadline set out in the programme shall constitute a basis for suspending payments by the Commission.
  6.   Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply to programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal. | Ex ante conditionalities

  1.   Ex ante conditionalities shall be defined for each CSF Fund in the Fund-specific rules.
  2.   Member States shall assess whether the applicable ex ante conditionalities are fulfilled .
  3.   Where ex ante conditionalities are not fulfilled at the date of transmission of the Partnership Contract, Member States shall set out in the Partnership Contract a summary of the actions to be taken at national or regional level and the timetable for their implementation, to ensure their fulfilment not later than years after the adoption of the Partnership Contract or by 31 December 2016, whichever is earlier.
  4.   Member States, shall set out the actions relating to the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities, including the timetable for their implementation, in the relevant programmes.
  5.   The Commission shall assess the information provided on the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities in the framework of its assessment of the Partnership Contract and programmes. The failure to complete actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality by the deadline set out in the programme constitute a basis for suspending payments by the Commission.
  6.   Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply to programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Ex ante conditionalities

1.   Ex ante conditionalities shall be defined for each CSF Fund in the Fund-specific rules.

2.   Member States shall assess whether the applicable ex ante conditionalities are fulfilled.

3.   Where ex ante conditionalities are not fulfilled at the date of transmission of the Partnership Contract, Member States shall set out in the Partnership Contract a summary of the actions to be taken at national or regional level and the timetable for their implementation, to ensure their fulfilment not later than two years after the adoption of the Partnership Contract or by 31 December 2016, whichever is earlier.

4.   Member States shall set out the detailed actions relating to the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities, including the timetable for their implementation, in the relevant programmes.

5.   The Commission shall assess the information provided on the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities in the framework of its assessment of the Partnership Contract and programmes. It may decide, when adopting a programme, to suspend all or part of interim payments to the programme pending the satisfactory completion of actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality. The failure to complete actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality by the deadline set out in the programme shall constitute a basis for suspending payments by the Commission.

6.   Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply to programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal.

Ex ante conditionalities

1.   Ex ante conditionalities shall be defined for each CSF Fund in the Fund-specific rules.

2.   Member States shall assess whether the applicable ex ante conditionalities are fulfilled .

3.   Where ex ante conditionalities are not fulfilled at the date of transmission of the Partnership Contract, Member States shall set out in the Partnership Contract a summary of the actions to be taken at national or regional level and the timetable for their implementation, to ensure their fulfilment not later than years after the adoption of the Partnership Contract or by 31 December 2016, whichever is earlier.

4.   Member States, shall set out the actions relating to the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities, including the timetable for their implementation, in the relevant programmes.

5.   The Commission shall assess the information provided on the fulfilment of ex ante conditionalities in the framework of its assessment of the Partnership Contract and programmes. The failure to complete actions to fulfil an ex ante conditionality by the deadline set out in the programme constitute a basis for suspending payments by the Commission.

6.   Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply to programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal.

Reason

The Committee considers that such ex ante conditionalities should not lead to any suspension of payments or to financial corrections, with the exception of those conditionalities with which the Member State has undertaken to comply. In the event of failure to comply with ex ante conditionalities at the start of the programming period, the respective investments cannot be programmed, and so there would be no need to inflict penalties after the fact. It is also crucial that the Commission take into consideration the institutional context and distribution of competences of each Member State. It is inconceivable that a Member State should take on commitments for competences belonging to local and regional authorities, and vice versa.

Amendment 22

Article 18

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Performance reserve
  5 % of the resources allocated to each CSF Fund and Member State, with the exception of resources allocated to the European territorial cooperation goal and to Title V of the EMFF Regulation, shall constitute a performance reserve to be allocated in accordance with Article 20. | | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Performance reserve

5 % of the resources allocated to each CSF Fund and Member State, with the exception of resources allocated to the European territorial cooperation goal and to Title V of the EMFF Regulation, shall constitute a performance reserve to be allocated in accordance with Article 20.

Reason

| | |
| --- | --- |

The amendment reflects the opposition to creating a national-level performance reserve because of concerns that this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, consequently giving priority to unambitious projects and discouraging innovation.

The Committee would however support the creation of a flexibility reserve made up of automatic decommitment resources and used to fund experimental initiatives in the area of smart, sustainable or inclusive growth or to intervene during a crisis; this reserve would remain within the appropriations allocated to each Member State.

Amendment 23

Article 19

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Performance review
  1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall undertake a review of the performance of the programmes in each Member State in 2017 and 2019, with reference to the performance framework set out in the respective Partnership Contract and programmes. The method for establishing the performance framework is set out in Annex I.
  2.   The review shall examine the achievement of the milestones of the programmes at the level of priorities, on the basis of the information and the assessments presented in the progress reports submitted by the Member States in the years 2017 and 2019. | Performance review
  1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall undertake a review of the performance of the programmes in each Member State in 2017 and 2019, with reference to the performance framework set out in the respective Partnership Contract and programmes. The method for establishing the performance framework is set out in Annex I.
  2.   The review shall examine the achievement of the milestones of the programmes at the level of priorities, on the basis of the information and the assessments presented in the progress reports submitted by the Member States in the years 2017 and 2019. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Performance review

1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall undertake a review of the performance of the programmes in each Member State in 2017 and 2019, with reference to the performance framework set out in the respective Partnership Contract and programmes. The method for establishing the performance framework is set out in Annex I.

2.   The review shall examine the achievement of the milestones of the programmes at the level of priorities, on the basis of the information and the assessments presented in the progress reports submitted by the Member States in the years 2017 and 2019.

Performance review

1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall undertake a review of the performance of the programmes in each Member State in 2017 and 2019, with reference to the performance framework set out in the respective Partnership Contract and programmes. The method for establishing the performance framework is set out in Annex I.

2.   The review shall examine the achievement of the milestones of the programmes at the level of priorities, on the basis of the information and the assessments presented in the progress reports submitted by the Member States in the years 2017 and 2019.

Reason

The amendment reflects the opposition to creating a national-level performance reserve because of concerns that this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, consequently giving priority to unambitious projects and discouraging innovation.

As regards the framework for performance review, a mechanism for steering and monitoring the objectives pursued throughout the programming period should be established. In the event of failure to achieve the objectives, this mechanism would initiate technical support by the Commission, rather than the application of financial corrections.

Amendment 24

Article 20

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Allocation of performance reserve
  1.   Where the review of performance undertaken in 2017 reveals that a priority within a programme has not attained its milestones set for the year 2016, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Member State concerned.
  2.   On the basis of the review undertaken in 2019, the Commission shall adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, to determine for each CSF Fund and Member State the programmes and priorities which have attained their milestones. The Member State shall propose the attribution of the performance reserve for the programmes and priorities set out in that Commission decision. The Commission shall approve the amendment of the programmes concerned in accordance with Article 26. Where a Member State fails to submit the information in accordance with Article 46(2) and (3), the performance reserve for the programmes or the priorities concerned shall not be allocated.
  3.   Where there is evidence resulting from a performance review that a priority has failed to achieve the milestones set out in the performance framework, the Commission may suspend all or part of an interim payment of a priority of a programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Fund-specific rules.
  4.   Where the Commission, based on the examination of the final implementation report of the programme, establishes a serious failure to achieve the targets set out in the performance framework, it may apply financial corrections in respect of the priorities concerned in accordance with Fund-specific rules. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 142 to establish criteria and the methodology for determining the level of financial correction to be applied.
  5.   Paragraph 2 shall not apply to programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal and to Title V of the EMFF Regulation”. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Allocation of performance reserve

1.   Where the review of performance undertaken in 2017 reveals that a priority within a programme has not attained its milestones set for the year 2016, the Commission shall make recommendations to the Member State concerned.

2.   On the basis of the review undertaken in 2019, the Commission shall adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, to determine for each CSF Fund and Member State the programmes and priorities which have attained their milestones. The Member State shall propose the attribution of the performance reserve for the programmes and priorities set out in that Commission decision. The Commission shall approve the amendment of the programmes concerned in accordance with Article 26. Where a Member State fails to submit the information in accordance with Article 46(2) and (3), the performance reserve for the programmes or the priorities concerned shall not be allocated.

3.   Where there is evidence resulting from a performance review that a priority has failed to achieve the milestones set out in the performance framework, the Commission may suspend all or part of an interim payment of a priority of a programme in accordance with the procedure laid down in Fund-specific rules.

4.   Where the Commission, based on the examination of the final implementation report of the programme, establishes a serious failure to achieve the targets set out in the performance framework, it may apply financial corrections in respect of the priorities concerned in accordance with Fund-specific rules. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 142 to establish criteria and the methodology for determining the level of financial correction to be applied.

5.   Paragraph 2 shall not apply to programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal and to Title V of the EMFF Regulation”.

Reason

The amendment reflects the opposition to creating a national-level performance reserve because of concerns that this mechanism may encourage policy-makers to set very modest, easily achieved objectives with a view to tapping the additional resources, consequently giving priority to unambitious projects and discouraging innovation.

Amendment 25

Article 21

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Conditionality linked to the coordination of Member States' economic policies
      [...]4.   By derogation to paragraph 1, where financial assistance is made available to a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1(d) and is linked to an adjustment programme, the Commission may without any proposal from the Member State amend the Partnership Contract and the programmes with a view to maximising the growth and competitiveness impact of the available CSF Funds. To ensure effective implementation of the Partnership Contract and the relevant programmes, the Commission shall become involved in their management as detailed in the adjustment programme or the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the Member State concerned.
  5.   Where the Member State fails to respond to the Commission's request referred to in paragraph 1 or does not reply satisfactorily within one month to the observations of the Commission referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission may, within three months following its observations, adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, suspending part or all of the payments for the programmes concerned.
  6.   The Commission shall suspend, by means of implementing acts, part or all of the payments and commitments for the programmes concerned where:






  a) | the Council decides that the Member State does not comply with the specific measures set out by the Council in accordance with Article 136(1) of the Treaty; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Conditionality linked to the coordination of Member States' economic policies

4.   By derogation to paragraph 1, where financial assistance is made available to a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1(d) and is linked to an adjustment programme, the Commission may without any proposal from the Member State amend the Partnership Contract and the programmes with a view to maximising the growth and competitiveness impact of the available CSF Funds. To ensure effective implementation of the Partnership Contract and the relevant programmes, the Commission shall become involved in their management as detailed in the adjustment programme or the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the Member State concerned.

5.   Where the Member State fails to respond to the Commission's request referred to in paragraph 1 or does not reply satisfactorily within one month to the observations of the Commission referred to in paragraph 2, the Commission may, within three months following its observations, adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, suspending part or all of the payments for the programmes concerned.

6.   The Commission shall suspend, by means of implementing acts, part or all of the payments and commitments for the programmes concerned where:

a)

the Council decides that the Member State does not comply with the specific measures set out by the Council in accordance with Article 136(1) of the Treaty;

| b) | the Council decides in accordance with Article 126(8) or Article 126(11) of the Treaty that the Member State concerned has not taken effective action to correct its excessive deficit; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the Council decides in accordance with Article 126(8) or Article 126(11) of the Treaty that the Member State concerned has not taken effective action to correct its excessive deficit;

| c) | the Council concludes in accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2011 [on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances] that, on two successive instances, the Member State has not submitted a sufficient corrective action plan or the Council adopts a decision declaring non-compliance in accordance with Article 10(4) of that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the Council concludes in accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2011 [on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances] that, on two successive instances, the Member State has not submitted a sufficient corrective action plan or the Council adopts a decision declaring non-compliance in accordance with Article 10(4) of that Regulation;

| d) | the Commission concludes that the Member State has not taken measures to implement the adjustment programme referred to in Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 or Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 and as a consequence decides not to authorise the disbursement of the financial assistance granted to this Member State; or |
| --- | --- |

d)

the Commission concludes that the Member State has not taken measures to implement the adjustment programme referred to in Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 or Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 and as a consequence decides not to authorise the disbursement of the financial assistance granted to this Member State; or

| e) | the Board of Directors of the European stability mechanism concludes that the conditionality attached to an ESM financial assistance in the form of an ESM loan to the concerned Member State was not met and as a consequence decides not to disburse the stability support granted to it. |
| --- | --- |

e)

the Board of Directors of the European stability mechanism concludes that the conditionality attached to an ESM financial assistance in the form of an ESM loan to the concerned Member State was not met and as a consequence decides not to disburse the stability support granted to it.

7.   When deciding to suspend part or all of the payments or commitments in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 respectively, the Commission shall ensure that the suspension is proportionate and effective, taking into account the economic and social circumstances of the Member State concerned, and respects equality of treatment between Member States, in particular with regard to the impact of the suspension on the economy of the Member State concerned.

8.   The Commission shall without delay lift the suspension of payments and commitments where the Member State has proposed amendments to the Partnership Contract and the relevant programmes as requested by the Commission, which the Commission has approved and, where applicable:

| a) | the Council has decided that the Member State complies with the specific measures set out by the Council in accordance with Article 136(1) of the Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the Council has decided that the Member State complies with the specific measures set out by the Council in accordance with Article 136(1) of the Treaty;

| b) | the excessive deficit procedure is held in abeyance in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 or the Council has decided in accordance with Article 126(12) of the Treaty to abrogate the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit: |
| --- | --- |

b)

the excessive deficit procedure is held in abeyance in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 or the Council has decided in accordance with Article 126(12) of the Treaty to abrogate the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit:

| c) | the Council has endorsed the corrective action plan submitted by the concerned Member State in accordance with Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [EIP Regulation] or the excessive imbalance procedure is placed in a position of abeyance in accordance with Article 10(5) of that Regulation or the Council has closed the excessive imbalance procedure in accordance with Article 11 of that Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the Council has endorsed the corrective action plan submitted by the concerned Member State in accordance with Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [EIP Regulation] or the excessive imbalance procedure is placed in a position of abeyance in accordance with Article 10(5) of that Regulation or the Council has closed the excessive imbalance procedure in accordance with Article 11 of that Regulation;

| d) | the Commission has concluded that the Member State has taken measures to implement the adjustment programme referred to in Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 or Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 and as a consequence has authorised the disbursement of the financial assistance granted to this Member State; or |
| --- | --- |

d)

the Commission has concluded that the Member State has taken measures to implement the adjustment programme referred to in Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 or Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 and as a consequence has authorised the disbursement of the financial assistance granted to this Member State; or

| e) | the Board of Directors of the European stability mechanism has concluded that the conditionality attached to a financial assistance in the form of an ESM loan to the concerned Member State is met and as a consequence has decided to disburse the stability support granted to it. |
| --- | --- |

e)

the Board of Directors of the European stability mechanism has concluded that the conditionality attached to a financial assistance in the form of an ESM loan to the concerned Member State is met and as a consequence has decided to disburse the stability support granted to it.

At the same time, the Council shall decide, on a proposal from the Commission, to re-budget the suspended commitments in accordance with Article 8 of Council Regulation (EU) No [...] laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014 to 2020.

Conditionality linked to the coordination of Member States' economic policies

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

The Committee firmly rejects the proposals aiming to establish a link between cohesion policy and compliance with the stability pact (macroeconomic conditionality); the Committee of the Regions believes that macroeconomic conditionality and cohesion policy pursue different goals. It therefore considers that regional authorities must not be penalised as a result of certain Member States' failure to comply with their obligations, particularly as regards the national deficit. The Committee acknowledges that it may sometimes be necessary to amend the contract and operational programmes, but rejects the hypothesis of partial or total suspension of payments.

Amendment 26

Article 23

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Preparation of programmes
  1.   The CSF Funds shall be implemented through programmes in accordance with the Partnership Contract. Each programme shall cover the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.
  2.   Programmes shall be drawn up by Member States or any authority designated by them, in cooperation with the partners.
  3.   Programmes shall be submitted by the Member States at the same time as the Partnership Contract, with the exception of European territorial cooperation programmes, which shall be submitted within six months of the approval of the Common Strategic Framework. All programmes shall be accompanied by the ex ante evaluation as set out in Article 48. | Preparation of programmes
  1.   The CSF Funds shall be implemented through programmes in accordance with the Partnership Contract. Each programme shall cover the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.
  2.   Programmes shall be drawn up by Member States or any authority designated by them, in cooperation with the partners.
     
     Programmes shall be submitted by the Member States the Partnership Contract, with the exception of European territorial cooperation programmes, which shall be submitted within six months of the approval of the Common Strategic Framework. All programmes shall be accompanied by the ex ante evaluation as set out in Article 48. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Preparation of programmes

1.   The CSF Funds shall be implemented through programmes in accordance with the Partnership Contract. Each programme shall cover the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.

2.   Programmes shall be drawn up by Member States or any authority designated by them, in cooperation with the partners.

3.   Programmes shall be submitted by the Member States at the same time as the Partnership Contract, with the exception of European territorial cooperation programmes, which shall be submitted within six months of the approval of the Common Strategic Framework. All programmes shall be accompanied by the ex ante evaluation as set out in Article 48.

Preparation of programmes

1.   The CSF Funds shall be implemented through programmes in accordance with the Partnership Contract. Each programme shall cover the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020.

2.   Programmes shall be drawn up by Member States or any authority designated by them, in cooperation with the partners.

Programmes shall be submitted by the Member States the Partnership Contract, with the exception of European territorial cooperation programmes, which shall be submitted within six months of the approval of the Common Strategic Framework. All programmes shall be accompanied by the ex ante evaluation as set out in Article 48.

Reason

The Committee considers that the choice (strongly supported by the Committee) to draw up multi-fund programmes should be encouraged and supported by all actors (European Commission, Member States, Local and Regional authorities). To this end, the Commission should abolish all procedural barriers and avoid further controls which, on the basis of the proportionality principle, could derive from the fact that a multi-fund programme has a larger financial dimension. The Committee is also concerned that the requirement to submit the contract at the same time as the programmes might delay the start of operations, and so proposes a deadline of six months.

Amendment 27

Article 25(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The procedure for adoption of programmes
  1.   The Commission shall assess the consistency of programmes with this Regulation, the Fund-specific rules, their effective contribution to the thematic objectives and the Union priorities specific to each CSF Fund, the Common Strategic Framework, the Partnership Contract, the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, taking account of the ex ante evaluation. The assessment shall address, in particular, the adequacy of the programme strategy, the corresponding objectives, indicators, targets and the allocation of budgetary resources. | The procedure for adoption of programmes
  1.   The Commission shall assess the consistency of programmes with this Regulation, the Fund-specific rules, their effective contribution to the thematic objectives and the Union priorities specific to each CSF Fund, the Common Strategic Framework, the Partnership Contract, the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, taking account of the ex ante evaluation. The assessment shall address, in particular, the adequacy of the programme strategy, the corresponding objectives, indicators, targets and the allocation of budgetary resources. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The procedure for adoption of programmes

1.   The Commission shall assess the consistency of programmes with this Regulation, the Fund-specific rules, their effective contribution to the thematic objectives and the Union priorities specific to each CSF Fund, the Common Strategic Framework, the Partnership Contract, the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, taking account of the ex ante evaluation. The assessment shall address, in particular, the adequacy of the programme strategy, the corresponding objectives, indicators, targets and the allocation of budgetary resources.

The procedure for adoption of programmes

1.   The Commission shall assess the consistency of programmes with this Regulation, the Fund-specific rules, their effective contribution to the thematic objectives and the Union priorities specific to each CSF Fund, the Common Strategic Framework, the Partnership Contract, the country-specific recommendations under Article 121(2) of the Treaty and the Council recommendations adopted under 148(4) of the Treaty, taking account of the ex ante evaluation. The assessment shall address, in particular, the adequacy of the programme strategy, the corresponding objectives, indicators, targets and the allocation of budgetary resources.

Reason

It is crucial to emphasise that the evaluation must demonstrate that the strategy is not only adequate, but really can be implemented.

Amendment 28

Article 28(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Community-led local development
  1.   Community-led local development, which is designated as LEADER local development in relation to the EAFRD, shall be:






  (a) | focused on specific sub-regional territories; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Community-led local development

1.   Community-led local development, which is designated as LEADER local development in relation to the EAFRD, shall be:

(a)

focused on specific sub-regional territories;

| (b) | community-led, by local action groups composed of representatives of public and private local socio-economic interests, where at the decision-making level neither the public sector nor any single interest group shall represent more than 49 % of the voting rights; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

community-led, by local action groups composed of representatives of public and private local socio-economic interests, where at the decision-making level neither the public sector nor any single interest group shall represent more than 49 % of the voting rights;

Community-led local development

1.   Community-led local development, which is designated as LEADER local development in relation to the EAFRD, shall be:

| (a) | focused on specific sub-regional territories; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

focused on specific sub-regional territories;

| (b) | community-led, by local action groups composed of representatives of public and private local socio-economic interests, where at the decision-making level neither the public sector nor any single interest group shall represent more than 49 % of the voting rights; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

community-led, by local action groups composed of representatives of public and private local socio-economic interests, where at the decision-making level neither the public sector nor any single interest group shall represent more than 49 % of the voting rights;

Reason

Whenever local partnerships already exist they should not be unfairly penalised because their internal voting arrangements do not exactly match those required by the draft Directive. The regulation should allow enough leeway to allow the partners to identify a workable solution during the preparation of the Partnership Contract.

Amendment 29

Article 29

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Local development strategies
  1.   A local development strategy shall contain at least the following elements:






  a) | the definition of the area and population covered by the strategy; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Local development strategies

1.   A local development strategy shall contain at least the following elements:

a)

the definition of the area and population covered by the strategy;

| b) | an analysis of the development needs and potential of the area, including an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; |
| --- | --- |

b)

an analysis of the development needs and potential of the area, including an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats;

| c) | a description of the strategy and its objectives, a description of the integrated and innovative character of the strategy and a hierarchy of objectives, including clear and measurable targets for outputs or results. The strategy shall be coherent with the relevant programmes of all the CSF Funds involved; |
| --- | --- |

c)

a description of the strategy and its objectives, a description of the integrated and innovative character of the strategy and a hierarchy of objectives, including clear and measurable targets for outputs or results. The strategy shall be coherent with the relevant programmes of all the CSF Funds involved;

| d) | a description of the process of community involvement in the development of the strategy; |
| --- | --- |

d)

a description of the process of community involvement in the development of the strategy;

| e) | an action plan demonstrating how objectives are translated into actions; |
| --- | --- |

e)

an action plan demonstrating how objectives are translated into actions;

| f) | a description of the management and monitoring arrangements of the strategy, demonstrating the capacity of the local action group to implement the strategy and a description of specific arrangements for evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

f)

a description of the management and monitoring arrangements of the strategy, demonstrating the capacity of the local action group to implement the strategy and a description of specific arrangements for evaluation;

| g) | the financial plan of the strategy, including the planned allocation of each of the CSF Funds. |
| --- | --- |

g)

the financial plan of the strategy, including the planned allocation of each of the CSF Funds.

2.   Member States shall define criteria for the selection of local development strategies. The Fund-specific rules may set out selection criteria.

[....]

6.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 142 concerning the definition of the area and population covered by the strategy referred in paragraph 1(a).

Local development strategies

1.   A local development strategy shall contain the following elements:

| a) | the definition of the area and population covered by the strategy; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the definition of the area and population covered by the strategy;

| b) | an analysis of the development needs and potential of the area, including an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; |
| --- | --- |

b)

an analysis of the development needs and potential of the area, including an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats;

| c) | a description of the strategy and its objectives, ; |
| --- | --- |

c)

a description of the strategy and its objectives, ;

| | ; |
| --- | --- |

;

| ) | an action plan demonstrating how objectives are translated into actions; |
| --- | --- |

)

an action plan demonstrating how objectives are translated into actions;

| ) | a description of the management and monitoring arrangements of the strategy, demonstrating the capacity of the local action group to implement the strategy and a description of specific arrangements for evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

)

a description of the management and monitoring arrangements of the strategy, demonstrating the capacity of the local action group to implement the strategy and a description of specific arrangements for evaluation;

| ) | the financial plan of the strategy, including the planned allocation of each of the CSF Funds . |
| --- | --- |

)

the financial plan of the strategy, including the planned allocation of each of the CSF Funds .

2.   Member States shall define criteria for the selection of local development strategies. The Fund-specific rules may set out selection criteria.

[....]

Reason

The Committee welcomes the Commission's proposals on local development and integrated territorial investments but at the same time calls for the arrangements and procedures for implementing the new provisions to be simplified to avoid discouraging local actors from using them. Using delegated acts for the definition of the area and population covered by the local development strategy is excessive; local and regional authorities are typically responsible for such tasks as detailed local knowledge is needed. Furthermore, it should be entirely possible to combine the Local Development Strategies with the delivery of Integrated Territorial Investments and Joint Action Plans.

It is also important for the local development strategies that are implemented to promote urban-rural relations and that local players in peri-urban zones can be fully involved in these local development strategies.

Amendment 30

Article 35

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Requests for payment including expenditure for financial instruments
  2.   As regards financial instruments referred to in Article 33(1)(b) implemented in accordance with Article 33(4)(a) and (b), the total eligible expenditure presented in the request for payment shall include and separately disclose the total amount of support paid or expected to be paid to the financial instrument for investments in final recipients to be made over a pre-defined period of maximum two years, including management costs or fees.
  3.   The amount determined in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be adjusted in subsequent requests for payment, to take account of the difference between the amount of support previously paid to the financial instrument concerned, and the amounts effectively invested in final recipients, plus management costs and fees paid. These amounts shall be separately disclosed in the payment request.
  [....] | Requests for payment including expenditure for financial instruments
  2.   As regards financial instruments referred to in Article 33(1)(b) implemented in accordance with Article 33(4)(a) and (b), the total eligible expenditure presented in the request for payment shall include and separately disclose the total amount of support paid or expected to be paid to the financial instrument final recipients to be made over a pre-defined period of maximum two years, including management costs or fees.
  3.   
  [....] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Requests for payment including expenditure for financial instruments

2.   As regards financial instruments referred to in Article 33(1)(b) implemented in accordance with Article 33(4)(a) and (b), the total eligible expenditure presented in the request for payment shall include and separately disclose the total amount of support paid or expected to be paid to the financial instrument for investments in final recipients to be made over a pre-defined period of maximum two years, including management costs or fees.

3.   The amount determined in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be adjusted in subsequent requests for payment, to take account of the difference between the amount of support previously paid to the financial instrument concerned, and the amounts effectively invested in final recipients, plus management costs and fees paid. These amounts shall be separately disclosed in the payment request.

[....]

Requests for payment including expenditure for financial instruments

2.   As regards financial instruments referred to in Article 33(1)(b) implemented in accordance with Article 33(4)(a) and (b), the total eligible expenditure presented in the request for payment shall include and separately disclose the total amount of support paid or expected to be paid to the financial instrument final recipients to be made over a pre-defined period of maximum two years, including management costs or fees.

3.

[....]

Reason

The proposal for a regulation promotes the use of the standard instruments established by the Commission, with the laudable aim of preventing excessive use of financial engineering instruments for the sole purpose of certifying expenditure. The Committee's amendments aim to redress the balance by further diversification of the terms and conditions and the introduction of a margin of tolerance as regards the ability to comply with forecasts.

Amendment 31

Article 39

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Use of legacy resources after closure of the programme
  Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the capital resources and gains and other earnings or yields attributable to the support from the CSF Funds to financial instruments are used in accordance with the aims of the programme for a period of at least 10 years after the closure of the programme. | Use of legacy resources after closure of the programme
  Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the capital resources and gains and other earnings or yields attributable to the support from the CSF Funds to financial instruments are used in accordance with the aims of the programme for a period of at least years after the closure of the programme. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Use of legacy resources after closure of the programme

Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the capital resources and gains and other earnings or yields attributable to the support from the CSF Funds to financial instruments are used in accordance with the aims of the programme for a period of at least 10 years after the closure of the programme.

Use of legacy resources after closure of the programme

Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the capital resources and gains and other earnings or yields attributable to the support from the CSF Funds to financial instruments are used in accordance with the aims of the programme for a period of at least years after the closure of the programme.

Reason

Considers that the period during which financial engineering instruments and the resulting resources must be used should be shorter; a period of ten years after the closure of a programme constitutes long-term legal uncertainty.

Amendment 32

Article 40(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Report on Implementation of Financial Instruments
  2.   The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall include, for each financial instrument, the following information:






  a) | identification of the programme and of the priority from which support from the CSF Funds is provided;
  [....] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Report on Implementation of Financial Instruments

2.   The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall include, for each financial instrument, the following information:

a)

identification of the programme and of the priority from which support from the CSF Funds is provided;

[....]

| e) | total amount of support paid or committed in guarantee contracts by the financial instrument to the final recipients by programme and priority or measure included in requests for payment submitted to the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

e)

total amount of support paid or committed in guarantee contracts by the financial instrument to the final recipients by programme and priority or measure included in requests for payment submitted to the Commission;

| f) | revenues of, and repayments to, the financial instrument; |
| --- | --- |

f)

revenues of, and repayments to, the financial instrument;

| g) | multiplier effect of investments made by the financial instrument and value of investments and participations; |
| --- | --- |

g)

multiplier effect of investments made by the financial instrument and value of investments and participations;

| h) | contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the indicators of the programme and of the priority concerned.
  [....] |
| --- | --- |

h)

contribution of the financial instrument to the achievement of the indicators of the programme and of the priority concerned.

[....]

Report on Implementation of Financial Instruments

2.   The report referred to in paragraph 1 shall include, for each financial instrument, the following information:

| a) | identification of the programme and of the priority from which support from the CSF Funds is provided;
  [....] |
| --- | --- |

a)

identification of the programme and of the priority from which support from the CSF Funds is provided;

[....]

| e) | total amount of support paid or committed in guarantee contracts by the financial instrument to the final recipients by programme and priority or measure included in requests for payment submitted to the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

e)

total amount of support paid or committed in guarantee contracts by the financial instrument to the final recipients by programme and priority or measure included in requests for payment submitted to the Commission;

| | |
| --- | --- |

)

| ) | multiplier effect of investments made by the financial instrument and value of investments and participations; |
| --- | --- |

multiplier effect of investments made by the financial instrument and value of investments and participations;

| | [....] |
| --- | --- |

[....]

Reason

The aim here is to simplify annual reporting obligations for data requested by the Commission pertaining to the implementation of the financial instruments.

Amendment 33

Article 42(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Composition of the monitoring committee
  1.   The monitoring committee shall be composed of representatives of the managing authority and intermediate bodies and of representatives of the partners. Each member of the monitoring committee shall have a voting right.
  The monitoring committee of a programme under the European territorial cooperation goal shall also include representatives of any third country participating in that programme. | Composition of the monitoring committee
  1.   The monitoring committee shall be composed of representatives of the managing authority and intermediate bodies and of representatives of the partners. Each member of the monitoring committee shall have a voting right.
  The monitoring committee of a programme under the European territorial cooperation goal shall also include representatives of any third country participating in that programme. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Composition of the monitoring committee

1.   The monitoring committee shall be composed of representatives of the managing authority and intermediate bodies and of representatives of the partners. Each member of the monitoring committee shall have a voting right.

The monitoring committee of a programme under the European territorial cooperation goal shall also include representatives of any third country participating in that programme.

Composition of the monitoring committee

1.   The monitoring committee shall be composed of representatives of the managing authority and intermediate bodies and of representatives of the partners. Each member of the monitoring committee shall have a voting right.

The monitoring committee of a programme under the European territorial cooperation goal shall also include representatives of any third country participating in that programme.

Reason

It is unclear how the involvement of third countries and territories neighbouring on the outermost regions is to be fitted into European territorial cooperation. In the case of programmes with funding under the ENI and IPA, as well as from the ERDF, referred to in Article 28 of the Territorial Cooperation Regulation, third countries of course need to be involved. However, in the case of the outermost regions, third countries and neighbouring regions (with the exception of the Canary Islands – Morocco) are not included in either the ENI or the IPA. These countries receive EDF funds and make no additional contribution to European Territorial Cooperation. Although there must be cooperation with third countries, the outermost regions' territorial cooperation programmes only include allocations from the ERDF, and although 30 % of these funds may be used outside EU territory, such third countries must not be members of the monitoring committees.

Amendment 34

Article 43(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Functions of the monitoring committee
  1.   The monitoring committee shall meet at least once a year and shall review implementation of the programme and progress towards achieving its objectives. In doing so, it shall have regard to the financial data, common and programme-specific indicators, including changes in result indicators and progress towards quantified target values, and the milestones defined in the performance framework. | Functions of the monitoring committee
  1.   The monitoring committee shall meet at least once a year and shall review implementation of the programme and progress towards achieving its objectives. In doing so, it shall have regard to the financial data, common and programme-specific indicators, including changes in result indicators and progress towards quantified target values, and the milestones defined in the performance framework. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Functions of the monitoring committee

1.   The monitoring committee shall meet at least once a year and shall review implementation of the programme and progress towards achieving its objectives. In doing so, it shall have regard to the financial data, common and programme-specific indicators, including changes in result indicators and progress towards quantified target values, and the milestones defined in the performance framework.

Functions of the monitoring committee

1.   The monitoring committee shall meet at least once a year and shall review implementation of the programme and progress towards achieving its objectives. In doing so, it shall have regard to the financial data, common and programme-specific indicators, including changes in result indicators and progress towards quantified target values, and the milestones defined in the performance framework.

Reason

Considers that the in itinere evaluation exercises stipulated under Article 49 should also be taken into account when evaluating the programme's implementation.

Amendment 35

Article 47, new point 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General Provisions
  1.   Evaluations shall be carried out to improve the quality of the design and implementation of programmes, as well as to assess their effectiveness, efficiency and impact. Impact of programmes shall be evaluated in accordance with the mission of the respective CSF Funds in relation to the targets for the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (2) as well as in relation to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and unemployment, where appropriate.
  2.   Member States shall provide the resources necessary for carrying out evaluations, and shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and where appropriate programme-specific indicators. | General Provisions
  1.   Evaluations shall be carried out to improve the quality of the design and implementation of programmes, as well as to assess their effectiveness, efficiency and impact. Impact of programmes shall be evaluated in accordance with the mission of the respective CSF Funds in relation to the targets for the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (2) as well as in relation to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and unemployment, where appropriate.
     
     Member States shall provide the resources necessary for carrying out evaluations, and shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and where appropriate programme-specific indicators. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General Provisions

1.   Evaluations shall be carried out to improve the quality of the design and implementation of programmes, as well as to assess their effectiveness, efficiency and impact. Impact of programmes shall be evaluated in accordance with the mission of the respective CSF Funds in relation to the targets for the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (2) as well as in relation to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and unemployment, where appropriate.

2.   Member States shall provide the resources necessary for carrying out evaluations, and shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and where appropriate programme-specific indicators.

General Provisions

1.   Evaluations shall be carried out to improve the quality of the design and implementation of programmes, as well as to assess their effectiveness, efficiency and impact. Impact of programmes shall be evaluated in accordance with the mission of the respective CSF Funds in relation to the targets for the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (2) as well as in relation to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and unemployment, where appropriate.

Member States shall provide the resources necessary for carrying out evaluations, and shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and where appropriate programme-specific indicators.

Reason

Impact evaluations should also have the option of exploring other, equally important aspects using the ‘beyond GDP’ approach described in the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Measuring progress – GDP and beyond (cf. CoR 163/2010 fin).

Amendment 36

Article 48(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3.   Ex ante evaluations shall appraise:
  [....]






  g) | whether the quantified target values for indicators are realistic, having regard to the support from the CSF Funds envisaged; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3.   Ex ante evaluations shall appraise:

[....]

g)

whether the quantified target values for indicators are realistic, having regard to the support from the CSF Funds envisaged;

| h) | the rationale for the form of support proposed; |
| --- | --- |

h)

the rationale for the form of support proposed;

| i) | the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of the programme; |
| --- | --- |

i)

the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of the programme;

| j) | the suitability of the procedures for monitoring the programme and for collecting the data necessary to carry out evaluations; |
| --- | --- |

j)

the suitability of the procedures for monitoring the programme and for collecting the data necessary to carry out evaluations;

| k) | the suitability of the milestones selected for the performance framework; |
| --- | --- |

k)

the suitability of the milestones selected for the performance framework;

| l) | the adequacy of planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and to prevent discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

l)

the adequacy of planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and to prevent discrimination;

| m) | the adequacy of planned measures to promote sustainable development. |
| --- | --- |

m)

the adequacy of planned measures to promote sustainable development.

3.   Ex ante evaluations shall appraise:

[....]

| g) | whether the quantified target values for indicators are realistic, having regard to the support from the CSF Funds envisaged; |
| --- | --- |

g)

whether the quantified target values for indicators are realistic, having regard to the support from the CSF Funds envisaged;

| h) | the rationale for the form of support proposed; |
| --- | --- |

h)

the rationale for the form of support proposed;

| i) | the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of the programme; |
| --- | --- |

i)

the adequacy of human resources and administrative capacity for management of the programme;

| | |
| --- | --- |

)

| | |
| --- | --- |

| ) | the adequacy of planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and to prevent discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

the adequacy of planned measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women and to prevent discrimination;

| ) | the adequacy of planned measures to promote sustainable development. |
| --- | --- |

)

the adequacy of planned measures to promote sustainable development.

Reason

The Committee considers that the ex ante evaluation should not contain aspects which cannot be adequately quantified before the programme is launched or which are already referred to in other documents (e.g. management and control system, Partnership Contract); therefore proposes to delete some information.

Amendment 37

Article 49, new point 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Evaluation during the programming period
  1.   An evaluation plan shall be drawn up by the managing authority for each programme and submitted in accordance with the Fund-specific rules.
  2.   Member States shall ensure that appropriate evaluation capacity is available.
  3.   During the programming period, managing authorities shall carry out evaluations including evaluations to assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact, for each programme on the basis of the evaluation plan. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess how support from the CSF Funds has contributed to the objectives for each priority. All evaluations shall be examined by the monitoring committee and sent to the Commission.
  4.   The Commission may carry out, at its own initiative, evaluations of programmes. | Evaluation during the programming period
  1.   An evaluation plan shall be drawn up by the managing authority for each programme and submitted in accordance with the Fund-specific rules.
  2.   Member States shall ensure that appropriate evaluation capacity is available.
  3.   During the programming period, managing authorities shall carry out evaluations including evaluations to assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact, for each programme on the basis of the evaluation plan. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess how support from the CSF Funds has contributed to the objectives for each priority. All evaluations shall be examined by the monitoring committee and sent to the Commission.
     
  .   The Commission may carry out, at its own initiative, evaluations of programmes. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Evaluation during the programming period

1.   An evaluation plan shall be drawn up by the managing authority for each programme and submitted in accordance with the Fund-specific rules.

2.   Member States shall ensure that appropriate evaluation capacity is available.

3.   During the programming period, managing authorities shall carry out evaluations including evaluations to assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact, for each programme on the basis of the evaluation plan. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess how support from the CSF Funds has contributed to the objectives for each priority. All evaluations shall be examined by the monitoring committee and sent to the Commission.

4.   The Commission may carry out, at its own initiative, evaluations of programmes.

Evaluation during the programming period

1.   An evaluation plan shall be drawn up by the managing authority for each programme and submitted in accordance with the Fund-specific rules.

2.   Member States shall ensure that appropriate evaluation capacity is available.

3.   During the programming period, managing authorities shall carry out evaluations including evaluations to assess effectiveness, efficiency and impact, for each programme on the basis of the evaluation plan. At least once during the programming period, an evaluation shall assess how support from the CSF Funds has contributed to the objectives for each priority. All evaluations shall be examined by the monitoring committee and sent to the Commission.

.   The Commission may carry out, at its own initiative, evaluations of programmes.

Reason

In order to ensure a more results-oriented approach, the findings of the in itinere evaluations must be used to improve the programmes' effectiveness.

Amendment 38

Article 54(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Revenue-generating operations
  1.   Net revenue generated after completion of an operation over a specific reference period shall be determined in advance by one of the following methods:






  a) | application of a flat rate revenue percentage for the type of operation concerned; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Revenue-generating operations

1.   Net revenue generated after completion of an operation over a specific reference period shall be determined in advance by one of the following methods:

a)

application of a flat rate revenue percentage for the type of operation concerned;

| b) | calculation of the current value of the net revenue of the operation, taking into account the application of the polluter-pays principle and, if appropriate, considerations of equity linked to the relative prosperity of the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

b)

calculation of the current value of the net revenue of the operation, taking into account the application of the polluter-pays principle and, if appropriate, considerations of equity linked to the relative prosperity of the Member State concerned.

The eligible expenditure of the operation to be co-financed shall not exceed the current value of the investment cost of the operation less the current value of the net revenue, determined according to one of these methods.

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 142 concerning the definition of the flat rate referred to in point (a) above.

The Commission shall adopt the methodology under point (b) by means of implementing acts in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 143(3).

Revenue-generating operations

1.   Net revenue generated after completion of an operation over a specific reference period shall be determined in advance by one of the following methods:

| a) | application of a flat rate revenue percentage for the type of operation concerned; |
| --- | --- |

a)

application of a flat rate revenue percentage for the type of operation concerned;

| b) | calculation of the current value of the net revenue of the operation, taking into account the application of the polluter-pays principle and, if appropriate, considerations of equity linked to the relative prosperity of the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

b)

calculation of the current value of the net revenue of the operation, taking into account the application of the polluter-pays principle and, if appropriate, considerations of equity linked to the relative prosperity of the Member State concerned.

The eligible expenditure of the operation to be co-financed shall not exceed the current value of the investment cost of the operation less the current value of the net revenue, determined according to one of these methods.

oncerning the definition of the flat rate referred to in point (a) above

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |

The Commission shall adopt the methodology under point (b) by means of implementing acts in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 143(3).

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

Calls for the reinstatement of the 2000-2006 rules setting a single specific (reduced) intervention rate for revenue-generating operations to avoid discouraging project promoters.

Amendment 39

Article 55

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Eligibility
  1.   The eligibility of expenditure shall be determined on the basis of national rules, except where specific rules are laid down in or on the basis of this Regulation or the Fund-specific rules.
  [...]
  6.   Net revenue directly generated by an operation during its implementation which has not been taken into account at the time of approval of the operation, shall be deducted from the eligible expenditure of the operation in the final payment claim submitted by the beneficiary. This rule shall not apply to financial instruments and prizes.
  [...] | Eligibility
  1.   The eligibility of expenditure shall be determined on the basis of national rules, except where specific rules are laid down in or on the basis of this Regulation or the Fund-specific rules.
  [...]
     
  [...] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Eligibility

1.   The eligibility of expenditure shall be determined on the basis of national rules, except where specific rules are laid down in or on the basis of this Regulation or the Fund-specific rules.

[...]

6.   Net revenue directly generated by an operation during its implementation which has not been taken into account at the time of approval of the operation, shall be deducted from the eligible expenditure of the operation in the final payment claim submitted by the beneficiary. This rule shall not apply to financial instruments and prizes.

[...]

Eligibility

1.   The eligibility of expenditure shall be determined on the basis of national rules, except where specific rules are laid down in or on the basis of this Regulation or the Fund-specific rules.

[...]

[...]

Reason

Paragraph 6 should be deleted to ease the review process during the implementation of operations. A new paragraph (9) should be inserted, as territorial cooperation deserves a specific regime because the application or alignment of different national rules would represent a too high administrative obstacle to the proper implementation of the projects.

Amendment 40

Article 59(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Specific eligibility rules for grants
  3.   The following costs shall not be eligible for a contribution from the CSF Funds:






  a) | interest on debt; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Specific eligibility rules for grants

3.   The following costs shall not be eligible for a contribution from the CSF Funds:

a)

interest on debt;

| b) | the purchase of land not built on and land built on in the amount exceeding 10 % of the total eligible expenditure for the operation concerned. In exceptional and duly justified cases, a higher percentage may be permitted for operations concerning environmental conservation; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the purchase of land not built on and land built on in the amount exceeding 10 % of the total eligible expenditure for the operation concerned. In exceptional and duly justified cases, a higher percentage may be permitted for operations concerning environmental conservation;

| c) | value added tax. However, VAT amounts shall be eligible where they are not recoverable under national VAT legislation and are paid by a beneficiary other than non-taxable person as defined in the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, provided that such VAT amounts are not incurred in relation to the provision of infrastructure. |
| --- | --- |

c)

value added tax. However, VAT amounts shall be eligible where they are not recoverable under national VAT legislation and are paid by a beneficiary other than non-taxable person as defined in the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, provided that such VAT amounts are not incurred in relation to the provision of infrastructure.

Specific eligibility rules for grants

3.   The following costs shall not be eligible for a contribution from the CSF Funds:

| a) | interest on debt; |
| --- | --- |

a)

interest on debt;

| b) | the purchase of land not built on and land built on in the amount exceeding 10 % of the total eligible expenditure for the operation concerned. In exceptional and duly justified cases, a higher percentage may be permitted for operations concerning environmental conservation; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the purchase of land not built on and land built on in the amount exceeding 10 % of the total eligible expenditure for the operation concerned. In exceptional and duly justified cases, a higher percentage may be permitted for operations concerning environmental conservation;

| c) | value added tax. . |
| --- | --- |

c)

value added tax. .

Reason

The Committee considers that only recoverable VAT should not be eligible for a contribution from the CSF Funds. Indeed, if VAT that was not recoverable were to be considered as ineligible for all projects undertaken by public sector institutions, then the part to be co-financed by the Member States would increase substantially and the capacity of regional and local authorities to complete projects would be undermined. Furthermore, the CoR considers that the rule on ineligibility of VAT as regards the provision of infrastructure for beneficiaries is discriminatory in relation to other types of operations.

Amendment 41

Article 64

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Accreditation and coordination
      [...]3.   The accreditation shall be based on an opinion of an independent audit body that assesses the body's compliance with the accreditation criteria. The independent audit body shall carry out its work in accordance with internationally accepted audit standards.
  [...]
  5.   The Member State may designate a coordinating body whose responsibility is to liaise with and provide information to the Commission, promote the harmonised application of Union rules, establish a synthesis report providing an overview at national level of all management declarations and the audit opinions and coordinate the implementation of remedial actions as regards any deficiencies of a common nature. | Accreditation and coordination
      [...]   
  [...] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Accreditation and coordination

3.   The accreditation shall be based on an opinion of an independent audit body that assesses the body's compliance with the accreditation criteria. The independent audit body shall carry out its work in accordance with internationally accepted audit standards.

[...]

5.   The Member State may designate a coordinating body whose responsibility is to liaise with and provide information to the Commission, promote the harmonised application of Union rules, establish a synthesis report providing an overview at national level of all management declarations and the audit opinions and coordinate the implementation of remedial actions as regards any deficiencies of a common nature.

Accreditation and coordination

[...]

Reason

The aim is to avoid the proliferation of bodies and actors which would make the management and control system still more complex.

Amendment 42

Article 67

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Common rules for payments
  1.   Payments by the Commission of the contribution from the CSF Funds to each programme shall be made in accordance with budget appropriations and subject to available funding. Each payment shall be posted to the earliest open budget commitment of the Fund concerned.
  2.   Payments shall take the form of pre-financing, interim payments and payment of the annual balance, where applicable, and of the final balance.
  3.   For forms of support under Article 57(1)(b), (c) and (d), the amounts paid to the beneficiary shall be regarded as eligible expenditure. | Common rules for payments
  1.   Payments by the Commission of the contribution from the CSF Funds to each programme shall be made in accordance with budget appropriations and subject to available funding. Each payment shall be posted to the earliest open budget commitment of the Fund concerned.
  2.   Payments shall take the form of pre-financing, interim payments and of the final balance.
  3.   For forms of support under Article 57(1)(b), (c) and (d), the amounts paid to the beneficiary shall be regarded as eligible expenditure. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Common rules for payments

1.   Payments by the Commission of the contribution from the CSF Funds to each programme shall be made in accordance with budget appropriations and subject to available funding. Each payment shall be posted to the earliest open budget commitment of the Fund concerned.

2.   Payments shall take the form of pre-financing, interim payments and payment of the annual balance, where applicable, and of the final balance.

3.   For forms of support under Article 57(1)(b), (c) and (d), the amounts paid to the beneficiary shall be regarded as eligible expenditure.

Common rules for payments

1.   Payments by the Commission of the contribution from the CSF Funds to each programme shall be made in accordance with budget appropriations and subject to available funding. Each payment shall be posted to the earliest open budget commitment of the Fund concerned.

2.   Payments shall take the form of pre-financing, interim payments and of the final balance.

3.   For forms of support under Article 57(1)(b), (c) and (d), the amounts paid to the beneficiary shall be regarded as eligible expenditure.

Reason

Against the reference to the ‘annual balance’ as it introduces a principle of annual clearance of account (annual closure). It is considered that the proposed annual clearance of accounts is, in reality, introducing annual closure that will increase the administration burden, introduce mandatory financial corrections for irregularities detected by the European Commission and/or European Court of Auditors and reduce the flexibility of declaring and substituting ‘overbooking’ expenditure that currently exists in the 2007-2013 period.

Amendment 43

Article 75(1) a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Submission of information
  1.   By 1 February of the year following the end of the accounting period, the Member State shall submit to the Commission the following documents and information in accordance with [Article 56] of the Financial Regulation:






  a) | the certified annual accounts of the relevant bodies accredited pursuant to Article 64; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Submission of information

1.   By 1 February of the year following the end of the accounting period, the Member State shall submit to the Commission the following documents and information in accordance with [Article 56] of the Financial Regulation:

a)

the certified annual accounts of the relevant bodies accredited pursuant to Article 64;

Submission of information

1.   By 1 February of the year following the end of the accounting period, the Member State shall submit to the Commission the following documents and information in accordance with [Article 56] of the Financial Regulation:

| a) | the certified annual accounts of the relevant bodies accredited pursuant to Article 64; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the certified annual accounts of the relevant bodies accredited pursuant to Article 64;

Reason

It would be useful if, as is the case for the current programming period, the annual settlement of accounts remained an optional choice taken by the certifying authority itself. The timeframe set down in Article 75 is not easy to meet as it is too tight.

Amendment 44

Article 82(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Investment for growth and jobs
      [...]2.   Resources for the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall be allocated among the following three categories of NUTS level 2 regions:






  (a) | less developed regions, whose GDP per capita is less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU-27; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Investment for growth and jobs

2.   Resources for the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall be allocated among the following three categories of NUTS level 2 regions:

(a)

less developed regions, whose GDP per capita is less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU-27;

| (b) | transition regions, whose GDP per capita is between 75 % and 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

transition regions, whose GDP per capita is between 75 % and 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27;

| (c) | more developed regions, whose GDP per capita is above 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

more developed regions, whose GDP per capita is above 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27.

The three categories of regions are determined on the basis of how their GDP per capita, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Union figures for the period 2006 to 2008, relates to the average GDP of the EU-27 for the same reference period.

Investment for growth and jobs

2.   Resources for the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall be allocated among the following three categories of NUTS level 2 regions:

| (a) | less developed regions, whose GDP per capita is less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU-27; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

less developed regions, whose GDP per capita is less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU-27;

| (b) | transition regions, whose GDP per capita is between 75 % and 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

transition regions, whose GDP per capita is between 75 % and 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27;

| (c) | more developed regions, whose GDP per capita is above 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

more developed regions, whose GDP per capita is above 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-27.

The three categories of regions are determined on the basis of how their GDP per capita, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Union figures for the period , relates to the average GDP of the EU-27 for the same reference period.

Reason

To clarify that the latest available figures should be used to determine a region's eligibility and not pre-crisis figures from 2006-2008.

Amendment 45

Article 83 (2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Global resources
  2.   The Commission shall adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, setting out the annual breakdown of the global resources by Member State, without prejudice to paragraph 3 of this Article and Article 84(7). | Global resources
  2.   The Commission shall adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, setting out the annual breakdown of the global resources by Member State , without prejudice to paragraph 3 of this Article and Article 84(7). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Global resources

2.   The Commission shall adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, setting out the annual breakdown of the global resources by Member State, without prejudice to paragraph 3 of this Article and Article 84(7).

Global resources

2.   The Commission shall adopt a decision, by means of implementing acts, setting out the annual breakdown of the global resources by Member State , without prejudice to paragraph 3 of this Article and Article 84(7).

Reason

The CoR wishes to ensure that resources allocated to territorial cooperation programmes will be awarded by the Commission per cooperation area and not by a breakdown of national envelopes.

Amendment 46

Article 84

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Resources for Investment for growth and jobs and for European territorial cooperation
  2.   The following criteria shall be used for the breakdown by Member State:






  a) | eligible population, regional prosperity, national prosperity and unemployment rate for less developed regions and transition regions; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Resources for Investment for growth and jobs and for European territorial cooperation

2.   The following criteria shall be used for the breakdown by Member State:

a)

eligible population, regional prosperity, national prosperity and unemployment rate for less developed regions and transition regions;

| b) | eligible population, regional prosperity, unemployment rate, employment rate, educational level and population density for more developed regions; |
| --- | --- |

b)

eligible population, regional prosperity, unemployment rate, employment rate, educational level and population density for more developed regions;

| c) | population, national prosperity and surface area for the Cohesion Fund. |
| --- | --- |

c)

population, national prosperity and surface area for the Cohesion Fund.

3.   At least 25 % of the Structural Funds resources for less developed regions, 40 % for transition regions and 52 % for more developed regions in each Member State shall be allocated to the ESF. For the purposes of this provision, the support to a Member State through the [Food for deprived people instrument] shall be considered as part of the share of Structural Funds allocated to the ESF.

[....]

5.   The support from the Structural Funds for [food for deprived people] under the Investment for Growth and Jobs shall be EUR 2 500 000 000.

The Commission shall adopt a decision by implementing act setting out the amount to be transferred from each Member State's Structural Funds allocation for the whole period in each Member State. The Structural Funds allocation of each Member State shall be reduced accordingly.

The annual appropriations corresponding to the support from the Structural Funds mentioned in the first subparagraph shall be entered in the relevant budget lines of the [food for deprived people instrument] with the 2014 budgetary exercise.

6.   5 % of the resources for the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall constitute the performance reserve to be allocated in accordance with Article 19.

[....]

8.   Resources for the European territorial cooperation goal shall amount to 3,48 % of the global resources available for budgetary commitment from the Funds for the period 2014 to 2020 (i.e., a total of EUR 11 700 000 004).

Resources for Investment for growth and jobs and for European territorial cooperation

2.   The following criteria shall be used for the breakdown by Member State:

| a) | eligible population, regional prosperity, national prosperity and unemployment rate for less developed regions and transition regions; |
| --- | --- |

a)

eligible population, regional prosperity, national prosperity and unemployment rate for less developed regions and transition regions;

| b) | eligible population, regional prosperity, unemployment rate, employment rate, educational level and population density, for more developed regions; |
| --- | --- |

b)

eligible population, regional prosperity, unemployment rate, employment rate, educational level and population density, for more developed regions;

| c) | population, national prosperity and surface area for the Cohesion Fund. |
| --- | --- |

c)

population, national prosperity and surface area for the Cohesion Fund.

3.   At least of the Structural Funds resources for less developed regions, for transition regions and for more developed regions in each Member State shall be allocated to the ESF. For the purposes of this provision, the support to a Member State through the [Food for deprived people instrument] shall be considered as part of the share of Structural Funds allocated to the ESF.

[....]

5.   upport for [food for deprived people] shall be EUR 2 500 000 000.

The Commission shall adopt a decision by implementing act setting out the amount to be transferred from the

[....]

8.   Resources for the European territorial cooperation goal shall amount to 3,48 % of the global resources available for budgetary commitment from the Funds for the period 2014 to 2020 (i.e., a total of EUR 11 700 000 004).

Reason

In addition to the criteria usually used when allocating support to the Member States, the Committee of the Regions calls for criteria such as severe and permanent natural or demographic regional handicaps, as set out in Article 174 TFEU, to be taken into account. Other demographic criteria to be taken into account include population dispersal, depopulation in certain parts of regions, e.g. rural and border areas, and even demographic ageing, which can have a serious impact on economic development and the cost of public services.

Furthermore, the Committee considers that the proposed minimum percentage to be allocated to the ESF is too high. It therefore calls for the threshold to be lowered for each category of region. The Committee considers that it is important to enable regions to invest in dynamic sectors which create jobs, while also guaranteeing an ambitious level of funding in the area of jobs and social affairs.

The Structural Funds' regulatory framework could constitute a new legal basis for the European programme of food aid for the most deprived people, but in financial terms it can never replace the food aid programme whose objectives are set by the Common Agricultural Policy.

Finally, the CoR wishes to ensure that resources allocated to territorial cooperation programmes will be awarded by the European Commission per cooperation area.

Amendment 47

Article 86(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Additionality
  4.   Verification of whether the level of public or equivalent structural expenditure under the Investment for growth and jobs goal has been maintained for the period shall only take place in those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover at least 15 % of the total population.
  In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover at least 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national level.
  In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover more than 15 % and less than 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national and regional level.
  For that purpose, those Member States shall provide to the Commission information about the expenditure in the less developed and transition regions at each stage of the verification process. | Additionality
  4.   Verification of whether the level of public or equivalent structural expenditure under the Investment for growth and jobs goal has been maintained for the period shall only take place in those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover at least of the total population.

  In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover more than 15 % and less than 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national and regional level.
  For that purpose, those Member States shall provide to the Commission information about the expenditure in the less developed and transition regions at each stage of the verification process. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Additionality

4.   Verification of whether the level of public or equivalent structural expenditure under the Investment for growth and jobs goal has been maintained for the period shall only take place in those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover at least 15 % of the total population.

In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover at least 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national level.

In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover more than 15 % and less than 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national and regional level.

For that purpose, those Member States shall provide to the Commission information about the expenditure in the less developed and transition regions at each stage of the verification process.

Additionality

4.   Verification of whether the level of public or equivalent structural expenditure under the Investment for growth and jobs goal has been maintained for the period shall only take place in those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover at least of the total population.

In those Member States in which less developed and transition regions cover more than 15 % and less than 70 % of the population, the verification shall take place at national and regional level.

For that purpose, those Member States shall provide to the Commission information about the expenditure in the less developed and transition regions at each stage of the verification process.

Reason

It would serve no purpose and be redundant to carry out the verification on the basis of the size of the population, as it is up to the Member States to establish how they will comply with this principle. We welcome the fact that verification of the additionality principle is to be done away with in Member States where only a small percentage of the population lives in less developed and transition regions. In line with the proportionality principle and for reasons of administrative simplification, the threshold should be raised to 20 %.

Amendment 48

Article 87(2) c) and h)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Content and adoption of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal
  2.   An operational programme shall set out:
  [...]






  c) | the contribution to the integrated approach for territorial development set out in the Partnership Contract, including:






  i) | the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments, and with the EIB; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Content and adoption of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal

2.   An operational programme shall set out:

[...]

c)

the contribution to the integrated approach for territorial development set out in the Partnership Contract, including:

i)

the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments, and with the EIB;

| ii) | where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29;

| iii) | the list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented, the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF] and the indicative annual allocation of ESF support for integrated actions; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

the list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented, the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF] and the indicative annual allocation of ESF support for integrated actions;

| iv) | the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented; |
| --- | --- |

iv)

the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented;

| v) | the arrangements for interregional and transnational actions with beneficiaries located in at least one other Member State; |
| --- | --- |

v)

the arrangements for interregional and transnational actions with beneficiaries located in at least one other Member State;

| vi) | where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies; |
| --- | --- |

vi)

where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies;

| d) | the contribution to the integrated approach set out in the Partnership Contract to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or target groups at highest risk of discrimination or exclusion, with special regard to marginalised communities, and the indicative financial allocation;
  [...] |
| --- | --- |

d)

the contribution to the integrated approach set out in the Partnership Contract to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or target groups at highest risk of discrimination or exclusion, with special regard to marginalised communities, and the indicative financial allocation;

[...]

| h) | the implementing provisions for the operational programme containing:






  i) | identification of the accrediting body, the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority; |
| --- | --- | --- |

h)

the implementing provisions for the operational programme containing:

i)

identification of the accrediting body, the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority;

| ii) | identification of the body to which payments will be made by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

ii)

identification of the body to which payments will be made by the Commission.

Content and adoption of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal

2.   An operational programme shall set out:

[...]

| c) | the contribution to the integrated approach for territorial development set out in the Partnership Contract, including:






  i) | the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments, and with the EIB; |
| --- | --- | --- |

c)

the contribution to the integrated approach for territorial development set out in the Partnership Contract, including:

i)

the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments, and with the EIB;

| ii) | where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal and fisheries areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29;

| iii) | list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF] and the indicative annual allocation of ESF support for integrated actions; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF] and the indicative annual allocation of ESF support for integrated actions;

| iv) | the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented; |
| --- | --- |

iv)

the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented;

| v) | the arrangements for interregional and transnational actions with beneficiaries located in at least one other Member State; |
| --- | --- |

v)

the arrangements for interregional and transnational actions with beneficiaries located in at least one other Member State;

| | |
| --- | --- |

vii)

| vii) | where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies ; |
| --- | --- |

where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies ;

| ) | the contribution to the integrated approach set out in the Partnership Contract to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or target groups at highest risk of discrimination or exclusion, with special regard to marginalised communities, and the indicative financial allocation;
  [...] |
| --- | --- |

)

the contribution to the integrated approach set out in the Partnership Contract to address the specific needs of geographical areas most affected by poverty or target groups at highest risk of discrimination or exclusion, with special regard to marginalised communities, and the indicative financial allocation;

[...]

| ) | the implementing provisions for the operational programme containing:






  i) | identification of the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority; |
| --- | --- | --- |

)

the implementing provisions for the operational programme containing:

i)

identification of the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority;

| ii) | identification of the body to which payments will be made by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

ii)

identification of the body to which payments will be made by the Commission.

Reason

The Commission's proposal to identify a fixed number of cities is too prescriptive. It is therefore proposed that this list should be indicative. Furthermore, this list of cities could be drawn up in partnership with the local and regional authorities.

It is proposed to incorporate d) into c) (viii), which then provides exhaustive details on the integrated approach; in line with the amendment to Article 64(3), it is proposed to delete the reference to the external accrediting body.

Amendment 49

Article 91(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Information to be submitted to the Commission
  2.   Major projects submitted to the Commission for approval shall be contained in the list of major projects in an operational programme. The list shall be reviewed by the Member State or the managing authority two years following the adoption of an operational programme and may at the request of the Member State be adjusted in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 26(2), in particular to include major projects with an expected completion date by the end of 2022. | Information to be submitted to the Commission
  2.   Major projects submitted to the Commission for approval shall be contained in the list of major projects in an operational programme. ajor projects must the end of 2022. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Information to be submitted to the Commission

2.   Major projects submitted to the Commission for approval shall be contained in the list of major projects in an operational programme. The list shall be reviewed by the Member State or the managing authority two years following the adoption of an operational programme and may at the request of the Member State be adjusted in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 26(2), in particular to include major projects with an expected completion date by the end of 2022.

Information to be submitted to the Commission

2.   Major projects submitted to the Commission for approval shall be contained in the list of major projects in an operational programme. ajor projects must the end of 2022.

Reason

The Committee of the Regions would like major projects submitted during the programming period to be able to start without waiting for approval by the Commission, as proposed under the current programming period. The Committee calls for the option for expenditure to be declared before the major project is approved by the Commission in order to avoid delaying the start of operations.

Amendment 50

Article 93(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   A joint action plan is an operation defined and managed in relation to the outputs and results which it will achieve. It comprises a group of projects, not consisting in the provision of infrastructure, carried out under the responsibility of the beneficiary, as part of an operational programme or programmes. The outputs andresults of a joint action plan shall be agreed between the Member State and the Commission and shall contribute to specific objectives of the operational programmes and form the basis of support from the Funds. Results shall refer to direct effects of the joint action plan. The beneficiary shall be a public law body. Joint action plans shall not be considered as major projects. | 1.   A joint action plan is an operation defined and managed in relation to the outputs and results which it will achieve. It comprises a group of projects, , carried out under the responsibility of the beneficiary, as part of an operational programme or programmes. The outputs and results of a joint action plan shall be agreed between the Member State and the Commission and shall contribute to specific objectives of the operational programmes and form the basis of support from the Funds. Results shall refer to direct effects of the joint action plan. The beneficiary shall be a public law body. Joint action plans shall not be considered as major projects. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   A joint action plan is an operation defined and managed in relation to the outputs and results which it will achieve. It comprises a group of projects, not consisting in the provision of infrastructure, carried out under the responsibility of the beneficiary, as part of an operational programme or programmes. The outputs andresults of a joint action plan shall be agreed between the Member State and the Commission and shall contribute to specific objectives of the operational programmes and form the basis of support from the Funds. Results shall refer to direct effects of the joint action plan. The beneficiary shall be a public law body. Joint action plans shall not be considered as major projects.

1.   A joint action plan is an operation defined and managed in relation to the outputs and results which it will achieve. It comprises a group of projects, , carried out under the responsibility of the beneficiary, as part of an operational programme or programmes. The outputs and results of a joint action plan shall be agreed between the Member State and the Commission and shall contribute to specific objectives of the operational programmes and form the basis of support from the Funds. Results shall refer to direct effects of the joint action plan. The beneficiary shall be a public law body. Joint action plans shall not be considered as major projects.

Reason

The Committee points out that the joint action plan primarily facilitates the implementation of the ESF in the context of specific, defined actions, but regrets that for the ERDF, use of this mechanism is difficult owing to the exclusion of infrastructure projects.

Amendment 51

Article 93(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Scope
  2.   The public support allocated to a joint action plan shall be a minimum of EUR 10 000 000 or 20 % of the public support of the operational programme or programmes, whichever is lower. | Scope
  2.   The public support allocated to a joint action plan shall be a minimum of EUR 000000 or  % of the public support of the operational programme or programmes, whichever is lower. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Scope

2.   The public support allocated to a joint action plan shall be a minimum of EUR 10 000 000 or 20 % of the public support of the operational programme or programmes, whichever is lower.

Scope

2.   The public support allocated to a joint action plan shall be a minimum of EUR 000000 or  % of the public support of the operational programme or programmes, whichever is lower.

Reason

A lower threshold is widely seen as more pertinent to ensure that this instrument fits available critical mass. However it should be noted that this is the legally minimum, and in many Member States the threshold to be agreed in the negotiation process will be notably higher.

Amendment 52

Article 102(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Transmission of financial data
  1.   By 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October, the managing authority shall transmit electronically to the Commission for monitoring purposes, for each operational programme and by priority axis:






  a) | the total and public eligible cost of the operations and the number of operations selected for support; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Transmission of financial data

1.   By 31 January, 30 April, 31 July and 31 October, the managing authority shall transmit electronically to the Commission for monitoring purposes, for each operational programme and by priority axis:

a)

the total and public eligible cost of the operations and the number of operations selected for support;

| b) | the total and public eligible cost of contracts or other legal commitments entered into by beneficiaries in implementation of operations selected for support; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the total and public eligible cost of contracts or other legal commitments entered into by beneficiaries in implementation of operations selected for support;

| c) | the total eligible expenditure declared by beneficiaries to the managing authority. |
| --- | --- |

c)

the total eligible expenditure declared by beneficiaries to the managing authority.

Transmission of financial data

1.   By 31 January, , 31 July , the managing authority shall transmit electronically to the Commission for monitoring purposes, for each operational programme and by priority axis:

| a) | the total and public eligible cost of the operations and the number of operations selected for support; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the total and public eligible cost of the operations and the number of operations selected for support;

| b) | the total and public eligible cost of contracts or other legal commitments entered into beneficiaries ; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the total and public eligible cost of contracts or other legal commitments entered into beneficiaries ;

| c) | the total eligible expenditure declared by beneficiaries to the managing authority. |
| --- | --- |

c)

the total eligible expenditure declared by beneficiaries to the managing authority.

Reason

The Committee wishes to simplify the transmission of financial data by lowering the requirement from four times to twice a year. The same applies to the transmission of information on chosen operations: this should only apply to total eligible costs, public eligible costs, contracts and other legal commitments between managing authorities and beneficiaries.

Amendment 53

Article 105

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Information and publicity
  1.   Member States and managing authorities shall be responsible for:






  (a) | ensuring the establishment of a single website or a single website portal providing information on, and access to, all operational programmes in that Member State; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Information and publicity

1.   Member States and managing authorities shall be responsible for:

(a)

ensuring the establishment of a single website or a single website portal providing information on, and access to, all operational programmes in that Member State;

| (b) | informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under operational programmes;

| (c) | publicising to Union citizens the role and achievements of cohesion policy and of the Funds through information and communication actions on the results and impact of Partnership Contracts, operational programmes and operations. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

publicising to Union citizens the role and achievements of cohesion policy and of the Funds through information and communication actions on the results and impact of Partnership Contracts, operational programmes and operations.

2.   Member States shall in order to ensure transparency in the support of the Funds maintain a list of operations by operational programme and by Fund in CSV or XML format which shall be accessible through the single website or the single website portal providing a list and summary of all operational programmes in that Member State.

The list of operations shall be updated at least every three months.

The minimum information to be set out in the list of operations is laid down in Annex V.

Information and publicity

1.   Member States and managing authorities shall be responsible for:

| (a) | ensuring the establishment of a single website or a single website portal providing information on, and access to, all operational programmes in that Member State; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

ensuring the establishment of a single website or a single website portal providing information on, and access to, all operational programmes in that Member State;

| (b) | informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under operational programmes;

| (c) | publicising to Union citizens the role and achievements of cohesion policy and of the Funds through information and communication actions on the results and impact of Partnership Contracts, operational programmes and operations. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

publicising to Union citizens the role and achievements of cohesion policy and of the Funds through information and communication actions on the results and impact of Partnership Contracts, operational programmes and operations.

2.

.   Member States shall in order to ensure transparency in the support of the Funds maintain a list of operations by operational programme and by Fund in CSV or XML format which shall be accessible through the single website or the single website portal providing a list and summary of all operational programmes in that Member State.

The list of operations shall be updated at least every months.

The minimum information to be set out in the list of operations is laid down in Annex V.

Reason

The Regulations should allow joint awareness raising actions between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions to support Regional and Local Authorities in explaining how cohesion policy works: ex ante, during the implementation and ex post. The CoR should have the possibility to support the Regional and Local Authorities' efforts, as beneficiaries of cohesion funds asked to deliver results on the ground. The CoR should also have the means to explain to the citizens the way Structural Funds were implemented and the role of the European Union in this process.

Furthermore, the Committee wishes to simplify the information and disclosure procedures, and consequently updating the list of operations twice a year would be adequate.

Amendment 54

Article 110(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Determination of co-financing rates
  3.   The co-financing rate at the level of each priority axis of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall be no higher than:






  (a) | 85 % for the Cohesion Fund; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Determination of co-financing rates

3.   The co-financing rate at the level of each priority axis of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall be no higher than:

(a)

85 % for the Cohesion Fund;

| (b) | 85 % for the less developed regions of Member States whose average GDP per capita for the period 2007 to 2009 was below 85 % of the EU-27 average during the same period and for the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

85 % for the less developed regions of Member States whose average GDP per capita for the period 2007 to 2009 was below 85 % of the EU-27 average during the same period and for the outermost regions;

| (c) | 80 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in point (b) eligible for the transitional regime of the Cohesion Fund on 1 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

80 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in point (b) eligible for the transitional regime of the Cohesion Fund on 1 January 2014;

| (d) | 75 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in points (b) and (c), and for all regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-2013 period was less than 75 % of the average of the EU-25 for the reference period but whose GDP per capita is above 75 % of the GDP average of the EU-27; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

75 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in points (b) and (c), and for all regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-2013 period was less than 75 % of the average of the EU-25 for the reference period but whose GDP per capita is above 75 % of the GDP average of the EU-27;

| (e) | 60 % for the transition regions other than those referred to in point (d); |
| --- | --- |

(e)

60 % for the transition regions other than those referred to in point (d);

| (f) | 50 % for the more developed regions other than those referred to in point (d). |
| --- | --- |

(f)

50 % for the more developed regions other than those referred to in point (d).

The co-financing rate at the level of each priority axis of operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal shall be no higher than 75 %.

Determination of co-financing rates

3.   The co-financing rate at the level of each priority axis of operational programmes under the Investment for growth and jobs goal shall be no higher than:

| (a) | 85 % for the Cohesion Fund; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

85 % for the Cohesion Fund;

| (b) | 85 % for the less developed regions of Member States whose average GDP per capita for the period 2007 to 2009 was below 85 % of the EU-27 average during the same period and for the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

85 % for the less developed regions of Member States whose average GDP per capita for the period 2007 to 2009 was below 85 % of the EU-27 average during the same period and for the outermost regions;

| (c) | 80 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in point (b) eligible for the transitional regime of the Cohesion Fund on 1 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

80 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in point (b) eligible for the transitional regime of the Cohesion Fund on 1 January 2014;

| (d) | 75 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in points (b) and (c), and for all regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-2013 period was less than 75 % of the average of the EU-25 for the reference period but whose GDP per capita is above 75 % of the GDP average of the EU-27; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

75 % for the less developed regions of Member States other than those referred to in points (b) and (c), and for all regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-2013 period was less than 75 % of the average of the EU-25 for the reference period but whose GDP per capita is above 75 % of the GDP average of the EU-27;

| (e) | 60 % for the transition regions other than those referred to in point (d); |
| --- | --- |

(e)

60 % for the transition regions other than those referred to in point (d);

| (f) | 50 % for the more developed regions other than those referred to in point (d). |
| --- | --- |

(f)

50 % for the more developed regions other than those referred to in point (d).

The co-financing rate of operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation goal shall be no higher than 5 %.

Reason

The proposed cofinancing rate of 75 % for operational programmes in the European territorial cooperation goal is lower than that for less developed regions under the investment for growth and jobs goal. This lower level of funding makes ETC programmes unattractive in these regions. The Committee of the Regions does not agree, therefore, with ETC programmes being cofinanced at less than 75 %. The Committee thinks that there are no grounds for such a distinction and calls for the cofinancing level for both goals to be the same at 85 %. To maintain the quality of operations, the present conditions established by Article 53(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 must be preserved:

‘3.   For operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation objective in which at least one participant belongs to a Member State whose average GDP per capita for the period 2001 to 2003 was below 85 % of the EU-25 average during the same period, the contribution from the ERDF shall not be higher than 85 % of the eligible expenditure. For all other operational programmes, the contribution from the ERDF shall not be higher than 75 % of the eligible expenditure co-financed by the ERDF.

4.   The contribution from the Funds at the priority axis level shall not be subject to the ceilings set out in paragraph 3 and in Annex III. However, it shall be fixed so as to ensure compliance with the maximum amount of contribution from the Funds and the maximum contribution rate per Fund fixed at the level of the operational programme.’

At the same time, the Committee of the Regions does not consider it appropriate for the maximum rate of cofinancing to be established at the level of each priority axis. This makes it impossible to differentiate the level of cofinancing within individual priority axes in order to motivate recipients to fulfil certain strategic priorities.

Amendment 55

Amendment 55

Article 111(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Modulation of the co-financing rates
  4)   the coverage of areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps defined as follows:






  (a) | island Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund, and other islands except those on which the capital of a Member State is situated or which have a fixed link to the mainland; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Modulation of the co-financing rates

4)   the coverage of areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps defined as follows:

(a)

island Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund, and other islands except those on which the capital of a Member State is situated or which have a fixed link to the mainland;

| (b) | mountainous areas as defined by the national legislation of the Member State; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

mountainous areas as defined by the national legislation of the Member State;

| (c) | sparsely (less than 50 inhabitants per square kilometre) and very sparsely (less than 8 inhabitants per square kilometre) populated areas. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

sparsely (less than 50 inhabitants per square kilometre) and very sparsely (less than 8 inhabitants per square kilometre) populated areas.

Modulation of the co-financing rates

(4)   the coverage of areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps defined as follows:

| (a) | island Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund, and other islands except those on which the capital of a Member State is situated or which have a fixed link to the mainland; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

island Member States eligible under the Cohesion Fund, and other islands except those on which the capital of a Member State is situated or which have a fixed link to the mainland;

| (b) | mountainous areas as defined by the national legislation of the Member State; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

mountainous areas as defined by the national legislation of the Member State;

| (c) | sparsely (less than 50 inhabitants per square kilometre) and very sparsely (less than 8 inhabitants per square kilometre) populated areas. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

sparsely (less than 50 inhabitants per square kilometre) and very sparsely (less than 8 inhabitants per square kilometre) populated areas.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Amendment 56

Amendment 56

Article 112(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Responsibilities of Member States
  2.   Member States shall prevent, detect and correct irregularities and shall recover amounts unduly paid, together with any interest on late payments. They shall notify these irregularities to the Commission and shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of related administrative and legal proceedings. | Responsibilities of Member States
  2.   Member States shall prevent, detect and correct irregularities and shall recover amounts unduly paid, together with any interest on late payments. They shall notify these irregularities to the Commission and shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of related administrative and legal proceedings. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Responsibilities of Member States

2.   Member States shall prevent, detect and correct irregularities and shall recover amounts unduly paid, together with any interest on late payments. They shall notify these irregularities to the Commission and shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of related administrative and legal proceedings.

Responsibilities of Member States

2.   Member States shall prevent, detect and correct irregularities and shall recover amounts unduly paid, together with any interest on late payments. They shall notify these irregularities to the Commission and shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of related administrative and legal proceedings.

Reason

Reason

The detail added to the Commission text has been endorsed but the adoption of electronic information exchange mechanisms should not be restricted to public beneficiaries.

Amendment 57

Amendment 57

Article 113

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Designation of authorities
      [...]5.   For the Investment for growth and jobs goal, provided that the principle of separation of functions is respected, the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority may be part of the same public authority or body. However, for those operational programmes for which the total amount of support from the Funds exceeds EUR 250 000 000, the audit authority may not be part of the same public authority or body as the managing authority.
  [...]
  7.   The Member State or the managing authority may entrust the management of part of an operational programme to an intermediate body by way of an agreement in writing between the intermediate body and the Member State or managing authority (a ‘global grant’). The intermediate body shall provide guarantees of its solvency and competence in the domain concerned, as well as its administrative and financial management. | Designation of authorities
      [...]5.   For the Investment for growth and jobs goal, provided that the principle of separation of functions is respected, the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority may be part of the same public authority or body.
  [...]
  7.   The Member State or the managing authority may entrust the management of part of an operational programme to an intermediate body by way of an agreement in writing between the intermediate body and the Member State or managing authority (a ‘global grant’). The intermediate body shall provide guarantees of its solvency and competence in the domain concerned, as well as its administrative and financial management. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Designation of authorities

5.   For the Investment for growth and jobs goal, provided that the principle of separation of functions is respected, the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority may be part of the same public authority or body. However, for those operational programmes for which the total amount of support from the Funds exceeds EUR 250 000 000, the audit authority may not be part of the same public authority or body as the managing authority.

[...]

7.   The Member State or the managing authority may entrust the management of part of an operational programme to an intermediate body by way of an agreement in writing between the intermediate body and the Member State or managing authority (a ‘global grant’). The intermediate body shall provide guarantees of its solvency and competence in the domain concerned, as well as its administrative and financial management.

Designation of authorities

5.   For the Investment for growth and jobs goal, provided that the principle of separation of functions is respected, the managing authority, the certifying authority, where applicable, and the audit authority may be part of the same public authority or body.

[...]

7.   The Member State or the managing authority may entrust the management of part of an operational programme to an intermediate body by way of an agreement in writing between the intermediate body and the Member State or managing authority (a ‘global grant’). The intermediate body shall provide guarantees of its solvency and competence in the domain concerned, as well as its administrative and financial management.

Reason

Reason

The CoR considers it would be preferable to maintain the current system under which, even for programmes over 250 MEuros, the audit authority may belong to the same public body as the managing authority.

The CoR also considers that the guarantees required should not apply to intermediate bodies that are public entities.

Amendment 58

Amendment 58

Article 114 (2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Functions of the managing authority
  2.   As regards the programme management of the operational programme, the managing authority shall:






  (a) | support the work of the monitoring committee and provide it with the information it requires to carry out its tasks, in particular data relating to the progress of the operational programme in achieving its objectives, financial data and data relating to indicators and milestones; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Functions of the managing authority

2.   As regards the programme management of the operational programme, the managing authority shall:

(a)

support the work of the monitoring committee and provide it with the information it requires to carry out its tasks, in particular data relating to the progress of the operational programme in achieving its objectives, financial data and data relating to indicators and milestones;

| (b) | draw up and, after approval by the monitoring committee, submit to the Commission annual and final implementation reports; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

draw up and, after approval by the monitoring committee, submit to the Commission annual and final implementation reports;

| (c) | make available to intermediate bodies and beneficiaries information that is relevant to the execution of their tasks and the implementation of operations respectively; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

make available to intermediate bodies and beneficiaries information that is relevant to the execution of their tasks and the implementation of operations respectively;

| (d) | establish a system to record and store in computerised form data on each operation necessary for monitoring, evaluation, financial management, verification and audit, including data on individual participants in operations, where applicable; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

establish a system to record and store in computerised form data on each operation necessary for monitoring, evaluation, financial management, verification and audit, including data on individual participants in operations, where applicable;

| (e) | ensure that the data referred to in point (d) is collected, entered and stored in the system, and that data on indicators is broken down by gender where required by Annex I of the ESF Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

ensure that the data referred to in point (d) is collected, entered and stored in the system, and that data on indicators is broken down by gender where required by Annex I of the ESF Regulation.

Functions of the managing authority

2.   As regards the programme management of the operational programme, the managing authority shall:

| (a) | support the work of the monitoring committee and provide it with the information it requires to carry out its tasks, in particular data relating to the progress of the operational programme in achieving its objectives, financial data and data relating to indicators and milestones; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

support the work of the monitoring committee and provide it with the information it requires to carry out its tasks, in particular data relating to the progress of the operational programme in achieving its objectives, financial data and data relating to indicators and milestones;

| (b) | draw up and, after approval by the monitoring committee, submit to the Commission annual and final implementation reports; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

draw up and, after approval by the monitoring committee, submit to the Commission annual and final implementation reports;

| (c) | make available to intermediate bodies and beneficiaries information that is relevant to the execution of their tasks and the implementation of operations respectively; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

make available to intermediate bodies and beneficiaries information that is relevant to the execution of their tasks and the implementation of operations respectively;

| d) | establish a system to record and store in computerised form data on each operation necessary for monitoring, evaluation, financial management, verification and audit; |
| --- | --- |

d)

establish a system to record and store in computerised form data on each operation necessary for monitoring, evaluation, financial management, verification and audit;

| (e) | ensure that the data referred to in point (d) is collected, entered and stored in the system, and that data on indicators is broken down by gender where required by Annex I of the ESF Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

ensure that the data referred to in point (d) is collected, entered and stored in the system, and that data on indicators is broken down by gender where required by Annex I of the ESF Regulation.

Reason

Reason

It is important to keep data on operations that may be useful for various reasons, relating to litigation, for instance.

Amendment 59

Amendment 59

Article 117

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Accreditation and withdrawal of accreditation of the managing authority and the certifying authority
  1.   The accrediting body shall adopt a formal decision to accredit those managing authorities and certifying authorities that comply with the accreditation criteria that have been established by the Commission by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 142.
  2.   The formal decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on a report and an opinion of an independent audit body that assesses the management and control system, including the role of intermediate bodies therein, and its compliance with Articles 62, 63, 114 and 115. The accrediting body shall take into account whether the management and control systems for the operational programme are similar to those in place for the previous programming period, as well as any evidence of their effective functioning.
  3.   The Member State shall submit the formal decision referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission within six months of the adoption of the decision adopting the operational programme.
  4.   Where the total amount of support from the Funds to an operational programme exceeds EUR 250 000 000 the Commission may request, within two months of receipt of the formal decision referred to in paragraph 1, the report and the opinion of the independent audit body and the description of the management and control system.
  The Commission may make observations within two months of receipt of these documents.
  In deciding whether to request those documents, the Commission shall take into account whether the management and control systems for the operational programme are similar to those in place for the previous programming period, whether the managing authority also carries out the functions of the certifying authority, and any evidence of their effective functioning. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Accreditation and withdrawal of accreditation of the managing authority and the certifying authority

1.   The accrediting body shall adopt a formal decision to accredit those managing authorities and certifying authorities that comply with the accreditation criteria that have been established by the Commission by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 142.

2.   The formal decision referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on a report and an opinion of an independent audit body that assesses the management and control system, including the role of intermediate bodies therein, and its compliance with Articles 62, 63, 114 and 115. The accrediting body shall take into account whether the management and control systems for the operational programme are similar to those in place for the previous programming period, as well as any evidence of their effective functioning.

3.   The Member State shall submit the formal decision referred to in paragraph 1 to the Commission within six months of the adoption of the decision adopting the operational programme.

4.   Where the total amount of support from the Funds to an operational programme exceeds EUR 250 000 000 the Commission may request, within two months of receipt of the formal decision referred to in paragraph 1, the report and the opinion of the independent audit body and the description of the management and control system.

The Commission may make observations within two months of receipt of these documents.

In deciding whether to request those documents, the Commission shall take into account whether the management and control systems for the operational programme are similar to those in place for the previous programming period, whether the managing authority also carries out the functions of the certifying authority, and any evidence of their effective functioning.

Reason

Reason

We reject the proposed accreditation of management and control authorities. The implementation of cohesion policy by the Member States is in line with the subsidiarity principle in the EU. Accreditation of state authorities by other state authorities has no basis in administrative law in some Member States and interferes in the organisational sovereignty of Member States.

Amendment 60

Amendment 60

Article 118, new point 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Cooperation with audit authorities | Cooperation with audit authorities |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Cooperation with audit authorities

Cooperation with audit authorities

Reason

Reason

The Committee of the Regions proposes to reinstate former Article 74(1) of the 2007-2013 programming period, for the sake of simplification in the area of proportionality of controls.

Amendment 61

Amendment 61

Article 121(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Payment applications
  1.   Payment applications shall include, for each priority axis:






  a) | the total amount of eligible expenditure paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Payment applications

1.   Payment applications shall include, for each priority axis:

a)

the total amount of eligible expenditure paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority;

| b) | the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority;

| c) | the corresponding eligible public support which has been paid to the beneficiary, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority. |
| --- | --- |

c)

the corresponding eligible public support which has been paid to the beneficiary, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority.

Payment applications

1.   Payment applications shall include, for each priority axis:

| a) | the total amount of eligible expenditure paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the total amount of eligible expenditure paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority;

| b) | the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations, as entered into the accounts of the certifying authority;

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

Reason

The CoR considers that the data on public support paid to the beneficiary should not be included in the requests for payment sent to the Commission. The Committee therefore proposes that this information be simplified.

Amendment 62

Amendment 62

Article 124(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Payment of pre-financing
  1.   The initial pre-financing amount shall be paid in instalments as follows:






  a) | in 2014: 2 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Payment of pre-financing

1.   The initial pre-financing amount shall be paid in instalments as follows:

a)

in 2014: 2 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme;

| b) | in 2015: 1 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme; |
| --- | --- |

b)

in 2015: 1 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme;

| c) | in 2016: 1 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme. |
| --- | --- |

c)

in 2016: 1 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme.

If an operational programme is adopted in 2015 or later, the earlier instalments shall be paid in the year of adoption.

Payment of pre-financing

1.   The initial pre-financing amount shall be paid in instalments as follows:

| a) | in 2014: 2 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme; |
| --- | --- |

a)

in 2014: 2 % of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme;

| b) | in 2015: of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme; |
| --- | --- |

b)

in 2015: of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme;

| c) | in 2016: of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme. |
| --- | --- |

c)

in 2016: of the amount of support from the Funds for the entire programming period to the operational programme.

If an operational programme is adopted in 2015 or later, the earlier instalments shall be paid in the year of adoption.

Reason

Reason

The Committee welcomes the proposal requiring managing authorities to disburse money to beneficiaries before applying to the Commission for reimbursement; however, this system requires a more flexible advance payment system if the managing authorities are to have sufficient resources to advance the sums requested by beneficiaries. The Committee therefore calls for an increase in the resources proposed by the Commission, which could reduce the difficulties encountered by some Member States during the crisis in terms of their national contribution.

Amendment 63

Amendment 63

Article 128(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Content of the annual accounts
  1.   The certified annual accounts for each operational programme shall cover the accounting year and shall include at the level of each priority axis:






  (a) | the total amount of eligible expenditure entered into the accounts of the certifying authority as having been paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations and the corresponding eligible public support which has been paid and the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Content of the annual accounts

1.   The certified annual accounts for each operational programme shall cover the accounting year and shall include at the level of each priority axis:

(a)

the total amount of eligible expenditure entered into the accounts of the certifying authority as having been paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations and the corresponding eligible public support which has been paid and the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations;

| (b) | the amounts withdrawn and recovered during the accounting year, the amounts to be recovered as at the end of the accounting year, the recoveries effected pursuant to Article 61, and the irrecoverable amounts; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the amounts withdrawn and recovered during the accounting year, the amounts to be recovered as at the end of the accounting year, the recoveries effected pursuant to Article 61, and the irrecoverable amounts;

| (c) | for each priority axis, the list of operations completed during the accounting year that were supported by ERDF and Cohesion Fund; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

for each priority axis, the list of operations completed during the accounting year that were supported by ERDF and Cohesion Fund;

| (d) | for each priority axis, a reconciliation between the expenditure stated pursuant to point (a) and the expenditure declared in respect of the same accounting year in payment applications, accompanied by an explanation of any differences. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

for each priority axis, a reconciliation between the expenditure stated pursuant to point (a) and the expenditure declared in respect of the same accounting year in payment applications, accompanied by an explanation of any differences.

Content of the annual accounts

1.   The

certified annual accounts for each operational programme shall cover the accounting year and shall include at the level of each priority axis:

| (a) | the total amount of eligible expenditure entered into the accounts of the certifying authority as having been paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations and the corresponding eligible public support which has been paid and the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the total amount of eligible expenditure entered into the accounts of the certifying authority as having been paid by beneficiaries in implementing operations and the corresponding eligible public support which has been paid and the total amount of public support incurred in implementing operations;

| (b) | the amounts withdrawn and recovered during the accounting year, the amounts to be recovered as at the end of the accounting year, the recoveries effected pursuant to Article 61, and the irrecoverable amounts; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the amounts withdrawn and recovered during the accounting year, the amounts to be recovered as at the end of the accounting year, the recoveries effected pursuant to Article 61, and the irrecoverable amounts;

| (c) | for each priority axis, the list of operations completed during the accounting year that were supported by ERDF and Cohesion Fund; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

for each priority axis, the list of operations completed during the accounting year that were supported by ERDF and Cohesion Fund;

| (d) | for each priority axis, a reconciliation between the expenditure stated pursuant to point (a) and the expenditure declared in respect of the same accounting year in payment applications, accompanied by an explanation of any differences. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

for each priority axis, a reconciliation between the expenditure stated pursuant to point (a) and the expenditure declared in respect of the same accounting year in payment applications, accompanied by an explanation of any differences.

Reason

Reason

It would be useful if, as is the case for the current programming period, the annual settlement of accounts remained an optional choice taken by the certifying authority itself. The timeframe set down in Article 75 is not easy to meet as it is too tight.

Amendment 64

Amendment 64

Article 134

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Suspension of payments
  1.   All or part of the interim payments at the level of priority axes or operational programmes may be suspended by the Commission where:






  a) | there is a serious deficiency in the management and control system of the operational programme for which corrective measures have not been taken; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Suspension of payments

1.   All or part of the interim payments at the level of priority axes or operational programmes may be suspended by the Commission where:

a)

there is a serious deficiency in the management and control system of the operational programme for which corrective measures have not been taken;

| b) | expenditure in a statement of expenditure is linked to an irregularity having serious financial consequences which has not been corrected; |
| --- | --- |

b)

expenditure in a statement of expenditure is linked to an irregularity having serious financial consequences which has not been corrected;

| c) | the Member State has failed to take the necessary action to remedy the situation giving rise to an interruption under Article 74; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the Member State has failed to take the necessary action to remedy the situation giving rise to an interruption under Article 74;

| d) | there is a serious deficiency in the quality and reliability of the monitoring system or of the data on common and specific indicators; |
| --- | --- |

d)

there is a serious deficiency in the quality and reliability of the monitoring system or of the data on common and specific indicators;

| e) | the Member State has failed to undertake actions set out in the operational programme relating to fulfilment of an ex ante conditionalities; |
| --- | --- |

e)

the Member State has failed to undertake actions set out in the operational programme relating to fulfilment of an ex ante conditionalities;

ex ante

| f) | there is evidence resulting from a performance review that a priority axis has failed to achieve the milestones set out in the performance framework; |
| --- | --- |

f)

there is evidence resulting from a performance review that a priority axis has failed to achieve the milestones set out in the performance framework;

| g) | the Member State fails to respond or does not reply satisfactorily under Article 20(5); |
| --- | --- |

g)

the Member State fails to respond or does not reply satisfactorily under Article 20(5);

| h) | one of the cases set out in Article 21(6)(a) to (e) applies. |
| --- | --- |

h)

one of the cases set out in Article 21(6)(a) to (e) applies.

2.   The Commission may decide, by means of implementing acts, to suspend all or part of interim payments, after having given the Member State the opportunity to present its observations.

3.   The Commission shall end suspension of all or part of interim payments where the Member State has taken the necessary measures to enable the suspension to be lifted.

Suspension of payments

1.   All or part of the interim payments at the level of priority axes or operational programmes may be suspended by the Commission where:

| a) | there is a serious deficiency in the management and control system of the operational programme for which corrective measures have not been taken; |
| --- | --- |

a)

there is a serious deficiency in the management and control system of the operational programme for which corrective measures have not been taken;

| b) | expenditure in a statement of expenditure is linked to an irregularity having serious financial consequences which has not been corrected; |
| --- | --- |

b)

expenditure in a statement of expenditure is linked to an irregularity having serious financial consequences which has not been corrected;

| c) | the Member State has failed to take the necessary action to remedy the situation giving rise to an interruption under Article 74; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the Member State has failed to take the necessary action to remedy the situation giving rise to an interruption under Article 74;

| d) | there is a serious deficiency in the quality and reliability of the monitoring system ; |
| --- | --- |

d)

there is a serious deficiency in the quality and reliability of the monitoring system ;

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

Reason

The Committee of the Regions considers the principle of suspension of all or part of the interim payments by the Commission to be justifiable only in cases of serious breach of the management and control system.

Amendment 65

Amendment 65

Article 140(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Proportional control of operational programmes
  1.   Operations for which the total eligible expenditure does not exceed EUR 100 000 shall not be subject to more than one audit by either the audit authority or the Commission prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. Other operations shall not be subject to more than one audit per accounting year by the audit authority and the Commission prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. These provisions are without prejudice to paragraph 4. | Proportional control of operational programmes
  1.   Operations for which the total eligible expenditure does not exceed EUR shall not be subject to more than one audit prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. Other operations shall not be subject to more than one audit per accounting year prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. These provisions are without prejudice to paragraph 4. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Proportional control of operational programmes

1.   Operations for which the total eligible expenditure does not exceed EUR 100 000 shall not be subject to more than one audit by either the audit authority or the Commission prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. Other operations shall not be subject to more than one audit per accounting year by the audit authority and the Commission prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. These provisions are without prejudice to paragraph 4.

Proportional control of operational programmes

1.   Operations for which the total eligible expenditure does not exceed EUR shall not be subject to more than one audit prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. Other operations shall not be subject to more than one audit per accounting year prior to the closure of all the expenditure concerned under Article 131. These provisions are without prejudice to paragraph 4.

Reason

Reason

In order to ensure genuine proportional control of operational programmes, the Committee proposes that operations for which the total eligible expenditure does not exceed EUR 250 000 should be subject to no more than one audit.

Amendment 66

Amendment 66

ANNEX IV

Ex ante conditionalities

Thematic ex ante conditionalities points 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

| Thematic objectives | Ex ante conditionality | Criteria for fulfilment |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | Strengthening research, technological development and innovation
  (R&D target)


  (referred to in Article 9(1) ) |

Thematic objectives

Ex ante conditionality

Criteria for fulfilment

1.

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation
  (R&D target)

(referred to in Article 9(1) )

| 1.1. | Research and innovation: The existence of a national or regional research and innovation for smart specialisation in line with the National Reform Program, to leverage private research and innovation expenditure, which complies with the features of well-performing national or regional research and innovation systems (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Research and innovation: The existence of a national or regional research and innovation for smart specialisation in line with the National Reform Program, to leverage private research and innovation expenditure, which complies with the features of well-performing national or regional research and innovation systems (3).

| — | A national or regional research and innovation for smart specialisation is in place that:






  — | is based on a SWOT analysis to concentrate resources on a limited set of research and innovation priorities; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A national or regional research and innovation for smart specialisation is in place that:

—

is based on a SWOT analysis to concentrate resources on a limited set of research and innovation priorities;

| — | outlines measures to stimulate private RTD investment; |
| --- | --- |

—

outlines measures to stimulate private RTD investment;

| — | contains a monitoring and review system. |
| --- | --- |

—

contains a monitoring and review system.

| — | A Member State has adopted a framework outlining available budgetary resources for research and innovation |
| --- | --- |

—

A Member State has adopted a framework outlining available budgetary resources for research and innovation

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

2.

| 2. | Enhancing access to and use and quality of information and communication technologies
  (Broadband target)


  (referred to in Article 9(2) ) |
| --- | --- |

Enhancing access to and use and quality of information and communication technologies
  (Broadband target)

(referred to in Article 9(2) )

| 2.1. | Digital growth: The existence within the national or regional innovation for smart specialisation of an explicit chapter for digital growth to stimulate demand for affordable, good quality and interoperable ICT-enabled private and public services and increase uptake by citizens, including vulnerable groups, businesses and public administrations including cross border initiatives. |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Digital growth: The existence within the national or regional innovation for smart specialisation of an explicit chapter for digital growth to stimulate demand for affordable, good quality and interoperable ICT-enabled private and public services and increase uptake by citizens, including vulnerable groups, businesses and public administrations including cross border initiatives.

| — | A chapter for digital growth within the national or regional innovation for smart specialisation is in place that contains:






  — | budgeting and prioritisation of actions through a SWOT analysis carried out in alignment with the Scoreboard of the Digital Agenda for Europe (4); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A chapter for digital growth within the national or regional innovation for smart specialisation is in place that contains:

—

budgeting and prioritisation of actions through a SWOT analysis carried out in alignment with the Scoreboard of the Digital Agenda for Europe (4);

| — | an analyses of balancing support for demand and supply of information and communication technologies (ICT) should have been conducted; |
| --- | --- |

—

an analyses of balancing support for demand and supply of information and communication technologies (ICT) should have been conducted;

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | assessment of needs to reinforce ICT capacity-building. |
| --- | --- |

assessment of needs to reinforce ICT capacity-building.

| 2.2. | Next Generation Access (NGA) Infrastructure: The existence of national NGA Plans which take account of regional actions in order to reach the EU high-speed Internet access targets (5) in line with the EU competition and state aid rules, and provide accessible services to vulnerable groups. |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

Next Generation Access (NGA) Infrastructure: The existence of national NGA Plans which take account of regional actions in order to reach the EU high-speed Internet access targets (5) in line with the EU competition and state aid rules, and provide accessible services to vulnerable groups.

| — | A national NGA Plan is in place that contains:






  — | a plan of infrastructure investments through demand aggregation and a mapping of infrastructure and services, regularly updated; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A national NGA Plan is in place that contains:

—

a plan of infrastructure investments through demand aggregation and a mapping of infrastructure and services, regularly updated;

| — | sustainable investment models that enhance competition and provide access to open, affordable, quality and future proof infrastructure and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

sustainable investment models that enhance competition and provide access to open, affordable, quality and future proof infrastructure and services;

| — | measures to stimulate private investment. |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to stimulate private investment.

| 3. | Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
  (referred to in Article 9(3)) |
| --- | --- |

3.

Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

(referred to in Article 9(3))

| 3.1. | Specific actions have been carried out for the effective implementation of the Small Business Act (SBA) and its Review of 23 February 2011 (6) including the ‘Think Small First’ principle. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.

Specific actions have been carried out for the effective implementation of the Small Business Act (SBA) and its Review of 23 February 2011 (6) including the ‘Think Small First’ principle.

| — | The specific actions include:






  — | a monitoring mechanism to ensure the implementation of the SBA including a body in charge of coordinating SME issues across different administrative levels (‘SME Envoy’); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The specific actions include:

—

a monitoring mechanism to ensure the implementation of the SBA including a body in charge of coordinating SME issues across different administrative levels (‘SME Envoy’);

| — | measures to reduce the time to set-up business to 3 working days and the cost to EUR 100; |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to reduce the time to set-up business to 3 working days and the cost to EUR 100;

| — | measures to reduce the time needed to get licenses and permits to take up and perform the specific activity of an enterprise to 3 months; |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to reduce the time needed to get licenses and permits to take up and perform the specific activity of an enterprise to 3 months;

| — | a mechanism for systematic assessment of the impact of legislation on SMEs . |
| --- | --- |

—

a mechanism for systematic assessment of the impact of legislation on SMEs .

| 3.2. | Transposition into national law of Directive (2011/7/EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (7). |
| --- | --- |

3.2.

Transposition into national law of Directive (2011/7/EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (7).

| — | Transposition of that Directive in accordance with Article 12 of the Directive (by 16 March 2013). |
| --- | --- |

—

Transposition of that Directive in accordance with Article 12 of the Directive (by 16 March 2013).

| 6. | Protecting the environment and promoting the sustainable use of resources
  (referred to in Article 9(6) ) |
| --- | --- |

6.

Protecting the environment and promoting the sustainable use of resources

(referred to in Article 9(6) )

| 6.1. | Water sector: The existence of a a) water pricing policy which ensures provides adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently and b) an adequate contribution of the different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (8). |
| --- | --- |

6.1.

Water sector: The existence of a a) water pricing policy which ensures provides adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently and b) an adequate contribution of the different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (8).

| — | A Member State has ensured contribution of the different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services by sector in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

A Member State has ensured contribution of the different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services by sector in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC.

| — | The adoption of a river basin management plan for the river basin district where investments will take place in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (9). |
| --- | --- |

—

The adoption of a river basin management plan for the river basin district where investments will take place in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (9).

| 6.2. | Waste sector: Implementation of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (10), in particular the development of waste management plans in accordance with the Directive and with the waste hierarchy.. |
| --- | --- |

6.2.

Waste sector: Implementation of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (10), in particular the development of waste management plans in accordance with the Directive and with the waste hierarchy..

| — | A Member State has reported to the Commission on progress towards targets of Article 11 of Directive 2008/98/EC, reasons for failure, and intended actions to meet the targets; |
| --- | --- |

—

A Member State has reported to the Commission on progress towards targets of Article 11 of Directive 2008/98/EC, reasons for failure, and intended actions to meet the targets;

| — | A Member State has ensured that its competent authorities establish, in accordance with Articles 1, 4, 13 and 16 of Directive 2008/98/EC, one or more waste management plans as required by Article 28 of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

A Member State has ensured that its competent authorities establish, in accordance with Articles 1, 4, 13 and 16 of Directive 2008/98/EC, one or more waste management plans as required by Article 28 of the Directive;

| — | No later by 12 December 2013, a Member State has established, in accordance with Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC, waste prevention programmes, as required by Article 29 of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

No later by 12 December 2013, a Member State has established, in accordance with Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC, waste prevention programmes, as required by Article 29 of the Directive;

| — | A Member State has taken necessary measures to achieve 2020 target on re-use and recycling in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2008/98/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

A Member State has taken necessary measures to achieve 2020 target on re-use and recycling in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2008/98/EC.

| 7. | Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures
  (referred to in Article 9(7) ) |
| --- | --- |

7.

Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures

(referred to in Article 9(7) )

| 7.1. | Road:ppropriate prioritisation of investments in the core Trans European Network of Transport Infrastructure (TEN-T) network, in the comprehensive network (investments other than the core TEN-T) and in secondary connectivity (including public transport at regional and local level). |
| --- | --- |

7.1.

Road:ppropriate prioritisation of investments in the core Trans European Network of Transport Infrastructure (TEN-T) network, in the comprehensive network (investments other than the core TEN-T) and in secondary connectivity (including public transport at regional and local level).

| — | — | prioritisation of investments in the core TEN-T network, the comprehensive network and secondary connectivity. The prioritisation should take into account the contribution of investments to mobility, sustainability, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and contribution to the Single European transport area; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

—

prioritisation of investments in the core TEN-T network, the comprehensive network and secondary connectivity. The prioritisation should take into account the contribution of investments to mobility, sustainability, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and contribution to the Single European transport area;

| — | a realistic project pipeline (including timetable, budgetary framework); |
| --- | --- |

—

a realistic project pipeline (including timetable, budgetary framework);

| — | a strategic environmental assessment fulfilling the legal requirements for the transport plan; |
| --- | --- |

—

a strategic environmental assessment fulfilling the legal requirements for the transport plan;

| — | measures to strengthen capacity of intermediary bodies and beneficiaries to deliver the project pipeline. |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to strengthen capacity of intermediary bodies and beneficiaries to deliver the project pipeline.

| 7.2. | Railway:rioritisation of investments in the core Trans European Network of Transport Infrastructure (TEN-T) network, in the comprehensive network (investments other than the core TEN-T) and in secondary connectivity of the railway system according to their contributions to mobility, sustainability, national and European wide network effects. The investments cover mobile assets and interoperability and capacity building. |
| --- | --- |

7.2.

Railway:rioritisation of investments in the core Trans European Network of Transport Infrastructure (TEN-T) network, in the comprehensive network (investments other than the core TEN-T) and in secondary connectivity of the railway system according to their contributions to mobility, sustainability, national and European wide network effects. The investments cover mobile assets and interoperability and capacity building.

| — | A chapter on railway development is in place that contains:






  — | a realistic project pipeline (including a timetable, budgetary framework); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A chapter on railway development is in place that contains:

—

a realistic project pipeline (including a timetable, budgetary framework);

| — | a strategic environmental assessment fulfilling the legal requirements for the transport plan; |
| --- | --- |

—

a strategic environmental assessment fulfilling the legal requirements for the transport plan;

| — | measures to strengthen capacity of intermediary bodies and beneficiaries to deliver the project pipeline. |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to strengthen capacity of intermediary bodies and beneficiaries to deliver the project pipeline.

| 8. | Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility

  (Employment target)

  (referred to in Article 9(8) ) |
| --- | --- |

8.

Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility

(Employment target)

(referred to in Article 9(8) )

| 8.1. | Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for g labour mobility Active labour market policies are designed and delivered in coherence with the Employment guidelines and the Broad Guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (11) regarding the enabling conditions for job creation. |
| --- | --- |

8.1.

Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for g labour mobility Active labour market policies are designed and delivered in coherence with the Employment guidelines and the Broad Guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (11) regarding the enabling conditions for job creation.

| — | Employment services have the capacity to and do deliver:






  — | personalised services and active and preventive labour market measures at an early stage, which are open for all jobseekers; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Employment services have the capacity to and do deliver:

—

personalised services and active and preventive labour market measures at an early stage, which are open for all jobseekers;

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | transparent and systematic information on new job vacancies. |
| --- | --- |

transparent and systematic information on new job vacancies.

| — | Employment services have set up networks with employers and education institutes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Employment services have set up networks with employers and education institutes.

| 8.2. | Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation: the existence of a comprehensive strategy for inclusive start-up support in accordance with the Small Business Act (12) and in coherence with the Employment guidelines and the Broad Guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (13), regarding the enabling conditions for job creation. |
| --- | --- |

8.2.

Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation: the existence of a comprehensive strategy for inclusive start-up support in accordance with the Small Business Act (12) and in coherence with the Employment guidelines and the Broad Guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and of the Union (13), regarding the enabling conditions for job creation.

| — | A comprehensive strategy in place which will includes:






  — | measures to reduce the time to set up businesses to three working days and the cost to EUR 100; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A comprehensive strategy in place which will includes:

—

measures to reduce the time to set up businesses to three working days and the cost to EUR 100;

| — | measures to reduce the time needed to get licenses and permits to take up and perform the specific activity of an enterprise business to three months; |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to reduce the time needed to get licenses and permits to take up and perform the specific activity of an enterprise business to three months;

| — | actions linking suitable business development services and financial services (access to capital), including the outreach to disadvantaged groups and areas. |
| --- | --- |

—

actions linking suitable business development services and financial services (access to capital), including the outreach to disadvantaged groups and areas.

| 8.3. | Modernisation and strengthening of labour market institutions , including actions to enhance transnational labour mobility (14):






  — | Labour market institutions are modernised and strengthened in accordance with the Employment Guidelines; |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.3.

—

Labour market institutions are modernised and strengthened in accordance with the Employment Guidelines;

| — | Reforms of labour market institutions will be preceded by a clear strategy and ex ante assessment including the gender dimension. |
| --- | --- |

—

Reforms of labour market institutions will be preceded by a clear strategy and ex ante assessment including the gender dimension.

| — | Actions to reform employment services, aiming at providing them the capacity to deliver (15):






  — | personalised services and active and preventive labour market measures at an early stage, which are open for all jobseekers; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Actions to reform employment services, aiming at providing them the capacity to deliver (15):

—

personalised services and active and preventive labour market measures at an early stage, which are open for all jobseekers;

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | transparent and systematic information on new job opening accessible at Union level. |
| --- | --- |

transparent and systematic information on new job opening accessible at Union level.

| — | Reform of employment services will include the creation of networks with employers and education institutes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Reform of employment services will include the creation of networks with employers and education institutes.

| 8.4. | Active and healthy ageing: Active ageing policies are designed and delivered in accordance with the Employment Guidelines (16) |
| --- | --- |

8.4.

Active and healthy ageing: Active ageing policies are designed and delivered in accordance with the Employment Guidelines (16)

| — | Actions to deliver on active and healthy ageing challenges (17): |
| --- | --- |

—

Actions to deliver on active and healthy ageing challenges (17):

| — | Relevant stakeholders are involved in the design and implementation of active ageing policies; |
| --- | --- |

—

Relevant stakeholders are involved in the design and implementation of active ageing policies;

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

8.5.

| 8.5. | Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change: The existence of policies aimed at favouring anticipation and good management of change and restructuring at all relevant levels (national, regional, local and sectoral) (18). |
| --- | --- |

Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change: The existence of policies aimed at favouring anticipation and good management of change and restructuring at all relevant levels (national, regional, local and sectoral) (18).

| — | Effective instruments are in place to support social partners and public authorities to develop proactive approaches towards change and restructuring. |
| --- | --- |

—

Effective instruments are in place to support social partners and public authorities to develop proactive approaches towards change and restructuring.

| 9. | Investing in skills, education and lifelong learning
  (Education target)


  (referred to in Article 9(10) |
| --- | --- |

9.

Investing in skills, education and lifelong learning
  (Education target)

(referred to in Article 9(10)

| 9.1. | Early school leaving: The existence of a comprehensive strategy to reduce early school leaving (ESL) in accordance with Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 on policies to reduce early school leaving (19). |
| --- | --- |

9.1.

Early school leaving: The existence of a comprehensive strategy to reduce early school leaving (ESL) in accordance with Council Recommendation of 28 June 2011 on policies to reduce early school leaving (19).

| — | A system for collecting and analysing data and information on ESL at national, regional and local level is in place that:






  — | provides a sufficient evidence-base to develop targeted policies; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A system for collecting and analysing data and information on ESL at national, regional and local level is in place that:

—

provides a sufficient evidence-base to develop targeted policies;

| — | is used systematically to monitor developments at the respective level. |
| --- | --- |

—

is used systematically to monitor developments at the respective level.

| — | A strategy on ESL is in place that:






  — | is based on evidence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A strategy on ESL is in place that:

—

is based on evidence;

| — | prevention, intervention and compensation ; |
| --- | --- |

—

prevention, intervention and compensation ;

| — | sets out objectives that are consistent with the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving; |
| --- | --- |

—

sets out objectives that are consistent with the Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving;

| — | cuts across-sectors, and involves and coordinates all policy sectors and stakeholders that are relevant to address ESL. |
| --- | --- |

—

cuts across-sectors, and involves and coordinates all policy sectors and stakeholders that are relevant to address ESL.

| 9.2. | Higher education: The existence of national or regional for increasing tertiary education attainment, quality and efficiency in accordance with the Communication of the Commission of 10 May 2006 on delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: education, research and innovation (20). |
| --- | --- |

9.2.

Higher education: The existence of national or regional for increasing tertiary education attainment, quality and efficiency in accordance with the Communication of the Commission of 10 May 2006 on delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: education, research and innovation (20).

| — | A national or regional for tertiary education is in place that includes :






  — | measures to increase participation and attainment that:






  — | improve guidance provided to prospective students; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

—

A national or regional for tertiary education is in place that includes :

—

measures to increase participation and attainment that:

—

improve guidance provided to prospective students;

| — | increase higher education participation among low income groups and other under-represented groups. |
| --- | --- |

—

increase higher education participation among low income groups and other under-represented groups.

| — | increase participation by adult learners; |
| --- | --- |

—

increase participation by adult learners;

| — | (where necessary) reduce drop-out rates/improve completion rates; |
| --- | --- |

—

(where necessary) reduce drop-out rates/improve completion rates;

| — | measures to increase quality that:






  — | encourage innovative content and programme design; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

measures to increase quality that:

—

encourage innovative content and programme design;

| — | promotes high standards of quality in teaching; |
| --- | --- |

—

promotes high standards of quality in teaching;

| — | measures to increase employability and entrepreneurship that:






  — | encourage the development of ‘transversal skills’, including entrepreneurship in all higher education programmes; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

measures to increase employability and entrepreneurship that:

—

encourage the development of ‘transversal skills’, including entrepreneurship in all higher education programmes;

| — | reduce gender differences in terms of academic and vocational choices and encouraging students to choose careers in sectors were they are under represented in order to reduce the gender segregation of the labour market. |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce gender differences in terms of academic and vocational choices and encouraging students to choose careers in sectors were they are under represented in order to reduce the gender segregation of the labour market.

| — | ensure informed teaching using knowledge from research and developments in business practices. |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure informed teaching using knowledge from research and developments in business practices.

| 9.3. | Lifelong learning: The existence of a national and/or regional policy framework for lifelong learning in line with Union level policy guidance (21). |
| --- | --- |

9.3.

Lifelong learning: The existence of a national and/or regional policy framework for lifelong learning in line with Union level policy guidance (21).

| — | A national or regional policy framework for lifelong learning is in place that contains:






  — | measures to support lifelong learning (LLL) implementation and skills upgrading and for the involvement of, and partnership with stakeholders, including social partners and civil society associations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A national or regional policy framework for lifelong learning is in place that contains:

—

measures to support lifelong learning (LLL) implementation and skills upgrading and for the involvement of, and partnership with stakeholders, including social partners and civil society associations;

| — | measures for the effective provision of skills development for young people in vocational training, adults, women returning in the labour market, low skilled and older workers, and other disadvantaged groups; |
| --- | --- |

—

measures for the effective provision of skills development for young people in vocational training, adults, women returning in the labour market, low skilled and older workers, and other disadvantaged groups;

| — | measures to widen access to LLL including through the effective implementation of transparency tools (European Qualifications Framework, National Qualifications Framework, European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training, European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training) and the development and integration of lifelong learning services (education and training, guidance, validation); |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to widen access to LLL including through the effective implementation of transparency tools (European Qualifications Framework, National Qualifications Framework, European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training, European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training) and the development and integration of lifelong learning services (education and training, guidance, validation);

| — | measures to improve the relevance of education and training and to adapt it to the needs of identified target groups. |
| --- | --- |

—

measures to improve the relevance of education and training and to adapt it to the needs of identified target groups.

| 10. | Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty
  (poverty target)


  (referred to in Article 9(9) ) |
| --- | --- |

10.

Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty
  (poverty target)

(referred to in Article 9(9) )

| 10.1. | Active inclusion






  — | Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma: |
| --- | --- | --- |

10.1.

—

Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma:

| — | The existence and the implementation of a strategy for poverty reduction. |
| --- | --- |

—

The existence and the implementation of a strategy for poverty reduction.

| — | A strategy for poverty reduction is in place that:






  — | is based on evidence. This requires a system for collecting and analysing data and information which provides sufficient evidence to develop policies for poverty reduction. This system is used to monitor developments; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A strategy for poverty reduction is in place that:

—

is based on evidence. This requires a system for collecting and analysing data and information which provides sufficient evidence to develop policies for poverty reduction. This system is used to monitor developments;

| — | is in accordance with the national poverty and social exclusion target (as defined in the National Reform Programme), which includes the extension of employment opportunities for disadvantaged groups; |
| --- | --- |

—

is in accordance with the national poverty and social exclusion target (as defined in the National Reform Programme), which includes the extension of employment opportunities for disadvantaged groups;

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | demonstrates that social partners and relevant stakeholders are involved in the design of active inclusion; |
| --- | --- |

demonstrates that social partners and relevant stakeholders are involved in the design of active inclusion;

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | indicates clearly measures to prevent and combat segregation in all fields. |
| --- | --- |

indicates clearly measures to prevent and combat segregation in all fields.

| — | A national Roma inclusion strategy is in place in accordance with the EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies (23) |
| --- | --- |

—

A national Roma inclusion strategy is in place in accordance with the EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies (23)

| — | A Roma inclusion strategy is in place that:






  — | sets achievable goals for Roma integration to bridge the gap with the general population. These targets should address, as a minimum, the four EU Roma integration goals relating to access to education, employment, healthcare and housing; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A Roma inclusion strategy is in place that:

—

sets achievable goals for Roma integration to bridge the gap with the general population. These targets should address, as a minimum, the four EU Roma integration goals relating to access to education, employment, healthcare and housing;

| — | is coherent with the National Reform Programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

is coherent with the National Reform Programme;

| — | identifies where those disadvantaged or segregated neighbourhoods, where communities are most deprived, using already available socio-economic and territorial indicators (i.e. very low educational level, long-term unemployment, etc). |
| --- | --- |

—

identifies where those disadvantaged or segregated neighbourhoods, where communities are most deprived, using already available socio-economic and territorial indicators (i.e. very low educational level, long-term unemployment, etc).

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | includes strong monitoring methods to evaluate the impact of Roma integration actions and a review mechanism for the adaptation of the strategy. |
| --- | --- |

includes strong monitoring methods to evaluate the impact of Roma integration actions and a review mechanism for the adaptation of the strategy.

| — | is designed, implemented and monitored in close cooperation and continuous dialogue with Roma civil society, regional and local authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

is designed, implemented and monitored in close cooperation and continuous dialogue with Roma civil society, regional and local authorities.

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | The provision of support for relevant stakeholders in accessing the Funds. |
| --- | --- |

The provision of support for relevant stakeholders in accessing the Funds.

| — | Relevant stakeholders are provided support for submitting project applications and for implementing and managing the selected projects. |
| --- | --- |

—

Relevant stakeholders are provided support for submitting project applications and for implementing and managing the selected projects.

| 10.2. | Health: The existence of a national or regional for health ensuring access to quality health services and economic sustainability. |
| --- | --- |

10.2.

Health: The existence of a national or regional for health ensuring access to quality health services and economic sustainability.

| — | A national or regional strategy for health is in place that:






  — | Contains coordinated measures to improve access to quality health services; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A national or regional strategy for health is in place that:

—

Contains coordinated measures to improve access to quality health services;

| — | contains measures to stimulate efficiency in the health sector, including through deployment of effective innovative: technologies, service delivery models and infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

—

contains measures to stimulate efficiency in the health sector, including through deployment of effective innovative: technologies, service delivery models and infrastructure;

| — | contains a monitoring and review system. |
| --- | --- |

—

contains a monitoring and review system.

| — | A Member State or region has adopted a framework outlining available budgetary resources for health care. |
| --- | --- |

—

A Member State or region has adopted a framework outlining available budgetary resources for health care.

| 11. | Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration
  (referred to in Article 9(11) ) |
| --- | --- |

11.

Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration

(referred to in Article 9(11) )

Member States administrative efficiency:

| — | The existence of a strategy for reinforcing the Member Status's administrative efficiency including public administration reform (24) |
| --- | --- |

—

The existence of a strategy for reinforcing the Member Status's administrative efficiency including public administration reform (24)

| — | A strategy for reinforcing a Member State's administrative efficiency is in place and in the process of being implemented (25) the strategy includes:






  — | an analysis and strategic planning of legal, organisational and/or procedural reform actions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

A strategy for reinforcing a Member State's administrative efficiency is in place and in the process of being implemented (25) the strategy includes:

—

an analysis and strategic planning of legal, organisational and/or procedural reform actions;

| — | the development of quality management systems; |
| --- | --- |

—

the development of quality management systems;

| — | integrated actions for simplification and rationalisation of administrative procedures; |
| --- | --- |

—

integrated actions for simplification and rationalisation of administrative procedures;

| — | the development and implementation of human resources strategies and policies covering competence building and resourcing; |
| --- | --- |

—

the development and implementation of human resources strategies and policies covering competence building and resourcing;

| — | the development of skills at all levels; |
| --- | --- |

—

the development of skills at all levels;

| — | the development of procedures and tools for monitoring and evaluation. |
| --- | --- |

—

the development of procedures and tools for monitoring and evaluation.

Ex ante conditionalities

General ex-ante conditionalities points 2, 5

| Area | conditionality | Criteria for fulfilment |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | Gender equality |

Area

conditionality

Criteria for fulfilment

2.

Gender equality

The existence of a strategy for the promotion of gender equality and a mechanism which ensures its effective implementation.

| — | Effective implementation and application of a strategy for the promotion of gender equality is ensured through:






  — | a system for collecting and analyzing data and indicators broken down by sex and to develop evidences-based gender policies; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Effective implementation and application of a strategy for the promotion of gender equality is ensured through:

—

a system for collecting and analyzing data and indicators broken down by sex and to develop evidences-based gender policies;

| — | a plan and ex-ante criteria for the integration of gender equality objectives ; |
| --- | --- |

—

a plan and ex-ante criteria for the integration of gender equality objectives ;

| — | Implementation mechanisms including involvement of a gender body and the relevant expertise to draft monitor and evaluate the interventions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Implementation mechanisms including involvement of a gender body and the relevant expertise to draft monitor and evaluate the interventions.

| 5. | State aid |
| --- | --- |

5.

State aid

The existence of a mechanism which ensures effective implementation and application of EU State aid law

| — | Effective implementation and application of EU State aid law is ensured through:






  — | institutional arrangements for the implementation, application and supervision of EU State aid law; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Effective implementation and application of EU State aid law is ensured through:

—

institutional arrangements for the implementation, application and supervision of EU State aid law;

| — | |
| --- | --- |

—

—

| — | measures to strengthen administrative capacity for implementation and application of EU State aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

measures to strengthen administrative capacity for implementation and application of EU State aid rules.

Reason

Reason

The proposed amendments are intended to trim the text as the Commission proposal seems overly heavy and detailed, particularly the section on criteria for fulfilment.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CoR opinion Measuring progress – GDP and beyond (CdR 163/2010 fin).

1

Measuring progress – GDP and beyond

(2)  Ref. EU2020 headline targets.

2

(3)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union (COM(2010) 546 final of 6.10.2010). Commitments 24/25 and Annex I ‘Self assessment tool: Features of well performing national and regional research and innovations systems’. Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council: Conclusions on Innovation Union for Europe (doc. 17165/10 of 26.11.2010).

3

(4)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Agenda for Europe (COM(2010) 245 final/2 of 26.8.2010); Commission Staff Working Paper: Digital Agenda Scoreboard (SEC(2011) 708 of 31.5.2011). Conclusions of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council on the Digital Agenda for Europe (doc. 10130/10 of 26 May 2010).

4

(5)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Digital Agenda for Europe (COM(2010) 245 final/2 of 26.8.2010); Commission Staff Working Paper: Digital Agenda Scoreboard (SEC(2011) 708 of 31.5.2011).

5

(6)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Think Small First - A Small Business Act for Europe (COM(2008) 394 of 23.6.2008); Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council: Think Small First – A Small Business Act for Europe (doc. 16788/08, 1.12.2008); Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Review of the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe (COM(2008) 78 final, 23.2.2011); Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council: Conclusions on the Review of the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe (doc. 10975/11 of 30.5.2011).

6

(7)  OJ L 48, 23.2.2011, p. 1.

7

(8)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

8

(9)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

9

(10)  OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3.

10

(11)  Council Recommendation (2010/410/EU) of 13 July 2010, OJ L 191, 23.07.2010, p. 28.

11

(12)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Think Small First - A Small Business Act for Europe (COM(2008) 394 of 23.6.2008); Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council: Think Small First – A Small Business Act for Europe (doc. 16788/08, 1.12.2008); Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Review of the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe (COM(2008) 78 final, 23.2.2011); Conclusions of the Competitiveness Council: Conclusions on the Review of the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe (doc. 10975/11 of 30.5.2011).

12

(13)  Council Recommendation (2010/410/EU) of 13 July 2010, OJ L 191, 23.07.2010, p. 28.

13

(14)  If a country specific Council Recommendation is in place, directly linked to this conditionality provision, then the assessment of its fulfilment will take account of the assessment of progress made on the fulfilment of the country specific Council Recommendation.

14

(15)  Deadlines for delivery on all elements here contained may be during the programme implementation period.

15

(16)  If a Country Specific Council Recommendation is in place, directly linked to this conditionality provision, then the assessment of its fulfilment will take account of the assessment of progress made on the fulfilment of the country specific Council Recommendation.

16

(17)  Deadlines for the achievement of delivery on all the elements contained in that section may be set during the programme implementation period.

17

(18)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A shared commitment for employment – COM(2009)257 Final.

18

(19)  OJ C 191, 1.7.2011, p. 1.

19

(20)  COM (2006) 208 final [(To be replaced by the forthcoming Communication by the end of September 2011)].

20

(21)  Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) (2009/C 119/02).

21

(22)  Commission Recommendation of 3 October 2008 on the active inclusion of the people excluded from the labour market (OJ L 307, 18.11.2008, p. 11).

22

(23)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An EU framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020. COM(2011) 173.

23

(24)  If a Country Specific Council Recommendation is in place, directly linked to this conditionality provision, then the assessment of its fulfilment will take account of the assessment of progress made on the fulfilment of the Country Specific Council Recommendation.

24

(25)  Deadlines for the achievement of all the elements contained in this section may expire during the programme implementation period.

25

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/114

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Proposal for a regulation on the ERDF’

2012/C 225/08

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | points out that excessive thematic concentration limits strategic choices and calls for greater flexibility to further strengthen regional competitiveness; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that excessive thematic concentration limits strategic choices and calls for greater flexibility to further strengthen regional competitiveness;

| — | calls on the European Commission to make the content and scope of individual investment priorities less rigid in consultation with the Member States and regions on a case by case basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls on the European Commission to make the content and scope of individual investment priorities less rigid in consultation with the Member States and regions on a case by case basis;

| — | welcomes the common indicators, but sees still a need for improvement; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the common indicators, but sees still a need for improvement;

| — | is of the view, that ERDF resources must be flexible and used without giving preference to certain types of area or discriminating against them, taking into account all types of urban, rural and functional areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

is of the view, that ERDF resources must be flexible and used without giving preference to certain types of area or discriminating against them, taking into account all types of urban, rural and functional areas;

| — | suggests to ensure a better link between Horizon 2020 and the structural funds by providing interfaces and connecting points in both programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

suggests to ensure a better link between Horizon 2020 and the structural funds by providing interfaces and connecting points in both programmes;

| — | underlines that a list of cities in which sustainable urban development measures are to be implemented, should be an indicative one, worked out in a partnership with local and regional authorities, on the basis of a call for applications. Regions must have the option of adopting support measures in a flexible manner in accordance with regional and local needs; |
| --- | --- |

—

underlines that a list of cities in which sustainable urban development measures are to be implemented, should be an indicative one, worked out in a partnership with local and regional authorities, on the basis of a call for applications. Regions must have the option of adopting support measures in a flexible manner in accordance with regional and local needs;

| — | points out that the proportion of ERDF funds supporting sustainable urban development, and local development in general, should be the result of operational programme planning; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that the proportion of ERDF funds supporting sustainable urban development, and local development in general, should be the result of operational programme planning;

| — | highlights the work of the URBACT programme, and calls upon the Commission to justify the added value of the proposed urban development platform; |
| --- | --- |

—

highlights the work of the URBACT programme, and calls upon the Commission to justify the added value of the proposed urban development platform;

| — | offers to work together with the European Commission to ensure stronger political dialogue on urban development plans and cooperation between urban and rural territories in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

offers to work together with the European Commission to ensure stronger political dialogue on urban development plans and cooperation between urban and rural territories in Europe;

| — | calls for the operational programmes to take greater account of the challenges of areas with natural or demographic handicaps, than is foreseen in Article 111 of the draft CPR. |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for the operational programmes to take greater account of the challenges of areas with natural or demographic handicaps, than is foreseen in Article 111 of the draft CPR.

| Rapporteur | Michael SCHNEIDER (DE/EPP), State Secretary, Delegate of the State of Saxony-Anhalt for the German Federation |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006
  COM(2011) 614 final. |

Rapporteur

Michael SCHNEIDER (DE/EPP), State Secretary, Delegate of the State of Saxony-Anhalt for the German Federation

Reference document

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006

COM(2011) 614 final.

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General assessment

| 1. | welcomes the Commission proposal as a good basis for further negotiations on the future design of ERDF support in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the Commission proposal as a good basis for further negotiations on the future design of ERDF support in Europe;

| 2. | believes that changes are still needed especially in order to meet the concerns of local and regional authorities in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

believes that changes are still needed especially in order to meet the concerns of local and regional authorities in the European Union;

| 3. | refers in this connection to the CoR's opinion on the framework regulation (1) as well as earlier opinions on the future design of the Cohesion Policy after 2013 (2); |
| --- | --- |

3.

refers in this connection to the CoR's opinion on the framework regulation (1) as well as earlier opinions on the future design of the Cohesion Policy after 2013 (2);

General provisions (Articles 1-5)

| 4. | stresses the
  tasks of the ERDF
  mentioned in , according to which the fund aims to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion by redressing regional imbalances, and maintains that ERDF support should continue to be geared towards this objective in future as well. However, the Committee points out that, in accordance with Article 174 and Article 176 TFEU, the tasks of the ERDF also include reducing the gap between the levels of development of the various regions and the extent to which the least favoured regions are lagging behind. Among these regions, particular attention should be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural and demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and islands, cross-border and mountain regions; |
| --- | --- |

4.

stresses the
  tasks of the ERDF
  mentioned in , according to which the fund aims to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion by redressing regional imbalances, and maintains that ERDF support should continue to be geared towards this objective in future as well. However, the Committee points out that, in accordance with Article 174 and Article 176 TFEU, the tasks of the ERDF also include reducing the gap between the levels of development of the various regions and the extent to which the least favoured regions are lagging behind. Among these regions, particular attention should be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural and demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and islands, cross-border and mountain regions;

| 5. | also emphasises that the ERDF's support priorities should focus on its task of strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion, giving due attention to the specific and unique situation of the outermost regions as enshrined in Article 349 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

5.

also emphasises that the ERDF's support priorities should focus on its task of strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion, giving due attention to the specific and unique situation of the outermost regions as enshrined in Article 349 TFEU;

| 6. | is of the view that the scope of support from the ERDF outlined in is in principle suitable for strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion and redressing regional imbalances while at the same time pursuing the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, it draws attention to the fact that, owing to internal development disparities, it may be necessary even in more developed regions to invest in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of environment, transport, and information and communication technologies (ICT); |
| --- | --- |

6.

is of the view that the scope of support from the ERDF outlined in is in principle suitable for strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion and redressing regional imbalances while at the same time pursuing the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, it draws attention to the fact that, owing to internal development disparities, it may be necessary even in more developed regions to invest in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of environment, transport, and information and communication technologies (ICT);

| 7. | therefore urges, irrespective of the Connecting Europe Facility, that the exclusion of infrastructure from support be explained in concrete terms and that it be made less rigid, in consultation with Member States and regions. It is therefore important to take account of the production structure of each region; |
| --- | --- |

7.

therefore urges, irrespective of the Connecting Europe Facility, that the exclusion of infrastructure from support be explained in concrete terms and that it be made less rigid, in consultation with Member States and regions. It is therefore important to take account of the production structure of each region;

| 8. | welcomes the fact that the competitiveness of SMEs is listed among the priority investments (article 5 ERDF draft regulation) considering that the issue is particularly at stake in times of crisis where SMEs encounter particular difficulties in access to financing and investments while their role in terms of employment and innovation is absolutely essential for cohesion and recovery. On the other hand, highlights that investment aid for large enterprises must remain a possibility. These businesses play an important structural policy role in meeting the goals of the flagship initiative on An Industrial Policy For The Globalisation Era, for example as partners in the development of industrial clusters and not least as contracting entities for SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

8.

welcomes the fact that the competitiveness of SMEs is listed among the priority investments (article 5 ERDF draft regulation) considering that the issue is particularly at stake in times of crisis where SMEs encounter particular difficulties in access to financing and investments while their role in terms of employment and innovation is absolutely essential for cohesion and recovery. On the other hand, highlights that investment aid for large enterprises must remain a possibility. These businesses play an important structural policy role in meeting the goals of the flagship initiative on An Industrial Policy For The Globalisation Era, for example as partners in the development of industrial clusters and not least as contracting entities for SMEs;

| 9. | believes that there is a fundamental need to clarify the relationship between the scope of support in Article 3 and the investment priorities listed in Article 5 and calls for clarification on this point; |
| --- | --- |

9.

believes that there is a fundamental need to clarify the relationship between the scope of support in Article 3 and the investment priorities listed in Article 5 and calls for clarification on this point;

| 10. | believes that, in view of limited public budgets, private sector initiatives could assume greater importance in future and that therefore the scope of ERDF support should include public and private research and innovation bodies. It underlines the importance of continuing to promote at the EU level research done jointly by private companies, universities and research centres; |
| --- | --- |

10.

believes that, in view of limited public budgets, private sector initiatives could assume greater importance in future and that therefore the scope of ERDF support should include public and private research and innovation bodies. It underlines the importance of continuing to promote at the EU level research done jointly by private companies, universities and research centres;

| 11. | believes that the networking, cooperation and exchange of experience between regions, towns and relevant social, economic and environmental actors provided for under Article 3(1)(d)(iv) should also involve stakeholders from the worlds of science and research and that clarification is needed here; |
| --- | --- |

11.

believes that the networking, cooperation and exchange of experience between regions, towns and relevant social, economic and environmental actors provided for under Article 3(1)(d)(iv) should also involve stakeholders from the worlds of science and research and that clarification is needed here;

| 12. | agrees in principle that resources should be geared towards clear thematic goals. However, regional operational programmes are the right framework in which this process should take place. The Committee is therefore against the central allocation of quotas and resources for individual funds or investment priorities. The
  thematic concentration
  provided for in must be determined – with due consideration for the subsidiarity principle – within the framework of the partnership. The Partnership Contract between the Member State and the European Commission must be based on the agreements between the Member State and regional and local authorities. The Member States and regions and local authorities must – in line with their responsibilities – have the possibility of drawing up their territorial development strategies independently as part of the planning process and of setting and justifying their individual priorities in connection with both the Europe 2020 goals and their specific regional policy requirements; |
| --- | --- |

12.

agrees in principle that resources should be geared towards clear thematic goals. However, regional operational programmes are the right framework in which this process should take place. The Committee is therefore against the central allocation of quotas and resources for individual funds or investment priorities. The
  thematic concentration
  provided for in must be determined – with due consideration for the subsidiarity principle – within the framework of the partnership. The Partnership Contract between the Member State and the European Commission must be based on the agreements between the Member State and regional and local authorities. The Member States and regions and local authorities must – in line with their responsibilities – have the possibility of drawing up their territorial development strategies independently as part of the planning process and of setting and justifying their individual priorities in connection with both the Europe 2020 goals and their specific regional policy requirements;

| 13. | therefore is opposed to the restrictive concentration of ERDF funds on the thematic objectives of ‘strengthening research, technological development and innovation’, ‘enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs’ and ‘supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors’ especially regions where per capita GDP during the 2007-2013 period was less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU 25 during the reference period; |
| --- | --- |

13.

therefore is opposed to the restrictive concentration of ERDF funds on the thematic objectives of ‘strengthening research, technological development and innovation’, ‘enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs’ and ‘supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors’ especially regions where per capita GDP during the 2007-2013 period was less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU 25 during the reference period;

| 14. | points out that concentration on these three objectives alone limits the scope of the ERDF to comprehensively support smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as well as its ability to reduce economic, social and territorial disparities in the EU. It should be remembered that, as Article 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union points out, the aim of the ERDF is to help to redress the main regional imbalances in the Union. Therefore, while it is appropriate to use the ERDF to give a boost to the Europe 2020 strategy, this should not lead to less attention being paid to the primary objective of reducing regional disparities. Concentrating on these three objectives alone also renders it difficult for Member States and regions to comply fully with the requirements of Article 7 (Promotion of equality) and Article 8 (Sustainable development and climate change) as the limited thematic objectives do not lend themselves well to addressing these. Excessive concentration also limits the strategic choices that are subject to ex ante evaluation and devalues the ex ante evaluation process. Implementation of complex programmes to support sustainable integrated regional economic development requires greater flexibility locally and is essential in order to further strengthen regional competitiveness; |
| --- | --- |

14.

points out that concentration on these three objectives alone limits the scope of the ERDF to comprehensively support smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as well as its ability to reduce economic, social and territorial disparities in the EU. It should be remembered that, as Article 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union points out, the aim of the ERDF is to help to redress the main regional imbalances in the Union. Therefore, while it is appropriate to use the ERDF to give a boost to the Europe 2020 strategy, this should not lead to less attention being paid to the primary objective of reducing regional disparities. Concentrating on these three objectives alone also renders it difficult for Member States and regions to comply fully with the requirements of Article 7 (Promotion of equality) and Article 8 (Sustainable development and climate change) as the limited thematic objectives do not lend themselves well to addressing these. Excessive concentration also limits the strategic choices that are subject to ex ante evaluation and devalues the ex ante evaluation process. Implementation of complex programmes to support sustainable integrated regional economic development requires greater flexibility locally and is essential in order to further strengthen regional competitiveness;

| 15. | rejects once again the rigid system for allocating expenditure by quota for individual or consolidated thematic goals. The considerable differences between regions in terms of potential and need, which exist even within the various regional categories, are at odds with an undifferentiated weighting of thematic objectives. The added value of cohesion policy, which lies in the tailor-made design of regional and territorial development strategies, is cancelled out by the centrally determined spending quotas; |
| --- | --- |

15.

rejects once again the rigid system for allocating expenditure by quota for individual or consolidated thematic goals. The considerable differences between regions in terms of potential and need, which exist even within the various regional categories, are at odds with an undifferentiated weighting of thematic objectives. The added value of cohesion policy, which lies in the tailor-made design of regional and territorial development strategies, is cancelled out by the centrally determined spending quotas;

| 16. | notes that the
  investment priorities
  proposed in , which the ERDF should support within the framework of individual thematic objectives, cover important areas of the fund's scope of support. However, it is not clear why certain investments such as the shifting of traffic flows, which clearly serve to support the Europe 2020 strategy, are not counted by the European Commission as investment priorities; |
| --- | --- |

16.

notes that the
  investment priorities
  proposed in , which the ERDF should support within the framework of individual thematic objectives, cover important areas of the fund's scope of support. However, it is not clear why certain investments such as the shifting of traffic flows, which clearly serve to support the Europe 2020 strategy, are not counted by the European Commission as investment priorities;

| 17. | welcomes the prioritisation of investment in ‘the shift towards a low-carbon economy’, and would point out that this is important for the future of Europe. However, the Committee feels that the percentage of ERDF funds to be dedicated to this objective, as proposed by the Commission, should be determined in the partnership contract concluded between the Commission, the Member State concerned and local and regional authorities, as this would allow the percentage of ERDF funds allocated to be adapted appropriately for different Member States and regions; |
| --- | --- |

17.

welcomes the prioritisation of investment in ‘the shift towards a low-carbon economy’, and would point out that this is important for the future of Europe. However, the Committee feels that the percentage of ERDF funds to be dedicated to this objective, as proposed by the Commission, should be determined in the partnership contract concluded between the Commission, the Member State concerned and local and regional authorities, as this would allow the percentage of ERDF funds allocated to be adapted appropriately for different Member States and regions;

| 18. | sees a need for action in this area primarily in connection with the thematic objective of ‘enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs’. Given the importance of this objective for growth and jobs in Europe and in view of the very broad spectrum of promising support opportunities, it is in this area that a clear expansion of investment priorities is required. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, key importance should be attached first and foremost to support for productive investment, which in connection with the establishment, expansion or diversification of businesses or with an overhaul of procedures for generating products and services, helps to create and maintain sustainable jobs. Such investments in businesses are the prerequisites for ensuring that the necessary structural change in Europe succeeds and that the growth and employment objectives can be met. Limiting ERDF business investment support to start-ups, as the European Commission clearly intends, would fail to meet development requirements in the regions and in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

18.

sees a need for action in this area primarily in connection with the thematic objective of ‘enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs’. Given the importance of this objective for growth and jobs in Europe and in view of the very broad spectrum of promising support opportunities, it is in this area that a clear expansion of investment priorities is required. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, key importance should be attached first and foremost to support for productive investment, which in connection with the establishment, expansion or diversification of businesses or with an overhaul of procedures for generating products and services, helps to create and maintain sustainable jobs. Such investments in businesses are the prerequisites for ensuring that the necessary structural change in Europe succeeds and that the growth and employment objectives can be met. Limiting ERDF business investment support to start-ups, as the European Commission clearly intends, would fail to meet development requirements in the regions and in Europe;

| 19. | calls for support for investment in economically-oriented infrastructure, development of tourist infrastructure, development of vocational education and training infrastructure and start-up centres in all regions to be counted among those ERDF investment priorities to which special attention can be devoted in the thematic concentration to be carried out when operational programmes are established; |
| --- | --- |

19.

calls for support for investment in economically-oriented infrastructure, development of tourist infrastructure, development of vocational education and training infrastructure and start-up centres in all regions to be counted among those ERDF investment priorities to which special attention can be devoted in the thematic concentration to be carried out when operational programmes are established;

| 20. | therefore calls on the European Commission to make the content and scope of individual investment priorities less rigid in consultation with the Member States and regions on a case by case basis. Conversely there should not be single ERDF priorities per Member State but rather each operational programme would be able to prioritise those which are relevant; |
| --- | --- |

20.

therefore calls on the European Commission to make the content and scope of individual investment priorities less rigid in consultation with the Member States and regions on a case by case basis. Conversely there should not be single ERDF priorities per Member State but rather each operational programme would be able to prioritise those which are relevant;

Indicators for ERDF support under the Investment for growth and jobs goal (Article 6)

| 21. | welcomes the
  common indicators
  proposed under to measure the results of ERDF support under the Investment for growth and jobs goal. In individual cases, there is still a need for improvement. For example, the number of new products brought onto the market in connection with R&D plans is difficult to measure and only then with a significant time lag. This indicator is as unsuitable for Europe-wide performance assessment as the indicator on ‘Estimated reduction of leakage in the water distribution network’; |
| --- | --- |

21.

welcomes the
  common indicators
  proposed under to measure the results of ERDF support under the Investment for growth and jobs goal. In individual cases, there is still a need for improvement. For example, the number of new products brought onto the market in connection with R&D plans is difficult to measure and only then with a significant time lag. This indicator is as unsuitable for Europe-wide performance assessment as the indicator on ‘Estimated reduction of leakage in the water distribution network’;

| 22. | calls on the European Commission, in partnership with the Member States and the regions, to once again assess the 43 indicators in terms of value, clarity and above all workability and to simplify them if necessary. Each operational programme should be able to choose only those indicators that are appropriate to their priorities. Conversely, managing authorities and beneficiaries cannot be held accountable for under achievement against outcomes for which they do not have direct responsibility; |
| --- | --- |

22.

calls on the European Commission, in partnership with the Member States and the regions, to once again assess the 43 indicators in terms of value, clarity and above all workability and to simplify them if necessary. Each operational programme should be able to choose only those indicators that are appropriate to their priorities. Conversely, managing authorities and beneficiaries cannot be held accountable for under achievement against outcomes for which they do not have direct responsibility;

Specific provisions on the treatment of particular territorial features (Articles 7-11)

| 23. | welcomes the fact that the ERDF should be able, among other things, to promote comprehensive measures of sustainable urban development to tackle the economic, environmental, climate and social challenges affecting urban areas. It notes that the ERDF already supports the urban dimension comprehensively in the current funding period and therefore also endorses the European Commission's intention to strengthen the urban dimension in the next funding period; |
| --- | --- |

23.

welcomes the fact that the ERDF should be able, among other things, to promote comprehensive measures of sustainable urban development to tackle the economic, environmental, climate and social challenges affecting urban areas. It notes that the ERDF already supports the urban dimension comprehensively in the current funding period and therefore also endorses the European Commission's intention to strengthen the urban dimension in the next funding period;

| 24. | is of the view, however, that in principle ERDF resources must be flexible and used without giving preference to certain types of area or discriminating against them, mainly for fear of preventing rural or peri-urban and functional areas from benefitting from the ERDF. The various kinds of area which ERDF resources will be directed towards should be determined as part of the planning process, to be carried out in partnership with local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

24.

is of the view, however, that in principle ERDF resources must be flexible and used without giving preference to certain types of area or discriminating against them, mainly for fear of preventing rural or peri-urban and functional areas from benefitting from the ERDF. The various kinds of area which ERDF resources will be directed towards should be determined as part of the planning process, to be carried out in partnership with local and regional authorities;

| 25. | suggests to ensure a better link between Horizon 2020 and the structural funds by providing interfaces and connecting points in both programmes. Up to now it is not possible to support integrated projects through the European research programme and the structural funds. A closer linkage of both programmes would increase synergy and would contribute strengthening the knowledge base in all regions and therefore the complementarity of Horizon 2020 and the structural funds should be also properly reflected in the operational programmes and in the strategies for research, innovation and smart specialisation; |
| --- | --- |

25.

suggests to ensure a better link between Horizon 2020 and the structural funds by providing interfaces and connecting points in both programmes. Up to now it is not possible to support integrated projects through the European research programme and the structural funds. A closer linkage of both programmes would increase synergy and would contribute strengthening the knowledge base in all regions and therefore the complementarity of Horizon 2020 and the structural funds should be also properly reflected in the operational programmes and in the strategies for research, innovation and smart specialisation;

| 26. | notes, in reference to the obligation on Member States provided for in to draw up in advance a list of cities in which
  sustainable urban development
  measures are to be implemented, that this list should merely be indicative. It could be the outcome of a partnership discussion with the competent local and regional authorities on the basis of a call for applications open to all towns and cities in individual Member States. Sustainable urban development should in principle be a possibility for all towns and cities, including small and medium-sized ones, in the respective programme area. Regions must have the option of adopting support measures in a flexible manner on the basis of their operational programmes and their financial framework and in accordance with regional and local requirements; |
| --- | --- |

26.

notes, in reference to the obligation on Member States provided for in to draw up in advance a list of cities in which
  sustainable urban development
  measures are to be implemented, that this list should merely be indicative. It could be the outcome of a partnership discussion with the competent local and regional authorities on the basis of a call for applications open to all towns and cities in individual Member States. Sustainable urban development should in principle be a possibility for all towns and cities, including small and medium-sized ones, in the respective programme area. Regions must have the option of adopting support measures in a flexible manner on the basis of their operational programmes and their financial framework and in accordance with regional and local requirements;

| 27. | points out that the proportion of ERDF funds allocated in a Member State to support sustainable urban development, and local development in general, should be the result of operational programme planning. Points out, however, that each Member State will have the right to increase the proportion, so that it remains possible to carry out a wide range of support measures in the operational programmes in order to support sustainable urban development. This requires the establishment of partnerships with neighbouring peri-urban, rural and functional and, where applicable, with supra-municipal integrated strategic programming areas when local geographical considerations make this necessary. Member States and regions require the necessary flexibility to carry out these measures during the funding period in accordance with regional and structural policy requirements and to select projects on the basis of quality; |
| --- | --- |

27.

points out that the proportion of ERDF funds allocated in a Member State to support sustainable urban development, and local development in general, should be the result of operational programme planning. Points out, however, that each Member State will have the right to increase the proportion, so that it remains possible to carry out a wide range of support measures in the operational programmes in order to support sustainable urban development. This requires the establishment of partnerships with neighbouring peri-urban, rural and functional and, where applicable, with supra-municipal integrated strategic programming areas when local geographical considerations make this necessary. Member States and regions require the necessary flexibility to carry out these measures during the funding period in accordance with regional and structural policy requirements and to select projects on the basis of quality;

| 28. | stresses that a delegation of tasks to cities under the integrated territorial investment instrument defined in Article 99 of the Common Provisions Regulation should be proposed as an option. Local and regional authorities should, with regard to their institutional and technical capacity be able to decide themselves whether and to what extent they take on tasks; |
| --- | --- |

28.

stresses that a delegation of tasks to cities under the integrated territorial investment instrument defined in Article 99 of the Common Provisions Regulation should be proposed as an option. Local and regional authorities should, with regard to their institutional and technical capacity be able to decide themselves whether and to what extent they take on tasks;

| 29. | highlights, in connection with the
  urban development platform
  proposed in , the current work of the URBACT programme, which is geared in particular towards exchanging experience of urban development plans in the European Union, and therefore calls upon the European Commission to justify the added value of a new platform in the form proposed by the European Commission, to avoid any duplication between the platform and URBACT and to be more precise as to the future of the URBACT programme in the future programming period; |
| --- | --- |

29.

highlights, in connection with the
  urban development platform
  proposed in , the current work of the URBACT programme, which is geared in particular towards exchanging experience of urban development plans in the European Union, and therefore calls upon the European Commission to justify the added value of a new platform in the form proposed by the European Commission, to avoid any duplication between the platform and URBACT and to be more precise as to the future of the URBACT programme in the future programming period;

| 30. | offers to cooperate closely and work together with the European Commission (annual joint conferences) to ensure stronger political dialogue on urban development plans and cooperation between urban and rural territories in Europe, because it sees this as an important task for the Committee of the Regions; |
| --- | --- |

30.

offers to cooperate closely and work together with the European Commission (annual joint conferences) to ensure stronger political dialogue on urban development plans and cooperation between urban and rural territories in Europe, because it sees this as an important task for the Committee of the Regions;

| 31. | welcomes the
  innovative actions in the field of sustainable urban development
  proposed in of the proposed regulation as an opportunity to promote innovative projects, without increasing red tape for the regions which are actually responsible as a result of these special support measures. Also welcomes the fact that the concept of ‘innovation’ is not limited to technology, but also includes social innovation. In addition, the Committee of the Regions calls for regions to be given the option of testing out innovative support measures themselves, including in the area of smart specialisation, within the framework of operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

31.

welcomes the
  innovative actions in the field of sustainable urban development
  proposed in of the proposed regulation as an opportunity to promote innovative projects, without increasing red tape for the regions which are actually responsible as a result of these special support measures. Also welcomes the fact that the concept of ‘innovation’ is not limited to technology, but also includes social innovation. In addition, the Committee of the Regions calls for regions to be given the option of testing out innovative support measures themselves, including in the area of smart specialisation, within the framework of operational programmes;

| 32. | in connection with the reference to
  areas with natural or demographic handicaps
  in of the proposed regulation, calls for the operational programmes to take greater account of the challenges of demographic change than is foreseen in Article 111 of the draft CPR which refers to modulating co-financing rates. Against a backdrop of a sharp drop in population, the migration of young and highly skilled people in particular as well as an ageing population, demographic development presents severe and permanent difficulties which, in accordance with Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, merit special attention in the Cohesion Policy. This should be borne in mind in connection with the possible uses of the ERDF. Thematic concentration and investment priorities should provide adequate scope for developing and implementing innovative solutions; |
| --- | --- |

32.

in connection with the reference to
  areas with natural or demographic handicaps
  in of the proposed regulation, calls for the operational programmes to take greater account of the challenges of demographic change than is foreseen in Article 111 of the draft CPR which refers to modulating co-financing rates. Against a backdrop of a sharp drop in population, the migration of young and highly skilled people in particular as well as an ageing population, demographic development presents severe and permanent difficulties which, in accordance with Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, merit special attention in the Cohesion Policy. This should be borne in mind in connection with the possible uses of the ERDF. Thematic concentration and investment priorities should provide adequate scope for developing and implementing innovative solutions;

| 33. | supports the proposals on
  outermost regions
  in and views them as a good basis for further development of these regions; believes that an appropriate level of support should be provided to these regions and that provision should be made for greater flexibility as regards thematic concentration; |
| --- | --- |

33.

supports the proposals on
  outermost regions
  in and views them as a good basis for further development of these regions; believes that an appropriate level of support should be provided to these regions and that provision should be made for greater flexibility as regards thematic concentration;

Final provisions (Art. 12 to 17)

| 34. | in connection with the
  exercise of the delegation
  provided for in of the proposed regulation, refers to the general concern about the use of delegated acts. In accordance with Article 290 TFEU, the delegation must refer only to certain non-essential rules and the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation must be explicitly defined; |
| --- | --- |

34.

in connection with the
  exercise of the delegation
  provided for in of the proposed regulation, refers to the general concern about the use of delegated acts. In accordance with Article 290 TFEU, the delegation must refer only to certain non-essential rules and the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation must be explicitly defined;

Subsidiarity and proportionality evaluation

| 35. | is of the view that the European Commission's draft regulation overly restricts the ERDF's scope for funding and does not allow Member States and regions the necessary room for manoeuvre in terms of regional and structural policy to meet the goals of the treaty and the Europe 2020 strategy with tailor-made territorial measures. It restricts the scope for using the ERDF to support the introduction of integrated territorial development strategies which take account of the respective territorial strengths and needs and in so doing make a major contribution to boosting economic growth and employment; |
| --- | --- |

35.

is of the view that the European Commission's draft regulation overly restricts the ERDF's scope for funding and does not allow Member States and regions the necessary room for manoeuvre in terms of regional and structural policy to meet the goals of the treaty and the Europe 2020 strategy with tailor-made territorial measures. It restricts the scope for using the ERDF to support the introduction of integrated territorial development strategies which take account of the respective territorial strengths and needs and in so doing make a major contribution to boosting economic growth and employment;

| 36. | is of the opinion that greater account should be taken of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the ongoing negotiations so that ERDF support does not become centralised, overregulated and highly bureaucratic. This would be detrimental to the acceptance and perception of the European Cohesion Policy among citizens and businesses in the regions; |
| --- | --- |

36.

is of the opinion that greater account should be taken of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the ongoing negotiations so that ERDF support does not become centralised, overregulated and highly bureaucratic. This would be detrimental to the acceptance and perception of the European Cohesion Policy among citizens and businesses in the regions;

| 37. | therefore sees considerable room for improvement and calls on the European Commission to review the draft regulation accordingly in consultation with the Council and the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

37.

therefore sees considerable room for improvement and calls on the European Commission to review the draft regulation accordingly in consultation with the Council and the European Parliament;

| 38. | continues to offer the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament the expertise of local and regional authorities in this negotiation process; |
| --- | --- |

38.

continues to offer the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament the expertise of local and regional authorities in this negotiation process;

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 2

Insert paragraph 2:

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| ... | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

...

Reason

See point 4.

When referring to a Treaty article, the whole article should be quoted, not just parts of it.

Amendment 2

Article 3

Amend paragraph 1:

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In more developed regions, the ERDF shall not support investments in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of environment, transport, and ICT. | more developed regions in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of environment, transport, and ICT. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In more developed regions, the ERDF shall not support investments in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of environment, transport, and ICT.

more developed regions in infrastructure providing basic services to citizens in the areas of environment, transport, and ICT.

Reason

See point 6.

Amendment 3

Article 3

Amend paragraph 1(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | productive investment, which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs, through direct aid to investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

productive investment, which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs, through direct aid to investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

| (a) | productive investment, which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs, through direct aid to investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

productive investment, which contributes to creating and safeguarding sustainable jobs, through direct aid to investment in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs);

Reason

See point 8.

Amendment 4

Article 3

Amend paragraph 1(c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (c) | investments in social, health and educational infrastructure; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(c)

investments in social, health and educational infrastructure;

| (c) | investments in social, health and educational infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

investments in social, health and educational infrastructure;

Amendment 5

Article 3

Amend paragraph 1(d) (i)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| d) | development of endogenous potential by supporting regional and local development and research and innovation. These measures shall include:






  i) | fixed investment in equipment and small-scale infrastructure; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

d)

development of endogenous potential by supporting regional and local development and research and innovation. These measures shall include:

i)

fixed investment in equipment and small-scale infrastructure;

| d) | development of endogenous potential by supporting regional and local development and research and innovation. These measures shall include:






  i) | fixed investment in equipment and infrastructure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

d)

development of endogenous potential by supporting regional and local development and research and innovation. These measures shall include:

i)

fixed investment in equipment and infrastructure;

Reason

This amendment concerns point 9 in the opinion. Limiting possible ERDF support for investment in equipment and infrastructure to ‘small-scale investments’ is inconsistent with the development needs of the regions in various areas. One example is a contradiction with the provisions of Article 5(1)(a), regarding the enhancing of research and innovation infrastructure to develop R&I excellence.

Amendment 6

Article 3

Amend paragraph 1(d)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| iii) | support to public research and innovation bodies and investment in technology and applied research in enterprises; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

iii)

support to public research and innovation bodies and investment in technology and applied research in enterprises;

| iii) | support to research and innovation bodies and investment in technology and applied research in enterprises as well as research and innovation operations carried out by public research entities in partnership with private enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

support to research and innovation bodies and investment in technology and applied research in enterprises as well as research and innovation operations carried out by public research entities in partnership with private enterprises;

Reason

See point 10.

Amendment 7

Article 3

Amend paragraph 1(d)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| iv) | networking, cooperation and exchange of experience between regions, towns, and relevant social, economic and environmental actors; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

iv)

networking, cooperation and exchange of experience between regions, towns, and relevant social, economic and environmental actors;

| iv) | networking, cooperation and exchange of experience between regions, towns, and relevant social, economic and environmental actors ; |
| --- | --- |

iv)

networking, cooperation and exchange of experience between regions, towns, and relevant social, economic and environmental actors ;

Reason

See point 11.

Amendment 8

Article 4

Amend as follows:

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] and corresponding investment priorities set out in Article 5 of this Regulation to which the ERDF may contribute shall be concentrated as follows:






  (a) | in more developed regions and transition regions:






  i) | at least 80 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set out in points 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; and |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] and corresponding investment priorities set out in Article 5 of this Regulation to which the ERDF may contribute shall be concentrated as follows:

(a)

in more developed regions and transition regions:

i)

at least 80 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set out in points 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; and

| ii) | at least 20 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

at least 20 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR];

| (b) | in less developed regions:






  i) | at least 50 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set in out in point 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

in less developed regions:

i)

at least 50 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set in out in point 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR].

| ii) | at least 6 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

at least 6 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR];

By derogation from point (a) (i), in those regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-13 period was less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU-25 for the reference period but which are eligible under the category of transition or more developed regions as defined in Article 82(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No [ ]/2012 [CPR] in the 2014-2020 period, at least 60 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to each of the thematic objectives set in out in points 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR].

The thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] and corresponding investment priorities set out in Article 5 of this Regulation to which the ERDF may contribute shall be concentrated as follows:

| (a) | in more developed regions






  i) | at least of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set out in points 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

in more developed regions

i)

at least of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set out in points 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; and

| ii) | at least of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

at least of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR];

| (b) | in less developed regions :






  i) | at least 50 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set in out in point 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

in less developed regions :

i)

at least 50 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objectives set in out in point 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR].

| ii) | at least 6 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

at least 6 % of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to the thematic objective set out in point 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR];

By derogation from point (a) (i), in those regions whose GDP per capita for the 2007-13 period was less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU-25 for the reference period but which are eligible under the category of transition or more developed regions as defined in Article 82(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No [ ]/2012 [CPR] in the 2014-2020 period, at least of the total ERDF resources at national level shall be allocated to each of the thematic objectives set in out in points 1, 3 and 4 of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR].

Reason

See points 12-15.

Amendment 9

Article 5

Insert paragraph 4(c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| ... | c) | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

...

c)

Reason

See point 18.

Amendment 10

Article 5(3) and 5(4)

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 5(3) | enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs:
  ... |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

5(3)

enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs:

...

5(4)

...

| b) | promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs |
| --- | --- |

b)

promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs

...

| 5(3) | enhancing competitiveness of SMEs:
  ... | |
| --- | --- | --- |

5(3)

enhancing competitiveness of SMEs:

...

5(4)

...

| b) | promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

b)

promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in SMEs;

...

Reason

Article 5(3): In the context of regional policy, the focus of efforts to boost economic competitiveness is on small and medium enterprises. However, larger companies play an important structural role, for example, as partners in the development of industrial clusters. In line with the flagship initiative, ‘An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era’, the possibility of supporting large companies should in principle remain, but the emphasis should continue to be placed on SMEs.

Article 5(3)(d): economic infrastructure projects are regional economic development activities that are directly linked with the establishment and development of businesses. A modern infrastructure supports business performance and is an important factor affecting a location's economic attractiveness.

Article 5(4)(b): The ERDF Regulation should provide realistic prospects for promoting climate and environmental protection measures in the interests of sustainable development. The original exclusive focus on SMEs seems too narrow to meet this objective fully.

Amendment 11

Article 6

Amend paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Common indicators, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. For common indicators, baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be set for 2022. | 1.   Common indicators, as in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. For common indicators, baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be set for 2022. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Common indicators, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. For common indicators, baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be set for 2022.

1.   Common indicators, as in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. For common indicators, baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be set for 2022.

Reason

See points 21-22.

The regions have a key role to play in defining indicators, as highlighted in point 22 of the opinion. We feel therefore that Amendment 11 should include a reference to the regions.

Amendment 12

Article 7

Amend paragraph 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   Each Member State shall establish in its Partnership Contract a list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development are to be implemented and an indicative annual allocation for these actions at national level.
  At least 5 % of the ERDF resources allocated at national level shall be allocated to integrated actions for sustainable urban development delegated to cities for management through Integrated Territorial Investments referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. | 2.   Each Member State shall establish in its Partnership Contract a list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development are to be implemented and an indicative annual allocation for these actions at national level.
  At least 5 % of the ERDF resources allocated at national level shall be allocated to sustainable urban development through Integrated Territorial Investments referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2.   Each Member State shall establish in its Partnership Contract a list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development are to be implemented and an indicative annual allocation for these actions at national level.

At least 5 % of the ERDF resources allocated at national level shall be allocated to integrated actions for sustainable urban development delegated to cities for management through Integrated Territorial Investments referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR].

2.   Each Member State shall establish in its Partnership Contract a list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development are to be implemented and an indicative annual allocation for these actions at national level.

At least 5 % of the ERDF resources allocated at national level shall be allocated to sustainable urban development through Integrated Territorial Investments referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR].

Reason

See points 26-28.

The amendment accommodates the Commission's proposal to allocate at least 5 % of the ERDF resources allocated at national level to sustainable urban development, without determining in advance which instrument shall be used for this.

Amendment 13

Article 8

Amend paragraphs 1 and 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The Commission shall establish, in accordance with Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], an urban development platform to promote capacity-building and networking between cities and exchange of experience on urban policy at Union level in areas related to the investment priorities of the ERDF and to sustainable urban development.
  2.   The Commission shall adopt a list of cities to participate in the platform on the basis of the lists established in the Partnership Contracts, by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 14(2).
  The list shall contain a maximum number of 300 cities, with a maximum number of 20 per Member State. Cities shall be selected based on the following criteria:






  a. | population, taking account of the specificities of national urban systems; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The Commission shall establish, in accordance with Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], an urban development platform to promote capacity-building and networking between cities and exchange of experience on urban policy at Union level in areas related to the investment priorities of the ERDF and to sustainable urban development.

2.   The Commission shall adopt a list of cities to participate in the platform on the basis of the lists established in the Partnership Contracts, by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 14(2).

The list shall contain a maximum number of 300 cities, with a maximum number of 20 per Member State. Cities shall be selected based on the following criteria:

a.

population, taking account of the specificities of national urban systems;

| b. | the existence of a strategy for integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental, climate and social challenges affecting urban areas. |
| --- | --- |

b.

the existence of a strategy for integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental, climate and social challenges affecting urban areas.

3.   The platform shall also support networking between all cities which undertake innovative actions at the initiative of the Commission.

1.   The Commission shall , in accordance with Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], an urban development platform to promote capacity-building and networking exchange of experience on urban policy at Union level in areas related to the investment priorities of the ERDF and to sustainable urban development.

3.   The platform shall also support networking between all cities which undertake innovative actions at the initiative of the Commission.

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

See points 29 and 30.

Change to the proposed amendment: there is no reason to restrict the scope for networks and exchanges of experience between cities. The Urbact programme will continue to be very important for cities not involved in the platform, but could also become a programme to expand cooperation between cities both within and outside the platform.

Amendment 14

Article 9

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Innovative Actions in the field of Sustainable Urban Development
  1.   At the initiative of the Commission, the ERDF may support innovative actions in the field of sustainable urban development, subject to a ceiling of 0.2 % of the total annual ERDF allocation. They shall include studies and pilot projects to identify or test new solutions to issues relating to sustainable urban development which are of relevance at Union level. | Innovative Actions in the field of Sustainable Urban Development
  1.   At the initiative of the Commission, the ERDF may support innovative actions in the field of sustainable urban development, subject to a ceiling of 0.2 % of the total annual ERDF allocation. They shall include studies and pilot projects to identify or test new solutions to issues relating to sustainable urban development which are of relevance at Union level. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Innovative Actions in the field of Sustainable Urban Development

1.   At the initiative of the Commission, the ERDF may support innovative actions in the field of sustainable urban development, subject to a ceiling of 0.2 % of the total annual ERDF allocation. They shall include studies and pilot projects to identify or test new solutions to issues relating to sustainable urban development which are of relevance at Union level.

Innovative Actions in the field of Sustainable Urban Development

1.   At the initiative of the Commission, the ERDF may support innovative actions in the field of sustainable urban development, subject to a ceiling of 0.2 % of the total annual ERDF allocation. They shall include studies and pilot projects to identify or test new solutions to issues relating to sustainable urban development which are of relevance at Union level.

Reason

Sustainable urban development can only be achieved in the framework of strong partnerships between cities and neighbouring peri-urban and rural areas. It is important for the innovative actions implemented to be able to promote city-countryside relations and incorporate local stakeholders in peri-urban areas as partners in their own right.

Amendment 15

Article 9

Insert new point 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | 2. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2.

Reason

See point 31.

There should be taken into account different institutional frameworks of the Member States. There should be noted, that in some Member States there is one-level municipal system.

Amendment 16

Article 10

Amend as follows

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF covering areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps referred to in Article 111(4) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] shall pay particular attention to addressing the specific difficulties of those areas. | Operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF covering areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps referred to in Article 111(4) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] shall pay particular attention to addressing the specific difficulties of those areas. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF covering areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps referred to in Article 111(4) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] shall pay particular attention to addressing the specific difficulties of those areas.

Operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF covering areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps referred to in Article 111(4) of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR] shall pay particular attention to addressing the specific difficulties of those areas.

Reason

See point 32.

Amendment 17

Article 13

Amend paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. | The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

Reason

See point 34.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 4/2012.

1

(2)  CdR 210/2009 fin (EN) SD/HB/as.

2

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/127 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/127

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Proposal for a regulation on the European Social Fund’

2012/C 225/09

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | is pleased that the ESF is to keep its particular character of a structural fund, continuing to be a firmly entrenched element of EU cohesion policy, rather than becoming a sectoral policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

is pleased that the ESF is to keep its particular character of a structural fund, continuing to be a firmly entrenched element of EU cohesion policy, rather than becoming a sectoral policy;

| — | has reservations about the extent to which the timid increase in the ESF budget will be adequate to support the ambitious goals set for the fund; |
| --- | --- |

—

has reservations about the extent to which the timid increase in the ESF budget will be adequate to support the ambitious goals set for the fund;

| — | requests that a more appropriate legal basis than the ESF be found immediately for the matter of food support for the most deprived; |
| --- | --- |

—

requests that a more appropriate legal basis than the ESF be found immediately for the matter of food support for the most deprived;

| — | is concerned that the ‘full alignment’ of the ESF with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy may constrain the mission of the Fund in relation to cohesion policy, as set out in the Treaty (cf. rural regions, regions undergoing industrial change, island, cross-border and mountain regions); |
| --- | --- |

—

is concerned that the ‘full alignment’ of the ESF with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy may constrain the mission of the Fund in relation to cohesion policy, as set out in the Treaty (cf. rural regions, regions undergoing industrial change, island, cross-border and mountain regions);

| — | regrets that there is no reference to promoting flexicurity in the labour market, and notes that flexicurity is covered by one of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines (Guideline 7); |
| --- | --- |

—

regrets that there is no reference to promoting flexicurity in the labour market, and notes that flexicurity is covered by one of the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines (Guideline 7);

| — | approves the allocation of at least 20 % of total ESF resources in each Member State to the thematic objective ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’; |
| --- | --- |

—

approves the allocation of at least 20 % of total ESF resources in each Member State to the thematic objective ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’;

| — | while welcoming the aim of thematic concentration, is against the Commission's chosen method and procedure for pursuing this goal and would advocate more flexibility; |
| --- | --- |

—

while welcoming the aim of thematic concentration, is against the Commission's chosen method and procedure for pursuing this goal and would advocate more flexibility;

| — | is disappointed that Article 6 of the proposal for a Regulation, ‘Involvement of partners’, as well as recital (9), make no mention at all of local authorities, referring only to the social partners and non-governmental organisations; |
| --- | --- |

—

is disappointed that Article 6 of the proposal for a Regulation, ‘Involvement of partners’, as well as recital (9), make no mention at all of local authorities, referring only to the social partners and non-governmental organisations;

| — | is surprised that the Commission proposal does not provide for cross-border and interregional cooperation alongside transnational cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

—

is surprised that the Commission proposal does not provide for cross-border and interregional cooperation alongside transnational cooperation;

| — | welcomes the reference to the need for ‘mobilisation of regional and local stakeholders’ to deliver the Europe 2020 strategy and to the option of using territorial pacts to achieve this goal but would favour expanding its use to other funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the reference to the need for ‘mobilisation of regional and local stakeholders’ to deliver the Europe 2020 strategy and to the option of using territorial pacts to achieve this goal but would favour expanding its use to other funds;

| Rapporteur | Konstantinos SIMITSIS (EL/PES), Mayor of Kavala |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006
  COM(2011) 607 final - 2011/0268 (COD) |

Rapporteur

Konstantinos SIMITSIS (EL/PES), Mayor of Kavala

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006

COM(2011) 607 final - 2011/0268 (COD)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Α.   General comments

| 1. | is pleased that the ESF, which is an indispensable tool for supporting employment, promoting social inclusion and fighting poverty, is to keep its particular character of a structural fund, even after 2013, continuing to be a firmly entrenched element of EU cohesion policy, rather than becoming a sectoral policy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

is pleased that the ESF, which is an indispensable tool for supporting employment, promoting social inclusion and fighting poverty, is to keep its particular character of a structural fund, even after 2013, continuing to be a firmly entrenched element of EU cohesion policy, rather than becoming a sectoral policy;

| 2. | endorses the retention, redeployment and reinforcement of the basic thematic objectives of ESF measures, which are divided between four categories, each with a number of investment priorities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

endorses the retention, redeployment and reinforcement of the basic thematic objectives of ESF measures, which are divided between four categories, each with a number of investment priorities;

| 3. | welcomes in particular the greater emphasis placed on ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’ by making this a basic thematic objective, given that social protection is now considered to be absolutely crucial in a situation of severe economic crisis affecting a large number of Europe's citizens; |
| --- | --- |

3.

welcomes in particular the greater emphasis placed on ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’ by making this a basic thematic objective, given that social protection is now considered to be absolutely crucial in a situation of severe economic crisis affecting a large number of Europe's citizens;

| 4. | welcomes the proposed modest increase in the amount earmarked for the ESF, which comes to EUR 84 billion, representing 25 % of the total budget allocated to cohesion policy for 2014-2020 (compared with around EUR 75 billion and 23 % for the current programming period); |
| --- | --- |

4.

welcomes the proposed modest increase in the amount earmarked for the ESF, which comes to EUR 84 billion, representing 25 % of the total budget allocated to cohesion policy for 2014-2020 (compared with around EUR 75 billion and 23 % for the current programming period);

| 5. | has reservations, however, about the extent to which this timid increase in the ESF budget (which in effect is less than it appears since the minimum ESF allocation also includes EUR 2.5 billion transferred from the CAP for food support for the most deprived persons) will be adequate to support the ambitious goals set for the fund; |
| --- | --- |

5.

has reservations, however, about the extent to which this timid increase in the ESF budget (which in effect is less than it appears since the minimum ESF allocation also includes EUR 2.5 billion transferred from the CAP for food support for the most deprived persons) will be adequate to support the ambitious goals set for the fund;

| 6. | expresses doubt as to whether the food aid for the most deprived persons, which the CoR in principle strongly supports, is covered by the objectives defined in the relevant Article 162 TFEU. Notes in addition that food support for the most deprived persons is not mentioned in the corpus of the draft ESF regulation and intervention areas (in particular Article 3 on the scope of support). Requests therefore that a more appropriate legal basis than the ESF be found immediately for the matter of food support for the most deprived; |
| --- | --- |

6.

expresses doubt as to whether the food aid for the most deprived persons, which the CoR in principle strongly supports, is covered by the objectives defined in the relevant Article 162 TFEU. Notes in addition that food support for the most deprived persons is not mentioned in the corpus of the draft ESF regulation and intervention areas (in particular Article 3 on the scope of support). Requests therefore that a more appropriate legal basis than the ESF be found immediately for the matter of food support for the most deprived;

| 7. | wonders whether more ambitious goals should not be set for the financing of cohesion policy in general and the ESF in particular during a period of severe economic crisis in Europe with dramatic social repercussions; |
| --- | --- |

7.

wonders whether more ambitious goals should not be set for the financing of cohesion policy in general and the ESF in particular during a period of severe economic crisis in Europe with dramatic social repercussions;

| 8. | regrets that the Commission once again has not had the courage to take on board the positions of the CoR on measuring progress using criteria beyond GDP that capture economic, social and environmental parameters; |
| --- | --- |

8.

regrets that the Commission once again has not had the courage to take on board the positions of the CoR on measuring progress using criteria beyond GDP that capture economic, social and environmental parameters;

| 9. | calls on the European Commission and the other competent EU bodies to step up their efforts to permit use of the most recent national statistical data, from the period 2009-2011, and regional data, from the period 2008-2010 (rather than those for 2007-2009 and 2006-2008, respectively), so as to document as accurately as possible the extremely adverse economic climate with a view to allowing use of the ESF to address the greater needs in this situation; for reasons of equality before the law, calls for the methodology for the distribution of funds to ensure that regions still covered by the convergence objective are in all cases definitely eligible for more funding than those in the transition category; |
| --- | --- |

9.

calls on the European Commission and the other competent EU bodies to step up their efforts to permit use of the most recent national statistical data, from the period 2009-2011, and regional data, from the period 2008-2010 (rather than those for 2007-2009 and 2006-2008, respectively), so as to document as accurately as possible the extremely adverse economic climate with a view to allowing use of the ESF to address the greater needs in this situation; for reasons of equality before the law, calls for the methodology for the distribution of funds to ensure that regions still covered by the convergence objective are in all cases definitely eligible for more funding than those in the transition category;

| 10. | opposes any notion of adopting macro-economic conditionality clauses, especially in relation to the ESF, as this would penalise regional authorities and ultimately the beneficiaries of the Fund - which according to Article 2(3) of the proposal for a Regulation are ‘people, including disadvantaged groups such as long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, ethnic minorities, marginalised communities and people facing social exclusion’, as well as businesses – for delays on the part of central governments in promoting reforms to which they have committed themselves in the framework of the National Reform Programmes; |
| --- | --- |

10.

opposes any notion of adopting macro-economic conditionality clauses, especially in relation to the ESF, as this would penalise regional authorities and ultimately the beneficiaries of the Fund - which according to Article 2(3) of the proposal for a Regulation are ‘people, including disadvantaged groups such as long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, ethnic minorities, marginalised communities and people facing social exclusion’, as well as businesses – for delays on the part of central governments in promoting reforms to which they have committed themselves in the framework of the National Reform Programmes;

| 11. | is concerned about a number of points in the Commission proposal, such as for instance those relating to thematic concentration, because they will limit scope to tailor ESF support to the needs and particularities of individual regions, which raise issues of conflict with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles; |
| --- | --- |

11.

is concerned about a number of points in the Commission proposal, such as for instance those relating to thematic concentration, because they will limit scope to tailor ESF support to the needs and particularities of individual regions, which raise issues of conflict with the subsidiarity and proportionality principles;

| 12. | points out that the Commission is bound under the Treaties to respect the subsidiarity principle and that this is a matter of particular interest to the CoR, since Article 2 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality stipulates that consultations conducted during the process of enacting legislation should ‘take into account the regional and local dimension of the action envisaged’; furthermore, Article 5 of the same protocol specifies that justification must be provided for Commission proposals. Since the present proposal simply invokes in the usual general and vague terms the need for ESF interventions to be effective, it can hardly be said to meet this specification; |
| --- | --- |

12.

points out that the Commission is bound under the Treaties to respect the subsidiarity principle and that this is a matter of particular interest to the CoR, since Article 2 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality stipulates that consultations conducted during the process of enacting legislation should ‘take into account the regional and local dimension of the action envisaged’; furthermore, Article 5 of the same protocol specifies that justification must be provided for Commission proposals. Since the present proposal simply invokes in the usual general and vague terms the need for ESF interventions to be effective, it can hardly be said to meet this specification;

| 13. | points out that providing for compulsory minimum amounts and shares, and restrictions on thematic concentration and transnational cooperation, creates a risk of transforming the role of the Commission from a strategic partner and adviser to an oversight body that is required only to verify and approve the compliance of the programmes drawn up by Member States and regions with criteria set in advance at EU level that may be quite inappropriate to their needs; |
| --- | --- |

13.

points out that providing for compulsory minimum amounts and shares, and restrictions on thematic concentration and transnational cooperation, creates a risk of transforming the role of the Commission from a strategic partner and adviser to an oversight body that is required only to verify and approve the compliance of the programmes drawn up by Member States and regions with criteria set in advance at EU level that may be quite inappropriate to their needs;

| 14. | endorses the creation of a new, ‘transition’, category of region whose GDP is between 75 % and 90 % of EU GDP, but also espouses the right for all EU regions to benefit from ESF funding, including those that are not lagging in terms of statistical averages but nevertheless often face problems of social cohesion owing to pockets of poverty and underdevelopment in their territory; |
| --- | --- |

14.

endorses the creation of a new, ‘transition’, category of region whose GDP is between 75 % and 90 % of EU GDP, but also espouses the right for all EU regions to benefit from ESF funding, including those that are not lagging in terms of statistical averages but nevertheless often face problems of social cohesion owing to pockets of poverty and underdevelopment in their territory;

| 15. | considers, at any rate, that the new method of classifying regions should not lead to an exceptionally steep fall in the amount of assistance received by the regions compared with the current programming period, and asks that a safeguard be provided for to ensure that the regions do not receive assistance during the 2014-2020 period that would be less than two thirds of the assistance received during 2007-2013; |
| --- | --- |

15.

considers, at any rate, that the new method of classifying regions should not lead to an exceptionally steep fall in the amount of assistance received by the regions compared with the current programming period, and asks that a safeguard be provided for to ensure that the regions do not receive assistance during the 2014-2020 period that would be less than two thirds of the assistance received during 2007-2013;

| 16. | welcomes the initiative to prioritise ESF shares, but calls for them to be reduced in order to make them more proportionate and give Member States and regions the flexibility they need in planning, which should take place as close as possible to the source of local opportunities and problems; |
| --- | --- |

16.

welcomes the initiative to prioritise ESF shares, but calls for them to be reduced in order to make them more proportionate and give Member States and regions the flexibility they need in planning, which should take place as close as possible to the source of local opportunities and problems;

| 17. | believes that the planned minimum ESF shares by category of region should be made indicative, as this would allow them to be tailored to each individual region during negotiation of the partnership contract; |
| --- | --- |

17.

believes that the planned minimum ESF shares by category of region should be made indicative, as this would allow them to be tailored to each individual region during negotiation of the partnership contract;

| 18. | welcomes as a positive step the aim of coordinating the operations of the various EU structural funds and making them coherent, especially the complementarity of ERDF and ESF operations in the context of cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 strategy, which could produce significant synergies; |
| --- | --- |

18.

welcomes as a positive step the aim of coordinating the operations of the various EU structural funds and making them coherent, especially the complementarity of ERDF and ESF operations in the context of cohesion policy and the Europe 2020 strategy, which could produce significant synergies;

| 19. | on the one hand endorses the concern to promote the involvement of the social partners and NGOs in the processes of planning and implementing ESF operations; |
| --- | --- |

19.

on the one hand endorses the concern to promote the involvement of the social partners and NGOs in the processes of planning and implementing ESF operations;

| 20. | on the other hand points with displeasure to the general mistrust on the part of the Commission towards local and regional authorities, which are and must continue to be key actors in planning and implementing the operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

20.

on the other hand points with displeasure to the general mistrust on the part of the Commission towards local and regional authorities, which are and must continue to be key actors in planning and implementing the operational programmes;

B.   Mission and scope of ESF assistance

| 21. | commends the basic guiding principle of linking ESF tasks and actions to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; |
| --- | --- |

21.

commends the basic guiding principle of linking ESF tasks and actions to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

| 22. | is concerned, however, that the ‘full alignment’ of the ESF with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy may constrain the mission of the Fund in relation to cohesion policy, as set out in the Treaty, in particular the mission to support the most comprehensive and integrated programming approaches while paying due attention to the territorial dimension; |
| --- | --- |

22.

is concerned, however, that the ‘full alignment’ of the ESF with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy may constrain the mission of the Fund in relation to cohesion policy, as set out in the Treaty, in particular the mission to support the most comprehensive and integrated programming approaches while paying due attention to the territorial dimension;

| 23. | considers that the ESF's key mission, in the context of its alignment with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, is to narrow the development gap for the most disadvantaged regions, as defined in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (rural regions, regions undergoing industrial change, the northernmost regions, which are extremely sparsely populated, and island, cross-border and mountain regions); the CoR reiterates its concerns about the risk of transforming the ESF from a key lever of cohesion policy into an instrument exclusively serving the Europe 2020 strategy; |
| --- | --- |

23.

considers that the ESF's key mission, in the context of its alignment with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, is to narrow the development gap for the most disadvantaged regions, as defined in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (rural regions, regions undergoing industrial change, the northernmost regions, which are extremely sparsely populated, and island, cross-border and mountain regions); the CoR reiterates its concerns about the risk of transforming the ESF from a key lever of cohesion policy into an instrument exclusively serving the Europe 2020 strategy;

| 24. | also regrets that in aligning the ESF with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, due consideration has not been given to the specific, unique situation of the outermost regions, recognised in Article 349 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

24.

also regrets that in aligning the ESF with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, due consideration has not been given to the specific, unique situation of the outermost regions, recognised in Article 349 TFEU.

| 25. | appreciates and welcomes the Commission's comprehensive and coherent approach to framing the scope of application of ESF assistance, which is required to support four thematic objectives directly and a further four indirectly of the total of eleven set out in Article 9 of the general regulation on the funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; these thematic objectives in turn are broken down into 18 investment priorities; |
| --- | --- |

25.

appreciates and welcomes the Commission's comprehensive and coherent approach to framing the scope of application of ESF assistance, which is required to support four thematic objectives directly and a further four indirectly of the total of eleven set out in Article 9 of the general regulation on the funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; these thematic objectives in turn are broken down into 18 investment priorities;

| 26. | draws attention to the fact that in this way the ESF will both continue to fulfil its basic mission under the Treaty, which is to ‘improve employment opportunities for workers’, and be able to meet the social needs resulting from an exceptionally adverse economic climate by ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’, a goal that is upgraded from an investment priority to a specific thematic objective; |
| --- | --- |

26.

draws attention to the fact that in this way the ESF will both continue to fulfil its basic mission under the Treaty, which is to ‘improve employment opportunities for workers’, and be able to meet the social needs resulting from an exceptionally adverse economic climate by ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’, a goal that is upgraded from an investment priority to a specific thematic objective;

| 27. | regrets that there is no reference to promoting flexicurity in the labour market, and notes that flexicurity is covered by one of the Integrated Guidelines of the Europe 2020 strategy (Guideline 7); |
| --- | --- |

27.

regrets that there is no reference to promoting flexicurity in the labour market, and notes that flexicurity is covered by one of the Integrated Guidelines of the Europe 2020 strategy (Guideline 7);

| 28. | welcomes the specific use of the ESF to promote education, research and technological development at a time when public investment in these areas is on a downward trend, and is in favour of opening the ESF for investment in physical capital that corresponds to ESF objectives, such as education infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

28.

welcomes the specific use of the ESF to promote education, research and technological development at a time when public investment in these areas is on a downward trend, and is in favour of opening the ESF for investment in physical capital that corresponds to ESF objectives, such as education infrastructure;

| 29. | requests a reference in the ESF regulation to areas with natural and demographic handicaps similar to the one foreseen in Article 10 of the draft regulation on the European Fund for Regional Development; |
| --- | --- |

29.

requests a reference in the ESF regulation to areas with natural and demographic handicaps similar to the one foreseen in Article 10 of the draft regulation on the European Fund for Regional Development;

| 30. | considers it necessary that this area be treated as an investment priority in view of the massive demographic changes in many Member States requiring considerable adaptation of educational structures. The Committee operates on the assumption that its call for investment in securing sustainable educational structures and skilled labour in light of these demographic changes is in keeping with Article 3(1)(b)(iii); |
| --- | --- |

30.

considers it necessary that this area be treated as an investment priority in view of the massive demographic changes in many Member States requiring considerable adaptation of educational structures. The Committee operates on the assumption that its call for investment in securing sustainable educational structures and skilled labour in light of these demographic changes is in keeping with Article 3(1)(b)(iii);

| 31. | is particularly pleased to note that a considerable number of the policy areas representing investment priorities are directly relevant to the competences of local and regional authorities and will therefore help them in performing their tasks; however, there is also an urgent need for those authorities to be positively involved in planning and implementing the relevant operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

31.

is particularly pleased to note that a considerable number of the policy areas representing investment priorities are directly relevant to the competences of local and regional authorities and will therefore help them in performing their tasks; however, there is also an urgent need for those authorities to be positively involved in planning and implementing the relevant operational programmes;

| 32. | urges the Commission to clarify the scope of certain investment priorities where unclear and to place more emphasis on others, and indeed create new ones where necessary, for example in relation to promoting the territorial dimension of ESF operations; |
| --- | --- |

32.

urges the Commission to clarify the scope of certain investment priorities where unclear and to place more emphasis on others, and indeed create new ones where necessary, for example in relation to promoting the territorial dimension of ESF operations;

C.   Consistency and thematic concentration

| 33. | welcomes the intention to require the Member States to ensure that their strategies and actions as set out in the operational programmes are consistent in addressing the challenges identified in the National Reform Programmes, so that they contribute to achieving the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, education and poverty reduction, since a healthy macroeconomic environment is needed in order to maximise the results of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

33.

welcomes the intention to require the Member States to ensure that their strategies and actions as set out in the operational programmes are consistent in addressing the challenges identified in the National Reform Programmes, so that they contribute to achieving the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, education and poverty reduction, since a healthy macroeconomic environment is needed in order to maximise the results of cohesion policy;

| 34. | points to another instance where the wording chosen (‘Member States shall ensure that the strategy and actions set out in the Operational Programmes are consistent and ’, whereas the expression ‘contribute to’ is used in the current Regulation), confirms the risk of diverting the ESF from its role as a lever of cohesion policy to a tool used exclusively for the Europe 2020 strategy (see points 21-24 above); |
| --- | --- |

34.

points to another instance where the wording chosen (‘Member States shall ensure that the strategy and actions set out in the Operational Programmes are consistent and ’, whereas the expression ‘contribute to’ is used in the current Regulation), confirms the risk of diverting the ESF from its role as a lever of cohesion policy to a tool used exclusively for the Europe 2020 strategy (see points 21-24 above);

| 35. | as regards concentrating funding, approves the allocation of at least 20 % of total ESF resources in each Member State to the thematic objective ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’; |
| --- | --- |

35.

as regards concentrating funding, approves the allocation of at least 20 % of total ESF resources in each Member State to the thematic objective ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’;

| 36. | wonders whether the envisaged minimum of 20 % (or EUR 16.8 billion over the whole period) will be effective, when the European Commission itself concedes in its proposal that around one quarter of Europe's citizens (over 113 million people) are threatened by poverty and social exclusion; |
| --- | --- |

36.

wonders whether the envisaged minimum of 20 % (or EUR 16.8 billion over the whole period) will be effective, when the European Commission itself concedes in its proposal that around one quarter of Europe's citizens (over 113 million people) are threatened by poverty and social exclusion;

| 37. | while welcoming the aim of thematic concentration, is against the Commission's chosen method and procedure for pursuing this goal, as set out in Article 4(3) of the proposal for a Regulation: prescribing very high rates of concentration for allocations to each operational programme, ranging from 80 % to 60 % depending on the category of region, in up to four of the total 18 investment priorities, is incompatible with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as this may not prove adequate to cover the particular needs and priorities of each region; |
| --- | --- |

37.

while welcoming the aim of thematic concentration, is against the Commission's chosen method and procedure for pursuing this goal, as set out in Article 4(3) of the proposal for a Regulation: prescribing very high rates of concentration for allocations to each operational programme, ranging from 80 % to 60 % depending on the category of region, in up to four of the total 18 investment priorities, is incompatible with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, as this may not prove adequate to cover the particular needs and priorities of each region;

| 38. | would advocate, instead, a process for concentrating funding with (i) lower allocation concentration percentages for each operational programme than those proposed by the Commission and (ii) the four investment priorities as an indicative figure that would represent an EU threshold and could be increased to six priorities when the operational programmes are negotiated in the interests of meeting the concentration objective while also serving the specific needs and priorities of each region; |
| --- | --- |

38.

would advocate, instead, a process for concentrating funding with (i) lower allocation concentration percentages for each operational programme than those proposed by the Commission and (ii) the four investment priorities as an indicative figure that would represent an EU threshold and could be increased to six priorities when the operational programmes are negotiated in the interests of meeting the concentration objective while also serving the specific needs and priorities of each region;

D.   Monitoring and evaluation system

| 39. | in principle endorses the introduction of a system of common output and result indicators for the programmes, which initiates a long-overdue effort to harmonise at EU level the rules for evaluating the results of ESF measures and will help considerably to improve the reliability, quality and visibility of monitoring procedures; |
| --- | --- |

39.

in principle endorses the introduction of a system of common output and result indicators for the programmes, which initiates a long-overdue effort to harmonise at EU level the rules for evaluating the results of ESF measures and will help considerably to improve the reliability, quality and visibility of monitoring procedures;

| 40. | believes, however, since harmonisation of indicators of the programme performance indicators is still at an early stage and the Commission's preferred common indicators have not been tested, and considering that it is certainly more difficult to measure the impact of measures funded through the ESF than those funded through other types of intervention, these indicators should be indicative rather than compulsory and that above all they should not be associated with ‘performance-based conditionality’; |
| --- | --- |

40.

believes, however, since harmonisation of indicators of the programme performance indicators is still at an early stage and the Commission's preferred common indicators have not been tested, and considering that it is certainly more difficult to measure the impact of measures funded through the ESF than those funded through other types of intervention, these indicators should be indicative rather than compulsory and that above all they should not be associated with ‘performance-based conditionality’;

| 41. | maintains, on the contrary, that the need to improve the reliability, quality and visibility of monitoring procedures can be met by having internal specific output/result indicators at programme level negotiated between national and subnational authorities that should be modelled (fully or partly) on the common output and result indicators proposed by the Commission, while allowing for the necessary flexibility when these are adopted; |
| --- | --- |

41.

maintains, on the contrary, that the need to improve the reliability, quality and visibility of monitoring procedures can be met by having internal specific output/result indicators at programme level negotiated between national and subnational authorities that should be modelled (fully or partly) on the common output and result indicators proposed by the Commission, while allowing for the necessary flexibility when these are adopted;

E.   Involvement of partners

| 42. | is disappointed that Article 6 of the proposal for a Regulation, ‘Involvement of partners’, as well as recital (9), make no mention at all of local authorities, referring only to the social partners and non-governmental organisations; this demonstrates the mistrust towards local and regional authorities mentioned above; |
| --- | --- |

42.

is disappointed that Article 6 of the proposal for a Regulation, ‘Involvement of partners’, as well as recital (9), make no mention at all of local authorities, referring only to the social partners and non-governmental organisations; this demonstrates the mistrust towards local and regional authorities mentioned above;

| 43. | in relation to partnership, regards as unfair the subsuming of local and regional authorities under the category of social partners, since as representatives of the general interests of every community they administer, local and regional authorities, taking into consideration the institutional framework of the Member State, co-manage and co-finance cohesion policy projects; |
| --- | --- |

43.

in relation to partnership, regards as unfair the subsuming of local and regional authorities under the category of social partners, since as representatives of the general interests of every community they administer, local and regional authorities, taking into consideration the institutional framework of the Member State, co-manage and co-finance cohesion policy projects;

| 44. | regrets that this provision does not explicitly refer to all partners listed in Article 5 of the proposal for a Regulation laying down Common Provisions (CPR). Indeed, Article 5 of the CPR recognises the competent local and regional authorities as key partners of the national authorities in implementing the programmes of the EU Structural Funds, including the ESF, together with the social partners and non-governmental organisations. Therefore, this lack of reference must be rectified; |
| --- | --- |

44.

regrets that this provision does not explicitly refer to all partners listed in Article 5 of the proposal for a Regulation laying down Common Provisions (CPR). Indeed, Article 5 of the CPR recognises the competent local and regional authorities as key partners of the national authorities in implementing the programmes of the EU Structural Funds, including the ESF, together with the social partners and non-governmental organisations. Therefore, this lack of reference must be rectified;

| 45. | welcomes the fact that social partners and non-governmental organisations are encouraged to participate by ensuring that an adequate amount of ESF funding is allocated for their capacity-building activities in relation to programme planning and implementation; |
| --- | --- |

45.

welcomes the fact that social partners and non-governmental organisations are encouraged to participate by ensuring that an adequate amount of ESF funding is allocated for their capacity-building activities in relation to programme planning and implementation;

| 46. | however, likewise advocates promoting the ability of smaller local authorities (e.g. small rural municipalities) to take part in and access measures supported by the ESF through appropriate capacity-building activities, as well as support from the ESF for networking activities enabling local authorities to compare at EU level their experiences on matters of joint interest (e.g. youth unemployment, population ageing, integration of the Roma); |
| --- | --- |

46.

however, likewise advocates promoting the ability of smaller local authorities (e.g. small rural municipalities) to take part in and access measures supported by the ESF through appropriate capacity-building activities, as well as support from the ESF for networking activities enabling local authorities to compare at EU level their experiences on matters of joint interest (e.g. youth unemployment, population ageing, integration of the Roma);

F.   Gender equality and non-discrimination

| 47. | endorses the provisions of the proposal for a Regulation that relate to promoting gender equality and equal opportunities, including accessibility for people with disabilities, through mainstreaming the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as they demonstrate a renewed effort to eliminate all forms of discrimination, as provided for in Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A particularly positive provision here, which reflects progress made, is the requirement that the Member States not only ensure that their operational programmes include ‘a description of how gender equality and equal opportunities are promoted’ (current Regulation) but that gender equality and equal opportunities are also mainstreamed in legislation; |
| --- | --- |

47.

endorses the provisions of the proposal for a Regulation that relate to promoting gender equality and equal opportunities, including accessibility for people with disabilities, through mainstreaming the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as they demonstrate a renewed effort to eliminate all forms of discrimination, as provided for in Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A particularly positive provision here, which reflects progress made, is the requirement that the Member States not only ensure that their operational programmes include ‘a description of how gender equality and equal opportunities are promoted’ (current Regulation) but that gender equality and equal opportunities are also mainstreamed in legislation;

G.   Social innovation and transnational cooperation

| 48. | commends the proposal's support for ‘social innovation’, since it has already mounted major initiatives on promoting social innovation (e.g. the forum on social innovation held in May 2011), but would suggest that specific mention of local and regional authorities would be appropriate here, since they should be given the opportunity to be involved, together with the Member States, in identifying themes for social innovation; |
| --- | --- |

48.

commends the proposal's support for ‘social innovation’, since it has already mounted major initiatives on promoting social innovation (e.g. the forum on social innovation held in May 2011), but would suggest that specific mention of local and regional authorities would be appropriate here, since they should be given the opportunity to be involved, together with the Member States, in identifying themes for social innovation;

| 49. | endorses the continuation and strengthening of transnational cooperation with the aim of promoting mutual learning and thereby increasing the effectiveness of policies supported by the ESF; |
| --- | --- |

49.

endorses the continuation and strengthening of transnational cooperation with the aim of promoting mutual learning and thereby increasing the effectiveness of policies supported by the ESF;

| 50. | is surprised that the Commission proposal does not provide for interregional cooperation alongside transnational cooperation, which the existing Regulation does, in particular considering that since the expiry of the EQUAL initiative (2000-2006) transnational cooperation has dwindled and in certain Member States disappeared altogether; |
| --- | --- |

50.

is surprised that the Commission proposal does not provide for interregional cooperation alongside transnational cooperation, which the existing Regulation does, in particular considering that since the expiry of the EQUAL initiative (2000-2006) transnational cooperation has dwindled and in certain Member States disappeared altogether;

| 51. | rejects as excessive the restriction whereby Member States may select themes for transnational co-operation only from a list proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the ESF Committee, and asks that this provision be removed; |
| --- | --- |

51.

rejects as excessive the restriction whereby Member States may select themes for transnational co-operation only from a list proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the ESF Committee, and asks that this provision be removed;

H.   Specific provisions on the treatment of particular territorial features

| 52. | in particular welcomes the support to be provided for community-led local development strategies, territorial pacts, local initiatives for employment, education and social inclusion and Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), which are important ways of taking specific territorial features into account, and calls for these approaches to be extended to the other Structural Funds and other policy spheres; |
| --- | --- |

52.

in particular welcomes the support to be provided for community-led local development strategies, territorial pacts, local initiatives for employment, education and social inclusion and Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI), which are important ways of taking specific territorial features into account, and calls for these approaches to be extended to the other Structural Funds and other policy spheres;

| 53. | welcomes the reference to the need for ‘mobilisation of regional and local stakeholders’ to deliver the Europe 2020 strategy and to the option of using territorial pacts to achieve this goal; |
| --- | --- |

53.

welcomes the reference to the need for ‘mobilisation of regional and local stakeholders’ to deliver the Europe 2020 strategy and to the option of using territorial pacts to achieve this goal;

| 54. | points here to previous CoR positions in favour of expanding the use of territorial pacts to implement the Europe 2020 strategy and/or in the context of cohesion policy as ‘an option available to formalise partnership arrangements at a level beneath the partnership contracts’; |
| --- | --- |

54.

points here to previous CoR positions in favour of expanding the use of territorial pacts to implement the Europe 2020 strategy and/or in the context of cohesion policy as ‘an option available to formalise partnership arrangements at a level beneath the partnership contracts’;

| 55. | wholeheartedly endorses the reference to the need for complementarity between ESF and ERDF interventions where the ESF is used to support sustainable urban development strategies. For many local authorities it has often been very difficult, if not impossible, to fund integrated urban development measures combining ESF and ERDF funding, because the two funds applied very different administrative rules, with different managing authorities and no coordination of timetables; |
| --- | --- |

55.

wholeheartedly endorses the reference to the need for complementarity between ESF and ERDF interventions where the ESF is used to support sustainable urban development strategies. For many local authorities it has often been very difficult, if not impossible, to fund integrated urban development measures combining ESF and ERDF funding, because the two funds applied very different administrative rules, with different managing authorities and no coordination of timetables;

| 56. | at the same time calls for this measure to be extended to strategies for the integrated development of rural regions. It would actually be very useful to combine ESF and ERDF funding in addressing problems associated with extreme poverty in rural regions (e.g. Roma camps in central and eastern Europe); |
| --- | --- |

56.

at the same time calls for this measure to be extended to strategies for the integrated development of rural regions. It would actually be very useful to combine ESF and ERDF funding in addressing problems associated with extreme poverty in rural regions (e.g. Roma camps in central and eastern Europe);

I.   Simplification measures and innovative financial instruments

| 57. | welcomes the simplification measures put forward by the Commission, specifically the restriction on the number of eligibility rules so as to facilitate access for smaller beneficiaries and operations to ESF funding, the eligibility of contributions in kind, wider use of global grants, and simplified cost options, such as lump sums, including making their use obligatory for smaller operations (up to EUR 50 000). These measures, together with those proposed in connection with the review of the EU Financial Regulation, will effectively reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and managing authorities, and are particularly welcome in dealing with the plethora of small operations in the spheres of employment and social affairs (intangible rather than tangible investments). The administrative burden can now be so disproportionate that it outweighs the potential benefits for local authorities and discourages them from submitting applications for ESF projects; |
| --- | --- |

57.

welcomes the simplification measures put forward by the Commission, specifically the restriction on the number of eligibility rules so as to facilitate access for smaller beneficiaries and operations to ESF funding, the eligibility of contributions in kind, wider use of global grants, and simplified cost options, such as lump sums, including making their use obligatory for smaller operations (up to EUR 50 000). These measures, together with those proposed in connection with the review of the EU Financial Regulation, will effectively reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and managing authorities, and are particularly welcome in dealing with the plethora of small operations in the spheres of employment and social affairs (intangible rather than tangible investments). The administrative burden can now be so disproportionate that it outweighs the potential benefits for local authorities and discourages them from submitting applications for ESF projects;

| 58. | believes, however, that there is further scope for simplification through adopting other measures, such as those discussed by the ad hoc group of the ESF Committee on the future of the European Social Fund. Such measures included adapting the rules on co-financing for certain priority axes, in particular smaller projects, and introducing a more efficient system for disbursements (more systematic use of pre-financing); |
| --- | --- |

58.

believes, however, that there is further scope for simplification through adopting other measures, such as those discussed by the ad hoc group of the ESF Committee on the future of the European Social Fund. Such measures included adapting the rules on co-financing for certain priority axes, in particular smaller projects, and introducing a more efficient system for disbursements (more systematic use of pre-financing);

| 59. | is in favour of the innovative financial instruments proposed to support ESF projects (risk-sharing schemes, equity and debt, guarantee funds, holding funds and loan funds), and welcomes the specific reference to ‘policy-based guarantees’ to improve access for public and private bodies to capital markets at national and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

59.

is in favour of the innovative financial instruments proposed to support ESF projects (risk-sharing schemes, equity and debt, guarantee funds, holding funds and loan funds), and welcomes the specific reference to ‘policy-based guarantees’ to improve access for public and private bodies to capital markets at national and regional level;

| 60. | asks the Commission to add the following to this list: revolving funds for microcredit operations, ‘social bonds’, an innovative measure that was discussed at the CoR forum on social innovation, and ‘citizen bonds’, a proposal made when drawing up the CoR opinions on the EU budget review and the new MFF post-2013. |
| --- | --- |

60.

asks the Commission to add the following to this list: revolving funds for microcredit operations, ‘social bonds’, an innovative measure that was discussed at the CoR forum on social innovation, and ‘citizen bonds’, a proposal made when drawing up the CoR opinions on the EU budget review and the new MFF post-2013.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital (9)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (9) | Efficient and effective implementation of actions supported by the ESF depends on good governance and partnership between all relevant territorial and socio-economic actors, in particular the social partners and non-governmental organisations. It is therefore necessary that Member States encourage the participation of social partners and non-governmental organisations in the implementation of the ESF. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(9)

Efficient and effective implementation of actions supported by the ESF depends on good governance and partnership between all relevant territorial and socio-economic actors, in particular the social partners and non-governmental organisations. It is therefore necessary that Member States encourage the participation of social partners and non-governmental organisations in the implementation of the ESF.

| (9) | Efficient and effective implementation of actions supported by the ESF depends on good governance and partnership between all relevant territorial and socio-economic actors, in particular the social partners and non-governmental organisations. It is therefore necessary that Member States encourage the participation of social partners and non-governmental organisations in the implementation of the ESF. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Efficient and effective implementation of actions supported by the ESF depends on good governance and partnership between all relevant territorial and socio-economic actors, in particular the social partners and non-governmental organisations. It is therefore necessary that Member States encourage the participation of social partners and non-governmental organisations in the implementation of the ESF.

Reason

See points 42 and 43 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

Amendment 2

Article 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 1
  Subject matter
  This Regulation establishes the mission of the European Social Fund (ESF), the scope of its assistance, specific provisions and the types of expenditure eligible for assistance. | Article 1
  Subject matter
  This Regulation establishes the of the European Social Fund (ESF), the scope of its assistance, specific provisions and the types of expenditure eligible for assistance. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 1

Subject matter

This Regulation establishes the mission of the European Social Fund (ESF), the scope of its assistance, specific provisions and the types of expenditure eligible for assistance.

Article 1

Subject matter

This Regulation establishes the of the European Social Fund (ESF), the scope of its assistance, specific provisions and the types of expenditure eligible for assistance.

Reason

The mission of the ESF is enshrined in the Treaties (Articles 162 and 174-175 TFEU). The Committee therefore proposes that the wording be changed to that of the current Regulation (No 1081/2006), which refers to ‘tasks’ rather than ‘mission’. This would make the wording of the proposal for a Regulation fully consistent with that of the Treaties: thus under Article 177 TFEU ‘the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall define the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds ....’

Amendment 3

Article 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 2
  Mission
  1.   The ESF shall promote high levels of employment and job quality, support the geographical and occupational mobility of workers, facilitate their adaptation to change, encourage a high level of education and training, promote gender equality, equal opportunities and non-discrimination, enhance social inclusion and combat poverty, thereby contributing to the priorities of the European Union as regards strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion.
  2.   It shall do so by supporting Member States in pursuing the priorities and headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The ESF shall support the design and implementation of policies and actions, taking account of the integrated guidelines for the economic and employment policies of Member States and the Council Recommendations on the National Reform Programmes.
  3.   The ESF shall benefit people, including disadvantaged groups such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, ethnic minorities, marginalised communities and people facing social exclusion. The ESF shall also provide support to enterprises, systems and structures with a view to facilitating their adaptation to new challenges and promoting good governance and the implementation of reforms, in particular in the fields of employment, education and social policies. | Article 2


  1.   The ESF shall promote high levels of employment and job quality, support the geographical and occupational mobility of workers, facilitate their adaptation to change, encourage a high level of education and training, promote gender equality, equal opportunities and non-discrimination, enhance social inclusion and combat poverty, thereby contributing to the priorities of the European Union as regards strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion.
  2.   It shall do so by supporting Member States in pursuing the priorities and headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The ESF shall support the design and implementation of policies and actions, taking account of the integrated guidelines for the economic and employment policies of Member States and the Council Recommendations on the National Reform Programmes.
  3.   The ESF shall benefit people, including disadvantaged groups such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, minorities, marginalised communities and people facing social exclusion. The ESF shall also provide support to enterprises, systems and structures with a view to facilitating their adaptation to new challenges and promoting good governance and the implementation of reforms, in particular in the fields of employment, education and social policies. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 2

Mission

1.   The ESF shall promote high levels of employment and job quality, support the geographical and occupational mobility of workers, facilitate their adaptation to change, encourage a high level of education and training, promote gender equality, equal opportunities and non-discrimination, enhance social inclusion and combat poverty, thereby contributing to the priorities of the European Union as regards strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion.

2.   It shall do so by supporting Member States in pursuing the priorities and headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The ESF shall support the design and implementation of policies and actions, taking account of the integrated guidelines for the economic and employment policies of Member States and the Council Recommendations on the National Reform Programmes.

3.   The ESF shall benefit people, including disadvantaged groups such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, ethnic minorities, marginalised communities and people facing social exclusion. The ESF shall also provide support to enterprises, systems and structures with a view to facilitating their adaptation to new challenges and promoting good governance and the implementation of reforms, in particular in the fields of employment, education and social policies.

Article 2

1.   The ESF shall promote high levels of employment and job quality, support the geographical and occupational mobility of workers, facilitate their adaptation to change, encourage a high level of education and training, promote gender equality, equal opportunities and non-discrimination, enhance social inclusion and combat poverty, thereby contributing to the priorities of the European Union as regards strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion.

2.   It shall do so by supporting Member States in pursuing the priorities and headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The ESF shall support the design and implementation of policies and actions, taking account of the integrated guidelines for the economic and employment policies of Member States and the Council Recommendations on the National Reform Programmes.

3.   The ESF shall benefit people, including disadvantaged groups such as the long-term unemployed, people with disabilities, migrants, minorities, marginalised communities and people facing social exclusion. The ESF shall also provide support to enterprises, systems and structures with a view to facilitating their adaptation to new challenges and promoting good governance and the implementation of reforms, in particular in the fields of employment, education and social policies.

Reason

| 1. | See comment on Article 1 as regards the title of this article. |
| --- | --- |

1.

See comment on Article 1 as regards the title of this article.

| 2. | In order to highlight the inherent territorial dimension of cohesion policy and correct the correlation between regional problems and disparities and the Europe 2020 strategy, it is proposed that ‘inter alia’ be added to soften the impact of the guidelines and recommendations on the ESF OPs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In order to highlight the inherent territorial dimension of cohesion policy and correct the correlation between regional problems and disparities and the Europe 2020 strategy, it is proposed that ‘inter alia’ be added to soften the impact of the guidelines and recommendations on the ESF OPs.

| 3. | It is surprising to include ‘ethnic minorities’ among the beneficiary groups. Identifying ethnic minorities as a separate category could raise serious issues of international and national law in many Member States. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is surprising to include ‘ethnic minorities’ among the beneficiary groups. Identifying ethnic minorities as a separate category could raise serious issues of international and national law in many Member States.

Amendment 4

Article 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 3
  Scope of support
  1.   Under the thematic objectives listed below, and in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the ESF shall support the following investment priorities:






  (a) | Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility through:






  (i) | Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 3

Scope of support

1.   Under the thematic objectives listed below, and in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the ESF shall support the following investment priorities:

(a)

Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility through:

(i)

Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility;

| (ii) | Sustainable integration of young people not in employment, education or training into the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Sustainable integration of young people not in employment, education or training into the labour market;

| (iii) | Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation;

| (iv) | Equality between men and women and reconciliation between work and private life; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Equality between men and women and reconciliation between work and private life;

| (v) | Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change;

| (vi) | Active and healthy ageing; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

Active and healthy ageing;

| (vii) | Modernisation and strengthening of labour market institutions, including actions to enhance transnational labour mobility; |
| --- | --- |

(vii)

Modernisation and strengthening of labour market institutions, including actions to enhance transnational labour mobility;

| (b) | Investing in education, skills and life-long learning through:






  (i) | Reducing early school-leaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

Investing in education, skills and life-long learning through:

(i)

Reducing early school-leaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education;

| (ii) | Improving the quality, efficiency and openness of tertiary and equivalent education with a view to increasing participation and attainment levels; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Improving the quality, efficiency and openness of tertiary and equivalent education with a view to increasing participation and attainment levels;

| (iii) | Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training systems; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training systems;

| (c) | Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty through:






  (i) | Active inclusion; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty through:

(i)

Active inclusion;

| (ii) | Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma;

| (iii) | Combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation;

| (iv) | Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest;

| (v) | Promoting the social economy and social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

Promoting the social economy and social enterprises;

| (vi) | Community-led local development strategies; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

Community-led local development strategies;

| (d) | Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration through:






  (i) | Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;
  this investment priority is only applicable throughout the territory of the Member States which have at least one NUTS level 2 region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration through:

(i)

Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;

this investment priority is only applicable throughout the territory of the Member States which have at least one NUTS level 2 region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support.

| (ii) | Capacity building for stakeholders delivering employment, education and social policies and sectoral and territorial pacts to mobilise for reform at national, regional and local level. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Capacity building for stakeholders delivering employment, education and social policies and sectoral and territorial pacts to mobilise for reform at national, regional and local level.

2.   Through the investment priorities listed in paragraph 1, the ESF shall also contribute to the other thematic objectives listed in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...], primarily by:

| (a) | Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable economy, through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable economy, through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy;

| (b) | Enhancing the accessibility, use and quality of information and communication technologies, through the development of digital literacy, investment in e-inclusion, e-skills and related entrepreneurial skills; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Enhancing the accessibility, use and quality of information and communication technologies, through the development of digital literacy, investment in e-inclusion, e-skills and related entrepreneurial skills;

| (c) | Strengthening research, technological development and innovation, through the development of post-graduate studies, the training of researchers, networking activities and partnerships between higher education institutions, research and technological centres and enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation, through the development of post-graduate studies, the training of researchers, networking activities and partnerships between higher education institutions, research and technological centres and enterprises;

| (d) | Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, through promoting the adaptability of enterprises and workers and increased investment in human capital. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, through promoting the adaptability of enterprises and workers and increased investment in human capital.

Article 3

Scope of support

1.   Under the thematic objectives listed below, and in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the ESF shall support the following investment priorities:

| (a) | Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility through:






  (i) | Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility through:

(i)

Access to employment for job-seekers and inactive people, including local employment initiatives and support for labour mobility;

| (ii) | Sustainable integration of young people not in employment, education or training into the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Sustainable integration of young people not in employment, education or training into the labour market;

| (iii) | Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Self-employment, entrepreneurship and business creation;

| (iv) | Equality between men and women and reconciliation between work and private life; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Equality between men and women and reconciliation between work and private life;

| (v) | Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

Adaptation of workers, enterprises and entrepreneurs to change;

| (vi) | Active and healthy ageing; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

Active and healthy ageing;

| (vii) | Modernisation and strengthening of labour market institutions, including actions to enhance transnational labour mobility; |
| --- | --- |

(vii)

Modernisation and strengthening of labour market institutions, including actions to enhance transnational labour mobility;

| (b) | Investing in education, skills and life-long learning through:






  (i) | Reducing early school-leaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

Investing in education, skills and life-long learning through:

(i)

Reducing early school-leaving and promoting equal access to good-quality early-childhood, primary and secondary education;

| (ii) | Improving the quality, efficiency and openness of tertiary and equivalent education with a view to increasing participation and attainment levels; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Improving the quality, efficiency and openness of tertiary and equivalent education with a view to increasing participation and attainment levels;

| (iii) | Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training systems; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Enhancing access to lifelong learning, upgrading the skills and competences of the workforce and increasing the labour market relevance of education and training systems;

| (c) | Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty through:






  (i) | Active inclusion ; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty through:

(i)

Active inclusion ;

| (ii) | Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Integration of marginalised communities such as the Roma;

| (iii) | Combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

Combating discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation;

| (iv) | Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

Enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services, including health care and social services of general interest;

| (v) | Promoting the social economy and social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

Promoting the social economy and social enterprises;

| (vi) | Community-led local development strategies; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

Community-led local development strategies;

| (d) | Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration through:






  (i) | Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;
  this investment priority is only applicable throughout the territory of the Member States which have at least one NUTS level 2 region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

Enhancing institutional capacity and efficient public administration through:

(i)

Investment in institutional capacity and in the efficiency of public administrations and public services with a view to reforms, better regulation and good governance;

this investment priority is only applicable throughout the territory of the Member States which have at least one NUTS level 2 region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support.

| (ii) | Capacity building for stakeholders delivering employment, education and social policies |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

Capacity building for stakeholders delivering employment, education and social policies

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Through the investment priorities listed in paragraph 1, the ESF shall also contribute to the other thematic objectives listed in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...], primarily by:

| (a) | Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable economy, through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient, resource-efficient and environmentally sustainable economy, through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, up-skilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related to the environment and energy;

| (b) | Enhancing the accessibility, use and quality of information and communication technologies, through the development of digital literacy, investment in e-inclusion, e-skills and related entrepreneurial skills; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Enhancing the accessibility, use and quality of information and communication technologies, through the development of digital literacy, investment in e-inclusion, e-skills and related entrepreneurial skills;

| (c) | Strengthening research, technological development and innovation, through the development of post-graduate studies, the training of researchers, networking activities and partnerships between higher education institutions, research and technological centres and enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation, through the development of post-graduate studies, the training of researchers, networking activities and partnerships between higher education institutions, research and technological centres and enterprises;

| (d) | Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, through promoting the adaptability of enterprises and workers and increased investment in human capital. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, through promoting the adaptability of enterprises and workers and increased investment in human capital.

Reason

These amendments refer to regions referred to in Articles 174 and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. They are also intended to clarify and enhance an otherwise effective provision, while better promoting and strengthening the territorial pacts as an instrument.

Amendment 5

Article 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 4
  Consistency and thematic concentration
  1.   Member States shall ensure that the strategy and actions set out in the Operational Programmes are consistent and focused on addressing the challenges identified in the National Reform Programmes and the relevant Council Recommendations made under Article 148(4) of the Treaty, in order to contribute to achieving the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, education and poverty reduction.
  2.   At least 20 % of the total ESF resources in each Member State shall be allocated to the thematic objective ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’ set out in Article 9(9) of Regulation (EU) No [...].
  3.   Member States shall pursue thematic concentration according to the following modalities:






  (a) | For more developed regions, Member States shall concentrate 80 % of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 4

Consistency and thematic concentration

1.   Member States shall ensure that the strategy and actions set out in the Operational Programmes are consistent and focused on addressing the challenges identified in the National Reform Programmes and the relevant Council Recommendations made under Article 148(4) of the Treaty, in order to contribute to achieving the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, education and poverty reduction.

2.   At least 20 % of the total ESF resources in each Member State shall be allocated to the thematic objective ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’ set out in Article 9(9) of Regulation (EU) No [...].

3.   Member States shall pursue thematic concentration according to the following modalities:

(a)

For more developed regions, Member States shall concentrate 80 % of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1).

| (b) | For transition regions, Member States shall concentrate 70 % of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

For transition regions, Member States shall concentrate 70 % of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1).

| (c) | For less developed regions, Member States shall concentrate 60 % of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

For less developed regions, Member States shall concentrate 60 % of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1).

Article 4

Consistency and thematic concentration

1.   Member States shall ensure that the strategy and actions set out in the Operational Programmes are consistent and addressing the challenges identified in the National Reform Programmes and the relevant Council Recommendations made under Article 148(4) of the Treaty, in order to contribute to achieving the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy on employment, education and poverty reduction.

2.   At least 20 % of the total ESF resources in each Member State shall be allocated to the thematic objective ‘promoting social inclusion and combating poverty’ set out in Article 9(9) of Regulation (EU) No [...].

3.   Member States shall pursue thematic concentration according to the following modalities:

| (a) | For more developed regions, Member States shall concentrate of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1). |
| --- | --- |

(a)

For more developed regions, Member States shall concentrate of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1).

| (b) | For transition regions, Member States shall concentrate of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

For transition regions, Member States shall concentrate of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1).

| (c) | For less developed regions, Member States shall concentrate of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

For less developed regions, Member States shall concentrate of the allocation to each operational programme on up to four of the investment priorities set out in Article 3(1).

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

See points 37 and 38 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

Amendment 6

Article 5

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 5
  Indicators
  1.   Common indicators as set out in the Annex to this Regulation and programme specific indicators shall be used in accordance with Article 24(3) and 87(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No [...]. All indicators shall be expressed in absolute numbers.
  Common and programme specific output indicators relate to partially or fully implemented operations. Where relevant to the nature of the operations supported, cumulative quantified target values shall be fixed for 2022. Baseline indicators shall be set at zero.
  Common and programme specific result indicators relate to the priority axes or the sub-priorities established under a priority axis. Baseline indicators shall use the latest available data. Cumulative quantified target values shall be fixed for 2022.
  2.   At the same time as the annual implementation reports, the managing authority shall transmit electronically structured data for each investment priority. The data shall cover the categorisation and the output and result indicators. | Article 5
  Indicators |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 5

Indicators

1.   Common indicators as set out in the Annex to this Regulation and programme specific indicators shall be used in accordance with Article 24(3) and 87(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No [...]. All indicators shall be expressed in absolute numbers.

Common and programme specific output indicators relate to partially or fully implemented operations. Where relevant to the nature of the operations supported, cumulative quantified target values shall be fixed for 2022. Baseline indicators shall be set at zero.

Common and programme specific result indicators relate to the priority axes or the sub-priorities established under a priority axis. Baseline indicators shall use the latest available data. Cumulative quantified target values shall be fixed for 2022.

2.   At the same time as the annual implementation reports, the managing authority shall transmit electronically structured data for each investment priority. The data shall cover the categorisation and the output and result indicators.

Article 5

Indicators

Reason

The CoR proposes a radical amendment to Article 5 in accordance with its comments in points 39 to 41 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

Amendment 7

Article 6

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 6
  Involvement of partners
  1.   The involvement of the social partners and other stakeholders, in particular non-governmental organisations, in the implementation of operational programmes, as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No [...], may take the form of global grants as defined in Article 112(7) of Regulation (EU) No [...]. In such a case, the operational programme shall identify the part of the programme concerned by the global grant, including an indicative financial allocation from each priority axis to it.
  2.   To encourage adequate participation of the social partners in actions supported by the ESF, managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building activities, in the form of training, networking measures, and strengthening of the social dialogue, and to activities jointly undertaken by the social partners.
  3.   To encourage adequate participation of and access by non-governmental organisations to actions supported by the ESF, notably in the fields of social inclusion, gender equality and equal opportunities, the managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building for non-governmental organisations. | Article 6
  Involvement of partners
  1.   The involvement of the social partners and other stakeholders, in particular non-governmental organisations, in the implementation of operational programmes, as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No [...], may take the form of global grants as defined in Article 112(7) of Regulation (EU) No [...]. In such a case, the operational programme shall identify the part of the programme concerned by the global grant, including an indicative financial allocation from each priority axis to it.
  2.   To encourage adequate participation of the social partners in actions supported by the ESF, managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building activities, in the form of training, networking measures, and strengthening of the social dialogue, and to activities jointly undertaken by the social partners.
  3.   To encourage adequate participation of and access by non-governmental organisations to actions supported by the ESF, notably in the fields of social inclusion, gender equality and equal opportunities, the managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building for non-governmental organisations. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 6

Involvement of partners

1.   The involvement of the social partners and other stakeholders, in particular non-governmental organisations, in the implementation of operational programmes, as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No [...], may take the form of global grants as defined in Article 112(7) of Regulation (EU) No [...]. In such a case, the operational programme shall identify the part of the programme concerned by the global grant, including an indicative financial allocation from each priority axis to it.

2.   To encourage adequate participation of the social partners in actions supported by the ESF, managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building activities, in the form of training, networking measures, and strengthening of the social dialogue, and to activities jointly undertaken by the social partners.

3.   To encourage adequate participation of and access by non-governmental organisations to actions supported by the ESF, notably in the fields of social inclusion, gender equality and equal opportunities, the managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building for non-governmental organisations.

Article 6

Involvement of partners

1.   The involvement of the social partners and other stakeholders, in particular non-governmental organisations, in the implementation of operational programmes, as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No [...], may take the form of global grants as defined in Article 112(7) of Regulation (EU) No [...]. In such a case, the operational programme shall identify the part of the programme concerned by the global grant, including an indicative financial allocation from each priority axis to it.

2.   To encourage adequate participation of the social partners in actions supported by the ESF, managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building activities, in the form of training, networking measures, and strengthening of the social dialogue, and to activities jointly undertaken by the social partners.

3.   To encourage adequate participation of and access by non-governmental organisations to actions supported by the ESF, notably in the fields of social inclusion, gender equality and equal opportunities, the managing authorities of an operational programme in a region as defined in Article 82(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No [...] or in Member States eligible for Cohesion Fund support shall ensure that an appropriate amount of ESF resources is allocated to capacity-building for non-governmental organisations.

Reason

See points 42 to 46 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

Amendment 8

Article 9

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 9
  Social innovation
  1.   The ESF shall promote social innovation within all areas falling under the scope of the ESF, as defined in Article 3 of this Regulation, in particular with the aim of testing and scaling up innovative solutions to address social needs.
  2.   Member States shall identify themes for social innovation, corresponding to their specific needs in their operational programmes.
  3.   The Commission shall facilitate capacity building for social innovation, in particular through supporting mutual learning, establishing networks, and disseminating good practices and methodologies. | Article 9
  Social innovation
  1.   The ESF shall promote social innovation within all areas falling under the scope of the ESF, as defined in Article 3 of this Regulation, in particular with the aim of testing and scaling up innovative solutions to address social needs.
  2.   Member States shall identify themes for social innovation in their operational programmes.
  3.   The Commission shall facilitate capacity building for social innovation, in particular through supporting mutual learning, establishing networks, and disseminating good practices and methodologies. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 9

Social innovation

1.   The ESF shall promote social innovation within all areas falling under the scope of the ESF, as defined in Article 3 of this Regulation, in particular with the aim of testing and scaling up innovative solutions to address social needs.

2.   Member States shall identify themes for social innovation, corresponding to their specific needs in their operational programmes.

3.   The Commission shall facilitate capacity building for social innovation, in particular through supporting mutual learning, establishing networks, and disseminating good practices and methodologies.

Article 9

Social innovation

1.   The ESF shall promote social innovation within all areas falling under the scope of the ESF, as defined in Article 3 of this Regulation, in particular with the aim of testing and scaling up innovative solutions to address social needs.

2.   Member States shall identify themes for social innovation in their operational programmes.

3.   The Commission shall facilitate capacity building for social innovation, in particular through supporting mutual learning, establishing networks, and disseminating good practices and methodologies.

Reason

| 1. | See point 48 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above. |
| --- | --- |

1.

See point 48 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

| 2. | This is a cross-reference to Article 8 of the Proposal for a Regulation on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation, which is the subject of another CoR opinion (CdR 335/2011, rapporteur: Enrico Rossi (IT/PES)), adopted on 3 May 2012. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This is a cross-reference to Article 8 of the Proposal for a Regulation on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation, which is the subject of another CoR opinion (CdR 335/2011, rapporteur: Enrico Rossi (IT/PES)), adopted on 3 May 2012.

Amendment 9

Article 10

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 10
  Transnational cooperation
  1.   Member States shall support transnational cooperation with the aim of promoting mutual learning and thereby increasing the effectiveness of policies supported by the ESF. Transnational cooperation shall involve partners from at least two Member States.
  2.   Member States may select themes for transnational co-operation from a list proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the ESF Committee.
  3.   The Commission shall facilitate transnational cooperation on the themes referred to in paragraph 2 through mutual learning and coordinated or joint action. In particular, the Commission shall operate an EU-level platform to facilitate the exchange of experience, capacity building and networking, as well as dissemination of the relevant outcomes. In addition, the Commission shall develop a coordinated implementation framework, including common eligibility criteria, types and timing of actions, and common methodological approaches for monitoring and evaluation, with a view to facilitating transnational cooperation. | Article 10
  transnational cooperation
  1.   Member States shall support transnational cooperation with the aim of promoting mutual learning and thereby increasing the effectiveness of policies supported by the ESF.
  2.   Member States may select themes for transnational co-operation from a list proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the ESF Committee.
  3.   The Commission shall facilitate transnational cooperation through mutual learning and coordinated or joint action. In particular, the Commission shall operate an EU-level platform to facilitate the exchange of experience, capacity building and networking, as well as dissemination of the relevant outcomes. In addition, the Commission shall develop a coordinated implementation framework, including common eligibility criteria and common methodological approaches for monitoring and evaluation, with a view to facilitating transnational cooperation. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 10

Transnational cooperation

1.   Member States shall support transnational cooperation with the aim of promoting mutual learning and thereby increasing the effectiveness of policies supported by the ESF. Transnational cooperation shall involve partners from at least two Member States.

2.   Member States may select themes for transnational co-operation from a list proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the ESF Committee.

3.   The Commission shall facilitate transnational cooperation on the themes referred to in paragraph 2 through mutual learning and coordinated or joint action. In particular, the Commission shall operate an EU-level platform to facilitate the exchange of experience, capacity building and networking, as well as dissemination of the relevant outcomes. In addition, the Commission shall develop a coordinated implementation framework, including common eligibility criteria, types and timing of actions, and common methodological approaches for monitoring and evaluation, with a view to facilitating transnational cooperation.

Article 10

transnational cooperation

1.   Member States shall support transnational cooperation with the aim of promoting mutual learning and thereby increasing the effectiveness of policies supported by the ESF.

2.   Member States may select themes for transnational co-operation from a list proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the ESF Committee.

3.   The Commission shall facilitate transnational cooperation through mutual learning and coordinated or joint action. In particular, the Commission shall operate an EU-level platform to facilitate the exchange of experience, capacity building and networking, as well as dissemination of the relevant outcomes. In addition, the Commission shall develop a coordinated implementation framework, including common eligibility criteria and common methodological approaches for monitoring and evaluation, with a view to facilitating transnational cooperation.

Reason

| 1. | See points 49 to 51 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above. |
| --- | --- |

1.

See points 49 to 51 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

| 2. | The original wording did not ensure consistency of transnational cooperation under the ESF with transnational cooperation under European Territorial Cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The original wording did not ensure consistency of transnational cooperation under the ESF with transnational cooperation under European Territorial Cooperation.

| 3. | There are three distinct dimensions to territorial cooperation: cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There are three distinct dimensions to territorial cooperation: cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation.

Amendment 10

Article 12

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 12
  Specific provisions on the treatment of particular territorial features
  1.   The ESF may support community-led local development strategies, as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No [...], territorial pacts and local initiatives for employment, education and social inclusion, as well as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) as referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...].
  2.   Complementing ERDF interventions as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF], the ESF may support sustainable urban development through strategies setting out integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental and social challenges affecting urban areas of cities which are listed in the partnership contract. | Article 12
  Specific provisions on the treatment of particular territorial features
  1.   The ESF may support community-led local development strategies, as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No [...], territorial pacts and local initiatives for employment, education and social inclusion, as well as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) as referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...].
  2.   Complementing ERDF interventions as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF], the ESF may support sustainable urban development through strategies setting out integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental and social challenges affecting urban areas of cities which are listed in the partnership contract. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 12

Specific provisions on the treatment of particular territorial features

1.   The ESF may support community-led local development strategies, as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No [...], territorial pacts and local initiatives for employment, education and social inclusion, as well as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) as referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...].

2.   Complementing ERDF interventions as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF], the ESF may support sustainable urban development through strategies setting out integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental and social challenges affecting urban areas of cities which are listed in the partnership contract.

Article 12

Specific provisions on the treatment of particular territorial features

1.   The ESF may support community-led local development strategies, as referred to in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No [...], territorial pacts and local initiatives for employment, education and social inclusion, as well as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) as referred to in Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No [...].

2.   Complementing ERDF interventions as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No [ERDF], the ESF may support sustainable urban development through strategies setting out integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental and social challenges affecting urban areas of cities which are listed in the partnership contract.

Reason

See point 29 and 56 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

Amendment 11

Article 14

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 14
  Simplified cost options
  1.   In addition to the methods referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the Commission may reimburse expenditure paid by Member States on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums defined by the Commission. The amounts calculated on this basis shall be regarded as public support paid to beneficiaries and as eligible expenditure for the purpose of applying Regulation (EU) No [...].
  For this purpose the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 concerning the type of operations covered, the definitions of the standard scales of unit costs and lump sums and their maximum amounts, which may be adjusted according to the applicable commonly agreed methods.
  Financial audit shall exclusively aim at verifying that the conditions for reimbursements by the Commission on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums have been fulfilled.
  Where these forms of funding are used, the Member State may apply its accounting practices to support operations. For the purpose of this regulation and Regulation (EU) No [...] these accounting practices and the resulting amounts shall not be subject to audit by the audit authority or by the Commission.
  2.   In accordance with Article 57(1)(d) and (4)(d) of Regulation (EU) No [...], a flat rate of up to 40 % of the eligible direct staff costs may be used in order to cover the remaining eligible costs of an operation.
  3.   Grants reimbursed on the basis of the eligible cost of operations, determined in the way of flat-rate financing, standard scales of unit costs and lump sums as referred to in Article 57(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] may be calculated on a case-by-case basis by reference to a draft budget agreed ex ante by the Managing Authority, where the public support does not exceed EUR 100 000.
  4.   Grants for which the public support does not exceed EUR 50 000 shall take the form of lump sums or standard scales of unit costs, except for operations receiving support within the framework of a state aid scheme. | Article 14
  Simplified cost options
  1.   In addition to the methods referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the Commission may reimburse expenditure paid by Member States on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums defined by the Commission. The amounts calculated on this basis shall be regarded as public support paid to beneficiaries and as eligible expenditure for the purpose of applying Regulation (EU) No [...].
  For this purpose the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 concerning the type of operations covered, the definitions of the standard scales of unit costs and lump sums and their maximum amounts, which may be adjusted according to the applicable commonly agreed methods.
  Financial audit shall exclusively aim at verifying that the conditions for reimbursements by the Commission on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums have been fulfilled.
  Where these forms of funding are used, the Member State may apply its accounting practices to support operations. For the purpose of this regulation and Regulation (EU) No [...] these accounting practices and the resulting amounts shall not be subject to audit by the audit authority or by the Commission.
  2.   In accordance with Article 57(1)(d) and (4)(d) of Regulation (EU) No [...], a flat rate of up to 40 % of the eligible direct staff costs may be used in order to cover the remaining eligible costs of an operation.
  3.   Grants reimbursed on the basis of the eligible cost of operations, determined in the way of flat-rate financing, standard scales of unit costs and lump sums as referred to in Article 57(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] may be calculated on a case-by-case basis by reference to a draft budget agreed ex ante by the Managing Authority, where the public support does not exceed EUR 100 000.
  4.   Grants for which the public support does not exceed EUR 50 000 take the form of lump sums or standard scales of unit costs, except for operations receiving support within the framework of a state aid scheme. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 14

Simplified cost options

1.   In addition to the methods referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the Commission may reimburse expenditure paid by Member States on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums defined by the Commission. The amounts calculated on this basis shall be regarded as public support paid to beneficiaries and as eligible expenditure for the purpose of applying Regulation (EU) No [...].

For this purpose the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 concerning the type of operations covered, the definitions of the standard scales of unit costs and lump sums and their maximum amounts, which may be adjusted according to the applicable commonly agreed methods.

Financial audit shall exclusively aim at verifying that the conditions for reimbursements by the Commission on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums have been fulfilled.

Where these forms of funding are used, the Member State may apply its accounting practices to support operations. For the purpose of this regulation and Regulation (EU) No [...] these accounting practices and the resulting amounts shall not be subject to audit by the audit authority or by the Commission.

2.   In accordance with Article 57(1)(d) and (4)(d) of Regulation (EU) No [...], a flat rate of up to 40 % of the eligible direct staff costs may be used in order to cover the remaining eligible costs of an operation.

3.   Grants reimbursed on the basis of the eligible cost of operations, determined in the way of flat-rate financing, standard scales of unit costs and lump sums as referred to in Article 57(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] may be calculated on a case-by-case basis by reference to a draft budget agreed ex ante by the Managing Authority, where the public support does not exceed EUR 100 000.

4.   Grants for which the public support does not exceed EUR 50 000 shall take the form of lump sums or standard scales of unit costs, except for operations receiving support within the framework of a state aid scheme.

Article 14

Simplified cost options

1.   In addition to the methods referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the Commission may reimburse expenditure paid by Member States on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums defined by the Commission. The amounts calculated on this basis shall be regarded as public support paid to beneficiaries and as eligible expenditure for the purpose of applying Regulation (EU) No [...].

For this purpose the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 concerning the type of operations covered, the definitions of the standard scales of unit costs and lump sums and their maximum amounts, which may be adjusted according to the applicable commonly agreed methods.

Financial audit shall exclusively aim at verifying that the conditions for reimbursements by the Commission on the basis of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums have been fulfilled.

Where these forms of funding are used, the Member State may apply its accounting practices to support operations. For the purpose of this regulation and Regulation (EU) No [...] these accounting practices and the resulting amounts shall not be subject to audit by the audit authority or by the Commission.

2.   In accordance with Article 57(1)(d) and (4)(d) of Regulation (EU) No [...], a flat rate of up to 40 % of the eligible direct staff costs may be used in order to cover the remaining eligible costs of an operation.

3.   Grants reimbursed on the basis of the eligible cost of operations, determined in the way of flat-rate financing, standard scales of unit costs and lump sums as referred to in Article 57(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] may be calculated on a case-by-case basis by reference to a draft budget agreed ex ante by the Managing Authority, where the public support does not exceed EUR 100 000.

4.   Grants for which the public support does not exceed EUR 50 000 take the form of lump sums or standard scales of unit costs, except for operations receiving support within the framework of a state aid scheme.

Reason

| 1. | See point 57 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above. |
| --- | --- |

1.

See point 57 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

| 2. | The new wording is designed to ensure that ESF funds are distributed in a flexible manner. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The new wording is designed to ensure that ESF funds are distributed in a flexible manner.

Amendment 12

Article 15

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 15
  Financial instruments
  1.   Pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the ESF may support actions and policies falling within its scope through financial instruments, such as risk-sharing schemes, equity and debt, guarantee funds, holding funds, and loan funds.
  2.   ESF may be used to enhance access to capital markets for public and private bodies at national and regional levels implementing actions and policies falling within the scope of the ESF and the operational programme through ‘ESF policy-based guarantees’ subject to Commission approval.
  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 to define the specific rules and conditions for the applications of Member States, including ceilings, for policy-based guarantees, ensuring in particular that their use does not lead to excessive levels of debt of public bodies.
  Each application shall be assessed by the Commission and the Commission shall approve each ‘ESF policy-based guarantee’ provided it falls within the remit of the Operational Programme referred to in Article 87 of Regulation (EU) No [...] and provided it is in accordance with the established specific rules and conditions. | Article 15
  Financial instruments
  1.   Pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the ESF may support actions and policies falling within its scope through financial instruments, such as risk-sharing schemes, equity and debt, guarantee funds, holding funds, and loan funds.
  2.   ESF may be used to enhance access to capital markets for public and private bodies at national and regional levels implementing actions and policies falling within the scope of the ESF and the operational programme through ‘ESF policy-based guarantees’ subject to Commission approval.
  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 to define the specific rules and conditions for the applications of Member States, including ceilings, for policy-based guarantees, ensuring in particular that their use does not lead to excessive levels of debt of public bodies.
  Each application shall be assessed by the Commission and the Commission shall approve each ‘ESF policy-based guarantee’ provided it falls within the remit of the Operational Programme referred to in Article 87 of Regulation (EU) No [...] and provided it is in accordance with the established specific rules and conditions. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 15

Financial instruments

1.   Pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the ESF may support actions and policies falling within its scope through financial instruments, such as risk-sharing schemes, equity and debt, guarantee funds, holding funds, and loan funds.

2.   ESF may be used to enhance access to capital markets for public and private bodies at national and regional levels implementing actions and policies falling within the scope of the ESF and the operational programme through ‘ESF policy-based guarantees’ subject to Commission approval.

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 to define the specific rules and conditions for the applications of Member States, including ceilings, for policy-based guarantees, ensuring in particular that their use does not lead to excessive levels of debt of public bodies.

Each application shall be assessed by the Commission and the Commission shall approve each ‘ESF policy-based guarantee’ provided it falls within the remit of the Operational Programme referred to in Article 87 of Regulation (EU) No [...] and provided it is in accordance with the established specific rules and conditions.

Article 15

Financial instruments

1.   Pursuant to Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No [...], the ESF may support actions and policies falling within its scope through financial instruments, such as risk-sharing schemes, equity and debt, guarantee funds, holding funds, and loan funds.

2.   ESF may be used to enhance access to capital markets for public and private bodies at national and regional levels implementing actions and policies falling within the scope of the ESF and the operational programme through ‘ESF policy-based guarantees’ subject to Commission approval.

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16 to define the specific rules and conditions for the applications of Member States, including ceilings, for policy-based guarantees, ensuring in particular that their use does not lead to excessive levels of debt of public bodies.

Each application shall be assessed by the Commission and the Commission shall approve each ‘ESF policy-based guarantee’ provided it falls within the remit of the Operational Programme referred to in Article 87 of Regulation (EU) No [...] and provided it is in accordance with the established specific rules and conditions.

Reason

See point 60 of the ‘Policy recommendations’ above.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/143

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Proposal for a regulation on the Cohesion Fund’

2012/C 225/10

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | considers that Cohesion Fund-driven investment in infrastructure conducted over the years has proven to deliver a very high level of European added value. Through these investments, the EU provides Europeans with higher living standards and businesses with opportunities for development; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that Cohesion Fund-driven investment in infrastructure conducted over the years has proven to deliver a very high level of European added value. Through these investments, the EU provides Europeans with higher living standards and businesses with opportunities for development;

| — | welcomes the Commission's proposal to maintain a substantial budget for the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020 so that the EU's policy objectives in the areas of transport, the environment and energy will receive financial support from the EU budget; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the Commission's proposal to maintain a substantial budget for the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020 so that the EU's policy objectives in the areas of transport, the environment and energy will receive financial support from the EU budget;

| — | considers that cohesion policy is and should remain an expression of solidarity in the EU and an effective tool for completing the European single market; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that cohesion policy is and should remain an expression of solidarity in the EU and an effective tool for completing the European single market;

| — | calls for a strongly results-oriented approach and better identifying investment priorities at local and national level; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for a strongly results-oriented approach and better identifying investment priorities at local and national level;

| — | considers that the Cohesion Fund should fund integrated projects on the energy performance of buildings and housing; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the Cohesion Fund should fund integrated projects on the energy performance of buildings and housing;

| — | supports the need for smart investment in infrastructure development at European level; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the need for smart investment in infrastructure development at European level;

| — | insists that local and regional authorities are responsible for investing in transport infrastructure and for establishing secondary and tertiary links to the trans-European network. They should be closely involved in decisions on the choice of priority projects of common interest in order to ensure consistency between public and private investment at every level; |
| --- | --- |

—

insists that local and regional authorities are responsible for investing in transport infrastructure and for establishing secondary and tertiary links to the trans-European network. They should be closely involved in decisions on the choice of priority projects of common interest in order to ensure consistency between public and private investment at every level;

| — | will oppose any initiatives which might eat away at the budget allocated to cohesion policy, in particular in relation to EUR 10 billion in the Connecting Europe Facility's budget that comes from the Cohesion Fund. |
| --- | --- |

—

will oppose any initiatives which might eat away at the budget allocated to cohesion policy, in particular in relation to EUR 10 billion in the Connecting Europe Facility's budget that comes from the Cohesion Fund.

| Rapporteur | Mr STAVARACHE (RO/ALDE), Mayor of Bacău Municipality, in the county of Bacău |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006
  COM(2011) 612 final |

Rapporteur

Mr STAVARACHE (RO/ALDE), Mayor of Bacău Municipality, in the county of Bacău

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006

COM(2011) 612 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments

| 1. | stresses that local and regional authorities have a key political, regulatory and administrative role; they often have competences clearly established at national level for planning investment and enacting transport, environment and energy policies, and particularly for local infrastructure development; |
| --- | --- |

1.

stresses that local and regional authorities have a key political, regulatory and administrative role; they often have competences clearly established at national level for planning investment and enacting transport, environment and energy policies, and particularly for local infrastructure development;

| 2. | emphasises that multilevel governance is imperatively needed to ensure balanced territorial development which complies with the subsidiarity principle. Local and regional authorities should be fully involved in decisions at national and European level on investment priorities funded by the Cohesion Fund; |
| --- | --- |

2.

emphasises that multilevel governance is imperatively needed to ensure balanced territorial development which complies with the subsidiarity principle. Local and regional authorities should be fully involved in decisions at national and European level on investment priorities funded by the Cohesion Fund;

| 3. | welcomes the European Commission's commitment to provide budgetary support for transport, environment and energy infrastructure (a prerequisite for economic development); is particularly pleased that the proposed multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 takes account of the disparities between Member States and EU regions, with particular focus on less developed regions; |
| --- | --- |

3.

welcomes the European Commission's commitment to provide budgetary support for transport, environment and energy infrastructure (a prerequisite for economic development); is particularly pleased that the proposed multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 takes account of the disparities between Member States and EU regions, with particular focus on less developed regions;

| 4. | considers that giving priority to infrastructure development throughout the EU lays the necessary groundwork for the EU to operate properly as a common economic area and for the completion of the European single market, as well as expressing solidarity with less developed Member States; |
| --- | --- |

4.

considers that giving priority to infrastructure development throughout the EU lays the necessary groundwork for the EU to operate properly as a common economic area and for the completion of the European single market, as well as expressing solidarity with less developed Member States;

| 5. | considers that Cohesion Fund-driven investment in infrastructure conducted over the years has proven to deliver a very high level of European added value; such investment would not have been possible in Member States with a low GDP per capita without EU support. Through these investments, the EU provides Europeans with higher living standards and businesses with opportunities for development; |
| --- | --- |

5.

considers that Cohesion Fund-driven investment in infrastructure conducted over the years has proven to deliver a very high level of European added value; such investment would not have been possible in Member States with a low GDP per capita without EU support. Through these investments, the EU provides Europeans with higher living standards and businesses with opportunities for development;

| 6. | points out that, as provided for in Protocol 28 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Cohesion Fund will provide financial support for environment and trans-European network projects in Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of the EU average; |
| --- | --- |

6.

points out that, as provided for in Protocol 28 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Cohesion Fund will provide financial support for environment and trans-European network projects in Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of the EU average;

| 7. | particularly welcomes European solidarity between Member States. The Cohesion Fund provides necessary funds for intra-regional and urban investment in transport and environment infrastructure in less developed countries; |
| --- | --- |

7.

particularly welcomes European solidarity between Member States. The Cohesion Fund provides necessary funds for intra-regional and urban investment in transport and environment infrastructure in less developed countries;

| 8. | draws attention to the CoR's recommendations regarding the new multiannual framework post-2013 and fully endorses the proposals on cohesion policy and conditionality (1); |
| --- | --- |

8.

draws attention to the CoR's recommendations regarding the new multiannual framework post-2013 and fully endorses the proposals on cohesion policy and conditionality (1);

| 9. | welcomes the Commission's proposal to maintain a substantial budget for the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020 so that the EU's policy objectives in the areas of transport, the environment and energy will receive financial support from the EU budget, and endorses the proposal whereby the Cohesion Fund contribution will be kept at a third of the total cohesion policy budget at national level in eligible Member States; |
| --- | --- |

9.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to maintain a substantial budget for the Cohesion Fund for the period 2014-2020 so that the EU's policy objectives in the areas of transport, the environment and energy will receive financial support from the EU budget, and endorses the proposal whereby the Cohesion Fund contribution will be kept at a third of the total cohesion policy budget at national level in eligible Member States;

| 10. | is fully aware of the need to introduce economic and fiscal discipline measures at EU level, but considers that cohesion policy cannot be used as a corrective mechanism for imposing stringent financial discipline in the EU. The Structural and Cohesion Funds must meet the objectives laid down in Articles 171, 174, 177 and 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. To this end, considers that should macroeconomic conditionality be adopted, it should be mandatory for all budget headings and not only for cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

10.

is fully aware of the need to introduce economic and fiscal discipline measures at EU level, but considers that cohesion policy cannot be used as a corrective mechanism for imposing stringent financial discipline in the EU. The Structural and Cohesion Funds must meet the objectives laid down in Articles 171, 174, 177 and 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. To this end, considers that should macroeconomic conditionality be adopted, it should be mandatory for all budget headings and not only for cohesion;

Better strategic planning and more efficient use of funds

| 11. | considers that cohesion policy is and should remain an expression of solidarity in the EU and an effective tool for completing the European single market. The effectiveness of cohesion policy will be proven by the options for investment in smart, sustainable, inclusive and balanced growth at EU level; European, national, regional and local administrations will identify with them before they are transposed into Structural Fund investment programmes in the new planning period; |
| --- | --- |

11.

considers that cohesion policy is and should remain an expression of solidarity in the EU and an effective tool for completing the European single market. The effectiveness of cohesion policy will be proven by the options for investment in smart, sustainable, inclusive and balanced growth at EU level; European, national, regional and local administrations will identify with them before they are transposed into Structural Fund investment programmes in the new planning period;

| 12. | points out that local and regional authorities' main objective for the forthcoming planning period is to boost the quality of schemes carried out using European taxpayers' money and to deliver better results which can be measured in economic, social and environmental terms; |
| --- | --- |

12.

points out that local and regional authorities' main objective for the forthcoming planning period is to boost the quality of schemes carried out using European taxpayers' money and to deliver better results which can be measured in economic, social and environmental terms;

| 13. | welcomes the new proposals in the legislative package on the future of EU cohesion policy which aims to ensure that funds are used more efficiently and to tie policy objectives more closely to the EU budget, specifically concentrating priorities, ensuring critical mass in investments, making financial planning instruments more flexible and streamlining procedures for accessing funds; |
| --- | --- |

13.

welcomes the new proposals in the legislative package on the future of EU cohesion policy which aims to ensure that funds are used more efficiently and to tie policy objectives more closely to the EU budget, specifically concentrating priorities, ensuring critical mass in investments, making financial planning instruments more flexible and streamlining procedures for accessing funds;

| 14. | emphasises that strategic planning in the use of funds requires genuine involvement by the beneficiaries and particularly the local and regional authorities which are most familiar with the reality and potential of the situation on the ground, thus ensuring that publically-funded investments are coherent at regional level. A bottom-up approach therefore needs to be promoted, with each region or city able to exploit its own potential, use the most appropriate means to contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy, and access European funds; |
| --- | --- |

14.

emphasises that strategic planning in the use of funds requires genuine involvement by the beneficiaries and particularly the local and regional authorities which are most familiar with the reality and potential of the situation on the ground, thus ensuring that publically-funded investments are coherent at regional level. A bottom-up approach therefore needs to be promoted, with each region or city able to exploit its own potential, use the most appropriate means to contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy, and access European funds;

| 15. | emphasises that investment in infrastructure makes a major contribution to the economic and social development of cities and regions, provided that it is planned and managed in partnership, the territorial impact is completely justified, and local stakeholders or local and regional authorities identify with it; |
| --- | --- |

15.

emphasises that investment in infrastructure makes a major contribution to the economic and social development of cities and regions, provided that it is planned and managed in partnership, the territorial impact is completely justified, and local stakeholders or local and regional authorities identify with it;

| 16. | strategic planning of investment in trans-European transport, energy and communication networks must be transparent and involve local and regional authorities, so that integrated territorial development plans are coordinated; |
| --- | --- |

16.

strategic planning of investment in trans-European transport, energy and communication networks must be transparent and involve local and regional authorities, so that integrated territorial development plans are coordinated;

| 17. | supports planning in partnership. The new legislative provisions on cohesion policy post-2013 will push competent authorities at every level to focus more closely on applying the partnership principle in the new planning period at every stage, and more specifically to include indicators evaluating the level of partnership in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

17.

supports planning in partnership. The new legislative provisions on cohesion policy post-2013 will push competent authorities at every level to focus more closely on applying the partnership principle in the new planning period at every stage, and more specifically to include indicators evaluating the level of partnership in the Member States;

| 18. | calls for a strongly results-oriented approach. Strategic planning instruments will therefore need to be available to local and regional authorities to allow for peer-to-peer evaluation of development strategies using a set of common and appropriate indicators able to measure investments' merits and multiplier effect; |
| --- | --- |

18.

calls for a strongly results-oriented approach. Strategic planning instruments will therefore need to be available to local and regional authorities to allow for peer-to-peer evaluation of development strategies using a set of common and appropriate indicators able to measure investments' merits and multiplier effect;

| 19. | recommends that in the forthcoming planning period, stronger emphasis be placed on identifying investment priorities at local and regional level, using the financing instruments provided under the Common Strategic Framework in order to avoid funding overlaps or planning major investments for which there is no coverage; |
| --- | --- |

19.

recommends that in the forthcoming planning period, stronger emphasis be placed on identifying investment priorities at local and regional level, using the financing instruments provided under the Common Strategic Framework in order to avoid funding overlaps or planning major investments for which there is no coverage;

| 20. | stresses that managing authorities must be judicious in their use of technical assistance so that it improves strategic planning, the development of major projects at local and regional level and the provision of assistance geared towards project promoters and beneficiaries and not to other purposes. Technical assistance must be better coordinated at European and national level in order to avoid fragmentation; |
| --- | --- |

20.

stresses that managing authorities must be judicious in their use of technical assistance so that it improves strategic planning, the development of major projects at local and regional level and the provision of assistance geared towards project promoters and beneficiaries and not to other purposes. Technical assistance must be better coordinated at European and national level in order to avoid fragmentation;

| 21. | is in favour of partnerships between the Commission, the European Investment Bank and other international financial institutions; also supports the development of financial engineering instruments which will supplement the Cohesion Fund and provide funds for infrastructure projects in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

21.

is in favour of partnerships between the Commission, the European Investment Bank and other international financial institutions; also supports the development of financial engineering instruments which will supplement the Cohesion Fund and provide funds for infrastructure projects in the EU;

| 22. | backs the Commission's ambitious objective, set out in the White Paper on Transport, to cut carbon emissions in transport by 60 % by 2050. Investment funded by the Cohesion Fund will be analysed more carefully for sustainability, environmental assessment and long-term profitability; |
| --- | --- |

22.

backs the Commission's ambitious objective, set out in the White Paper on Transport, to cut carbon emissions in transport by 60 % by 2050. Investment funded by the Cohesion Fund will be analysed more carefully for sustainability, environmental assessment and long-term profitability;

| 23. | reiterates the need for better coordination between the Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the Connecting Europe Facility, and for synergies between the range of European and national programmes and financing instruments with a view to cutting red tape; |
| --- | --- |

23.

reiterates the need for better coordination between the Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the Connecting Europe Facility, and for synergies between the range of European and national programmes and financing instruments with a view to cutting red tape;

Investment in basic infrastructure

| 24. | points out that the Cohesion Fund is a crucial tool for investment in basic infrastructure which has provided ample evidence that it is both useful and effective, helping less developed countries to fund projects of common European interest; |
| --- | --- |

24.

points out that the Cohesion Fund is a crucial tool for investment in basic infrastructure which has provided ample evidence that it is both useful and effective, helping less developed countries to fund projects of common European interest;

| 25. | supports the Commission's proposals on the aim and the areas of action but considers that the Cohesion Fund could also fund integrated projects on the energy performance of buildings; |
| --- | --- |

25.

supports the Commission's proposals on the aim and the areas of action but considers that the Cohesion Fund could also fund integrated projects on the energy performance of buildings;

| 26. | is pleased that the urban dimension of the Cohesion Fund's investment priorities has been built in, as this acknowledges the major contribution of cities to economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

26.

is pleased that the urban dimension of the Cohesion Fund's investment priorities has been built in, as this acknowledges the major contribution of cities to economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU;

| 27. | stresses the need to increase the focus on the TEN-T recommendations and compliance with the Community acquis and national legislation. To this end, ex ante evaluations could anticipate some of the problems which often cause lengthy delays in infrastructure projects, such as land registry deeds, compulsory purchase procedures, the granting of permits, public procurement procedures and the disputes regime; |
| --- | --- |

27.

stresses the need to increase the focus on the TEN-T recommendations and compliance with the Community acquis and national legislation. To this end, ex ante evaluations could anticipate some of the problems which often cause lengthy delays in infrastructure projects, such as land registry deeds, compulsory purchase procedures, the granting of permits, public procurement procedures and the disputes regime;

| 28. | considers that Cohesion Fund investment priorities set by national, regional and local authorities should be consistent with the Europe 2020 strategy and the thematic priorities of the Common Strategic Framework; the investment priorities should accord equal importance to the recommendations of the Europe 2020 Territorial Agenda which was approved by spatial planning and territorial development ministers in 2011 (2); |
| --- | --- |

28.

considers that Cohesion Fund investment priorities set by national, regional and local authorities should be consistent with the Europe 2020 strategy and the thematic priorities of the Common Strategic Framework; the investment priorities should accord equal importance to the recommendations of the Europe 2020 Territorial Agenda which was approved by spatial planning and territorial development ministers in 2011 (2);

Transport networks

| 29. | again points out that there are major east/west disparities in the EU as regards the quality and accessibility of transport networks: less developed regions have much greater needs in terms of transport infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

29.

again points out that there are major east/west disparities in the EU as regards the quality and accessibility of transport networks: less developed regions have much greater needs in terms of transport infrastructure;

| 30. | considers that the Cohesion Fund is an effective tool for investing in upgrading TEN-T trans-European, national and intra-regional transport networks, which are strategically important for the EU's economic, social and territorial development. There can therefore be no doubt about the European added value delivered by the Cohesion Fund; |
| --- | --- |

30.

considers that the Cohesion Fund is an effective tool for investing in upgrading TEN-T trans-European, national and intra-regional transport networks, which are strategically important for the EU's economic, social and territorial development. There can therefore be no doubt about the European added value delivered by the Cohesion Fund;

| 31. | supports the need for smart investment in infrastructure development at European level: extending and maintaining transport networks, innovative solutions and technologies for improving traffic management, IT systems, efficient intermodal transport solutions, etc. The European transport system's ability to compete will depend as much on the EU's ability to develop European transport networks as on its ability to manage each link in the logistics chain, thereby cutting delays caused by traffic and improving transport services; |
| --- | --- |

31.

supports the need for smart investment in infrastructure development at European level: extending and maintaining transport networks, innovative solutions and technologies for improving traffic management, IT systems, efficient intermodal transport solutions, etc. The European transport system's ability to compete will depend as much on the EU's ability to develop European transport networks as on its ability to manage each link in the logistics chain, thereby cutting delays caused by traffic and improving transport services;

| 32. | insists that local and regional authorities are responsible for investing comprehensively in transport infrastructure and for establishing secondary and tertiary links to the trans-European network. They should be closely involved in decisions on the choice of priority projects of common interest in order to ensure consistency between public and private investment at every level (European, national, regional and local), as stipulated by Decision No 661/2010/EU on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network; |
| --- | --- |

32.

insists that local and regional authorities are responsible for investing comprehensively in transport infrastructure and for establishing secondary and tertiary links to the trans-European network. They should be closely involved in decisions on the choice of priority projects of common interest in order to ensure consistency between public and private investment at every level (European, national, regional and local), as stipulated by Decision No 661/2010/EU on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network;

| 33. | is pleased that Cohesion Fund investment priorities will include major projects to boost mobility in urban areas and promote green transport solutions along with other investments in developing smart, sustainable transport systems at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

33.

is pleased that Cohesion Fund investment priorities will include major projects to boost mobility in urban areas and promote green transport solutions along with other investments in developing smart, sustainable transport systems at local and regional level;

| 34. | is in favour of including indicators to increase resource efficiency in transport, making the Cohesion Fund a tool for achieving the Europe 2020 strategy's targets; |
| --- | --- |

34.

is in favour of including indicators to increase resource efficiency in transport, making the Cohesion Fund a tool for achieving the Europe 2020 strategy's targets;

| 35. | considers that the new guidelines on developing a trans-European transport network will provide a strategic framework for the development of infrastructure which will greatly increase mobility in the EU, as investments will be better prioritised. They will be split into two areas (the comprehensive network and the core network), and made more efficient by means of new implementation measures; the emphasis will be placed on the need to fill in missing cross-border links between different transport modes and the main urban hubs; |
| --- | --- |

35.

considers that the new guidelines on developing a trans-European transport network will provide a strategic framework for the development of infrastructure which will greatly increase mobility in the EU, as investments will be better prioritised. They will be split into two areas (the comprehensive network and the core network), and made more efficient by means of new implementation measures; the emphasis will be placed on the need to fill in missing cross-border links between different transport modes and the main urban hubs;

| 36. | draws attention to the problems inherent in coordinating investment from a range of sources and planning smart transport systems. They will need to boost security, safety and environmental performance as well as improving traffic management by means of integrated services for booking, issuing tickets, providing multimodal information, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

36.

draws attention to the problems inherent in coordinating investment from a range of sources and planning smart transport systems. They will need to boost security, safety and environmental performance as well as improving traffic management by means of integrated services for booking, issuing tickets, providing multimodal information, etc.;

Environment infrastructure and energy networks

| 37. | strongly supports the need for investment in infrastructure to complete the European integrated energy network; the long-term cost of failing to invest would be far too high, undermining the EU's competitiveness; |
| --- | --- |

37.

strongly supports the need for investment in infrastructure to complete the European integrated energy network; the long-term cost of failing to invest would be far too high, undermining the EU's competitiveness;

| 38. | considers the Cohesion Fund to be an effective tool for achieving the EU's energy policy goals (3) (competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply) and for addressing the EU's economic development, the Europe 2020 strategy and the flagship initiative A resource efficient Europe. Achieving these objectives will require changes in the way that energy networks are planned, built and operated; |
| --- | --- |

38.

considers the Cohesion Fund to be an effective tool for achieving the EU's energy policy goals (3) (competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply) and for addressing the EU's economic development, the Europe 2020 strategy and the flagship initiative A resource efficient Europe. Achieving these objectives will require changes in the way that energy networks are planned, built and operated;

| 39. | reiterates that investment in energy infrastructure should provide Europeans and businesses from all EU regions with unconditional access to affordable energy by abolishing monopolies and all obstacles to competition, so that every region has the option of choosing from two or more providers; |
| --- | --- |

39.

reiterates that investment in energy infrastructure should provide Europeans and businesses from all EU regions with unconditional access to affordable energy by abolishing monopolies and all obstacles to competition, so that every region has the option of choosing from two or more providers;

| 40. | considers that the methodology used to map out and select infrastructure and projects of European interest should be transparent and take account of the situation in the poorest regions and in those where energy security is under threat; |
| --- | --- |

40.

considers that the methodology used to map out and select infrastructure and projects of European interest should be transparent and take account of the situation in the poorest regions and in those where energy security is under threat;

| 41. | is pleased that the Cohesion Fund will continue to support energy projects which present environmental benefits, such as investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Committee points out that such investment is not possible without the involvement of local and regional authorities; working in partnership with these authorities is vital, as they know how to capitalise on local potential; |
| --- | --- |

41.

is pleased that the Cohesion Fund will continue to support energy projects which present environmental benefits, such as investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Committee points out that such investment is not possible without the involvement of local and regional authorities; working in partnership with these authorities is vital, as they know how to capitalise on local potential;

| 42. | stresses that investment in adapting to climate change, preventing natural disasters, water, sewage and waste infrastructure, preserving biodiversity, protecting soil and ecosystems and improving the environment is largely performed by the EU's regions, cities and towns or in partnership with them; |
| --- | --- |

42.

stresses that investment in adapting to climate change, preventing natural disasters, water, sewage and waste infrastructure, preserving biodiversity, protecting soil and ecosystems and improving the environment is largely performed by the EU's regions, cities and towns or in partnership with them;

| 43. | is pleased that investment in updating heating and cooling networks in built-up areas and in reducing conversion losses is eligible for Cohesion Fund support, as such investments have a very high added value; |
| --- | --- |

43.

is pleased that investment in updating heating and cooling networks in built-up areas and in reducing conversion losses is eligible for Cohesion Fund support, as such investments have a very high added value;

The Connecting Europe Facility

| 44. | points out that local and regional authorities are on the alert and will oppose any initiatives which might eat away at the budget allocated to cohesion policy: 20 % of the Connecting Europe Facility's budget comes from the Cohesion Fund, a total of EUR 10 billion which will be used to fund transnational transport projects with priority given to rail infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

44.

points out that local and regional authorities are on the alert and will oppose any initiatives which might eat away at the budget allocated to cohesion policy: 20 % of the Connecting Europe Facility's budget comes from the Cohesion Fund, a total of EUR 10 billion which will be used to fund transnational transport projects with priority given to rail infrastructure;

| 45. | is interested in the new Connecting Europe Facility which the Commission hopes to use to correct market failures (filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections), as this type of instrument could have considerable European added value; |
| --- | --- |

45.

is interested in the new Connecting Europe Facility which the Commission hopes to use to correct market failures (filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections), as this type of instrument could have considerable European added value;

| 46. | is concerned that there is no clear formula for determining national budgets for the Facility and recommends that contributions should be proportionate to the estimated value of the projects that will be funded in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

46.

is concerned that there is no clear formula for determining national budgets for the Facility and recommends that contributions should be proportionate to the estimated value of the projects that will be funded in the Member States;

| 47. | reiterates that the problems facing cross-border project promoters include the limited capacity to prepare mature projects, which are extremely complex. For this reason, funds initially intended for cross-border projects are often channelled towards other projects which are at a more advanced stage of preparation; |
| --- | --- |

47.

reiterates that the problems facing cross-border project promoters include the limited capacity to prepare mature projects, which are extremely complex. For this reason, funds initially intended for cross-border projects are often channelled towards other projects which are at a more advanced stage of preparation;

| 48. | is concerned that the Connecting Europe Facility's centralised management will be unable to build the capacity to prepare mature cross-border projects, thus increasing the danger that the Facility's budget may not be spent on funding projects identified in advance by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

48.

is concerned that the Connecting Europe Facility's centralised management will be unable to build the capacity to prepare mature cross-border projects, thus increasing the danger that the Facility's budget may not be spent on funding projects identified in advance by the Commission;

| 49. | has reservations regarding the way in which local and regional authorities will be involved, the lack of flexibility, and the red tape which the Facility could generate, as well as the interlinkage with other Commission funding instruments; |
| --- | --- |

49.

has reservations regarding the way in which local and regional authorities will be involved, the lack of flexibility, and the red tape which the Facility could generate, as well as the interlinkage with other Commission funding instruments;

| 50. | calls for a clear distinction between projects funded by the Connecting Europe Facility and those funded by the Cohesion Fund or the European Regional Development Fund in the context of partnership agreements. In this way, by using ex ante evaluations of institutional capacity, it will be possible to establish what is needed in terms of compulsory assistance from JASPERS or the technical assistance programmes in order to prepare the projects, with the cost included in the expenses eligible for funding from the Connecting Europe Facility's budget. |
| --- | --- |

50.

calls for a clear distinction between projects funded by the Connecting Europe Facility and those funded by the Cohesion Fund or the European Regional Development Fund in the context of partnership agreements. In this way, by using ex ante evaluations of institutional capacity, it will be possible to establish what is needed in terms of compulsory assistance from JASPERS or the technical assistance programmes in order to prepare the projects, with the cost included in the expenses eligible for funding from the Connecting Europe Facility's budget.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 2
  Scope of support from the Cohesion Fund
  1.   The Cohesion Fund shall, while ensuring an appropriate balance and according to the investment and infrastructure needs specific to each Member State, support:






  (a) | investments in the environment, including areas related to sustainable development and energy which present environmental benefits; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 2

Scope of support from the Cohesion Fund

1.   The Cohesion Fund shall, while ensuring an appropriate balance and according to the investment and infrastructure needs specific to each Member State, support:

(a)

investments in the environment, including areas related to sustainable development and energy which present environmental benefits;

| (b) | trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure, in compliance with the guidelines adopted by Decision No 661/2010/EU; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure, in compliance with the guidelines adopted by Decision No 661/2010/EU;

| (c) | technical assistance. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

technical assistance.

2.   The Cohesion Fund shall not support:

| (d) | the decommissioning of nuclear power stations; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the decommissioning of nuclear power stations;

| (e) | the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in installations falling under Directive 2003/87/EC; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in installations falling under Directive 2003/87/EC;

| (f) | housing. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

housing.

Article 2

Scope of support from the Cohesion Fund

1.   The Cohesion Fund shall, while ensuring an appropriate balance and according to the investment and infrastructure needs specific to each Member State, support:

| (a) | investments in the environment, including areas related to sustainable development and energy which present environmental benefits; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

investments in the environment, including areas related to sustainable development and energy which present environmental benefits;

| (b) | trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure, in compliance with the guidelines adopted by Decision No 661/2010/EU; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure, in compliance with the guidelines adopted by Decision No 661/2010/EU;

| (c) | technical assistance. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

technical assistance.

2.   The Cohesion Fund shall not support:

| (d) | the decommissioning of nuclear power stations; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the decommissioning of nuclear power stations;

| (e) | the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in installations falling under Directive 2003/87/EC; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in installations falling under Directive 2003/87/EC;

| | . |
| --- | --- |

.

Reason

To ensure consistency with point 25 of the opinion.

Amendment 2

Article 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 3
  Investment priorities
  In accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], the Cohesion Fund shall support the following investment priorities within the thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]:






  (a) | supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors by:






  (i) | promoting the production and distribution of renewable energy sources; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 3

Investment priorities

In accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], the Cohesion Fund shall support the following investment priorities within the thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]:

(a)

supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors by:

(i)

promoting the production and distribution of renewable energy sources;

| (ii) | promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in small and medium-sized enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in small and medium-sized enterprises;

| (iii) | supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures;

| (iv) | developing smart distribution systems at low voltage levels; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

developing smart distribution systems at low voltage levels;

| (v) | promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas;

| (b) | promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management by:






  (i) | supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management by:

(i)

supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change;

| (ii) | promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems;

| (c) | protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency by:






  (i) | addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency by:

(i)

addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis;

| (ii) | addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis;

| (iii) | protecting and restoring biodiversity, including through green infrastructures; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

protecting and restoring biodiversity, including through green infrastructures;

| (iv) | improving the urban environment, including regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air pollution; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

improving the urban environment, including regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air pollution;

| (d) | promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures, by:






  (i) | supporting a multi-modal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures, by:

(i)

supporting a multi-modal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network;

| (ii) | developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems including promoting sustainable urban mobility; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems including promoting sustainable urban mobility;

| (iii) | developing comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway systems; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

developing comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway systems;

| (e) | enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the Cohesion Fund. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the Cohesion Fund.

Article 3

Investment priorities

In accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], the Cohesion Fund shall support the following investment priorities within the thematic objectives set out in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR]:

| (a) | supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors by:






  (i) | promoting the production and distribution of renewable energy sources; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors by:

(i)

promoting the production and distribution of renewable energy sources;

| (ii) | promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in small and medium-sized enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in small and medium-sized enterprises;

| (iii) | supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures ; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public infrastructures ;

| (iv) | developing smart distribution systems at low voltage levels; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

developing smart distribution systems at low voltage levels;

| (v) | promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

promoting low-carbon strategies for urban areas;

| (b) | promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management by:






  (i) | supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management by:

(i)

supporting dedicated investment for adaptation to climate change;

| (ii) | promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems;

| (c) | protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency by:






  (i) | addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency by:

(i)

addressing the significant needs for investment in the waste sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis;

| (ii) | addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

addressing the significant needs for investment in the water sector to meet the requirements of the Union's environmental acquis;

| (iii) | protecting and restoring biodiversity, including through green infrastructures; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

protecting and restoring biodiversity, including through green infrastructures;

| (iv) | improving the urban environment, including regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air pollution; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

improving the urban environment, including regeneration of brownfield sites and reduction of air pollution;

| (d) | promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures, by:






  (i) | supporting a multi-modal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures, by:

(i)

supporting a multi-modal Single European Transport Area by investing in the Trans-European Transport Network;

| (ii) | developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems including promoting sustainable urban mobility; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

developing environment-friendly and low-carbon transport systems including promoting sustainable urban mobility;

| (iii) | developing comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway systems; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

developing comprehensive, high quality and interoperable railway systems;

| (e) | enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the Cohesion Fund. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration by strengthening of institutional capacity and the efficiency of public administrations and public services related to implementation of the Cohesion Fund.

Reason

To ensure consistency with point 25 of the opinion.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CoR opinion on The new multiannual financial framework post-2013; rapporteur: Ms Clucas (UK/ALDE), member of Liverpool City Council.

1

The new multiannual financial framework post-2013

(2)  http://www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/.

2

(3)  COM(2010) 677 final.

3

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/150

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Revising the TEN-T legislative framework’

2012/C 225/11

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | points out that European transport policy should promote accessibility to the single market and sustainable development for all EU regions, together with the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European continent; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that European transport policy should promote accessibility to the single market and sustainable development for all EU regions, together with the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European continent;

| — | approves the regulatory approach proposed by the European Commission based on a dual-layer transport network, organised around 10 corridors and 30 priority projects; |
| --- | --- |

—

approves the regulatory approach proposed by the European Commission based on a dual-layer transport network, organised around 10 corridors and 30 priority projects;

| — | approves the priority given to interoperability and intermodality and to missing links and bottlenecks; |
| --- | --- |

—

approves the priority given to interoperability and intermodality and to missing links and bottlenecks;

| — | is in favour of stepping up efforts to promote a modal shift towards rail, inland waterway and maritime transport and smart traffic management; |
| --- | --- |

—

is in favour of stepping up efforts to promote a modal shift towards rail, inland waterway and maritime transport and smart traffic management;

| — | stresses that the European Commission must have broad management and decision-making responsibilities for TEN-T projects and calls for strengthening the powers of the ‘European coordinator’; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses that the European Commission must have broad management and decision-making responsibilities for TEN-T projects and calls for strengthening the powers of the ‘European coordinator’;

| — | stresses the responsibilities of the local and regional levels in decision-making, planning and financing; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses the responsibilities of the local and regional levels in decision-making, planning and financing;

| — | advocates making the presence of local and regional authorities in corridor platforms compulsory and calls for ‘programme contracts’ to be signed between the EU, each Member State and the regions concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

advocates making the presence of local and regional authorities in corridor platforms compulsory and calls for ‘programme contracts’ to be signed between the EU, each Member State and the regions concerned;

| — | supports the principle of funding the core network with the Connecting Europe Facility and calls for the creation of new forms of European funding such as European bonds; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the principle of funding the core network with the Connecting Europe Facility and calls for the creation of new forms of European funding such as European bonds;

| — | wishes to see the introduction of European transport taxation based on the principle of internalising the external costs of the most polluting modes of transport. |
| --- | --- |

—

wishes to see the introduction of European transport taxation based on the principle of internalising the external costs of the most polluting modes of transport.

| Rapporteur | Bernard SOULAGE (FR/PES), Vice-president of the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network
  COM(2011) 650 final |

Rapporteur

Bernard SOULAGE (FR/PES), Vice-president of the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network

COM(2011) 650 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments

| 1. | welcomes the European Commission's willingness to speed up deployment of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), whose achievements after 20 years appear to be mixed in terms of the ambitious and fundamental objectives it was set; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the European Commission's willingness to speed up deployment of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), whose achievements after 20 years appear to be mixed in terms of the ambitious and fundamental objectives it was set;

| 2. | supports the objectives of the European transport policy and the role given to TEN-T, which should promote, in particular:






  — | the improved competitiveness and economic performances of cities and regions in the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

supports the objectives of the European transport policy and the role given to TEN-T, which should promote, in particular:

—

the improved competitiveness and economic performances of cities and regions in the European Union;

| — | accessibility to the single market for all EU regions; |
| --- | --- |

—

accessibility to the single market for all EU regions;

| — | the deployment of the most advanced technological and operational concepts (Article 4(1)(c)); |
| --- | --- |

—

the deployment of the most advanced technological and operational concepts (Article 4(1)(c));

| — | the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European continent (Article 4(1)(d)); |
| --- | --- |

—

the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European continent (Article 4(1)(d));

| — | sustainable development, particularly the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions (Article 4(1)(b)); |
| --- | --- |

—

sustainable development, particularly the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions (Article 4(1)(b));

| — | the balanced development of all EU regions, including the outermost regions (Article 4(2)(j)); |
| --- | --- |

—

the balanced development of all EU regions, including the outermost regions (Article 4(2)(j));

| 3. | shares the European Commission's analysis that, despite the major advances made in establishing a trans-European transport network, the current infrastructure is still too fragmented, both geographically and between transport modes; this problem is even more acute in areas suffering from physical barriers, such as islands, mountainous areas and outlying areas; |
| --- | --- |

3.

shares the European Commission's analysis that, despite the major advances made in establishing a trans-European transport network, the current infrastructure is still too fragmented, both geographically and between transport modes; this problem is even more acute in areas suffering from physical barriers, such as islands, mountainous areas and outlying areas;

| 4. | considers that the proposed transport policy should more explicitly integrate the more general objectives established in the European Union under the Europe 2020 strategy and encourage greater social and territorial cohesion in the whole of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

4.

considers that the proposed transport policy should more explicitly integrate the more general objectives established in the European Union under the Europe 2020 strategy and encourage greater social and territorial cohesion in the whole of the European Union;

| 5. | shares the proactive, multimodal and pragmatic approach adopted by the European Commission which is based on scheduling investments to reflect a dual-layer transport network:






  — | a comprehensive network to be in place by 31 December 2050 at the latest; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

shares the proactive, multimodal and pragmatic approach adopted by the European Commission which is based on scheduling investments to reflect a dual-layer transport network:

—

a comprehensive network to be in place by 31 December 2050 at the latest;

| — | a core network, including the most strategic routes offering the highest European added value, to be in place before 31 December 2030; |
| --- | --- |

—

a core network, including the most strategic routes offering the highest European added value, to be in place before 31 December 2030;

| 6. | would like to see the regional and local authorities being able to participate fully in preparing and implementing the proposed actions adopted as part of the TEN-T programming; |
| --- | --- |

6.

would like to see the regional and local authorities being able to participate fully in preparing and implementing the proposed actions adopted as part of the TEN-T programming;

| 7. | wonders what funding can actually be mobilised for effecting the selected investments to strengthen cohesion and development throughout Europe, given the tight budgetary constraints currently straining the public finances of the Member States and regional and local authorities; |
| --- | --- |

7.

wonders what funding can actually be mobilised for effecting the selected investments to strengthen cohesion and development throughout Europe, given the tight budgetary constraints currently straining the public finances of the Member States and regional and local authorities;

The regulatory environment

| 8. | welcomes the European Commission's choice of proposing a regulation with direct application. This option appears to be:






  — | the only one that can synchronise the involvement of a large number of actors of all types in operating the TEN-T network, i.e. the ‘Member States, regional and local authorities, infrastructure managers, transport operators and other public and private entities’ (Article 5); |
| --- | --- | --- |

8.

welcomes the European Commission's choice of proposing a regulation with direct application. This option appears to be:

—

the only one that can synchronise the involvement of a large number of actors of all types in operating the TEN-T network, i.e. the ‘Member States, regional and local authorities, infrastructure managers, transport operators and other public and private entities’ (Article 5);

| — | the most appropriate for meeting the ambitious timetable adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

the most appropriate for meeting the ambitious timetable adopted;

| — | appropriate for ensuring that countries commit themselves to the timetable and to co-financing; |
| --- | --- |

—

appropriate for ensuring that countries commit themselves to the timetable and to co-financing;

| 9. | approves the priority given to interoperability under the new regulatory framework. This provides a real opportunity for integrating the European transport system by encouraging the implementation of standards and procedures common to all European actors. Moreover, the Committee wishes to give intermodality a key role in creating any transport infrastructure, both freight and passenger (Article 34) to facilitate the continuity of traffic flows as far as possible and to make the concept of the transport chain a reality. Numerous improvements are possible, particularly for passengers, in terms of integrated ticketing, clearer timetables and better synchronised connections, and, for freight transport, in terms of reliability and high-quality services; |
| --- | --- |

9.

approves the priority given to interoperability under the new regulatory framework. This provides a real opportunity for integrating the European transport system by encouraging the implementation of standards and procedures common to all European actors. Moreover, the Committee wishes to give intermodality a key role in creating any transport infrastructure, both freight and passenger (Article 34) to facilitate the continuity of traffic flows as far as possible and to make the concept of the transport chain a reality. Numerous improvements are possible, particularly for passengers, in terms of integrated ticketing, clearer timetables and better synchronised connections, and, for freight transport, in terms of reliability and high-quality services;

Principles and architecture of the TEN-T network

The principles of the TEN-T network

| 10. | supports the European Commission in the choice and wish to create the TEN-T network, whilst ensuring implementation of the current priorities: thirty priority projects and the horizontal priorities aimed at developing traffic management tools in favour of interoperability and also calls on the European Commission, with respect to the projects previously termed priority, to take account of the work already undertaken on the ground in order to properly maintain continuity and European involvement; |
| --- | --- |

10.

supports the European Commission in the choice and wish to create the TEN-T network, whilst ensuring implementation of the current priorities: thirty priority projects and the horizontal priorities aimed at developing traffic management tools in favour of interoperability and also calls on the European Commission, with respect to the projects previously termed priority, to take account of the work already undertaken on the ground in order to properly maintain continuity and European involvement;

| 11. | is pleased that the infrastructure projects are based on the existing networks, whilst efforts are being made to improve and interconnect them (Article 7). The selected projects can thus create new transport infrastructures, but also maintain, repair and upgrade existing transport infrastructures and promote the most resource-efficient use; |
| --- | --- |

11.

is pleased that the infrastructure projects are based on the existing networks, whilst efforts are being made to improve and interconnect them (Article 7). The selected projects can thus create new transport infrastructures, but also maintain, repair and upgrade existing transport infrastructures and promote the most resource-efficient use;

| 12. | welcomes the fact that the projects selected for the TEN-T network are based on the principle of common interest (Article 7):






  — | they have been subject to a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis identifying a positive net present value; |
| --- | --- | --- |

12.

welcomes the fact that the projects selected for the TEN-T network are based on the principle of common interest (Article 7):

—

they have been subject to a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis identifying a positive net present value;

| — | they demonstrate clear European added value; |
| --- | --- |

—

they demonstrate clear European added value;

| — | they comply with the principles governing the comprehensive or core network; |
| --- | --- |

—

they comply with the principles governing the comprehensive or core network;

| 13. | welcomes the transversal actions deployed in favour of smart traffic management by promoting the ERTMS system for rail transport, SESAR for air transport, IFS for inland navigation, ITS for road transport and the Galileo European system for positioning and navigation, to encourage interoperability, an essential requirement for creating an extensive single European transport market; |
| --- | --- |

13.

welcomes the transversal actions deployed in favour of smart traffic management by promoting the ERTMS system for rail transport, SESAR for air transport, IFS for inland navigation, ITS for road transport and the Galileo European system for positioning and navigation, to encourage interoperability, an essential requirement for creating an extensive single European transport market;

| 14. | is still in favour of the idea of a ‘blue belt’, has doubts about the real importance the Commission has given to the principle of the motorways of the sea (Article 25) because of their very minor role in the ten corridors, and feels that maritime transport has not been taken sufficiently into account in the European Commission's draft guidelines; |
| --- | --- |

14.

is still in favour of the idea of a ‘blue belt’, has doubts about the real importance the Commission has given to the principle of the motorways of the sea (Article 25) because of their very minor role in the ten corridors, and feels that maritime transport has not been taken sufficiently into account in the European Commission's draft guidelines;

| 15. | questions the Commission's and the Member States' real willingness to change demand for mobility as opposed to continually satisfying the growth in such demand; |
| --- | --- |

15.

questions the Commission's and the Member States' real willingness to change demand for mobility as opposed to continually satisfying the growth in such demand;

The comprehensive network:

| 16. | endorses the principle whereby this network should become the ‘circulatory system’ of the single market, enabling passengers and goods to move unimpeded throughout the Union, with the aim of ensuring that the majority of businesses and individuals are no more than a thirty-minute journey away from the comprehensive network by 2050; |
| --- | --- |

16.

endorses the principle whereby this network should become the ‘circulatory system’ of the single market, enabling passengers and goods to move unimpeded throughout the Union, with the aim of ensuring that the majority of businesses and individuals are no more than a thirty-minute journey away from the comprehensive network by 2050;

| 17. | encourages the efforts made in favour of rail transport; there are numerous economic, financial and ecological reasons to support this priority; |
| --- | --- |

17.

encourages the efforts made in favour of rail transport; there are numerous economic, financial and ecological reasons to support this priority;

| 18. | questions the effectiveness of covering the whole of the European Union's territory in line with the principle of territorial cohesion and the possibility opened up by the establishment of the core network of becoming the benchmark for regional development at European level; |
| --- | --- |

18.

questions the effectiveness of covering the whole of the European Union's territory in line with the principle of territorial cohesion and the possibility opened up by the establishment of the core network of becoming the benchmark for regional development at European level;

| 19. | reiterates how much maintaining the comprehensive network is the only way for the peripheral regions without priority projects to benefit from transport infrastructure financed by the European Union, thereby ensuring that all regions are accessible; |
| --- | --- |

19.

reiterates how much maintaining the comprehensive network is the only way for the peripheral regions without priority projects to benefit from transport infrastructure financed by the European Union, thereby ensuring that all regions are accessible;

| 20. | suggests that efforts be made to improve transport links to and within the island, outermost and mountain regions; |
| --- | --- |

20.

suggests that efforts be made to improve transport links to and within the island, outermost and mountain regions;

The core network

| 21. | supports the Commission initiative to have in place very soon (by 2030 at the latest) a strategic network generating significant European added value, particularly in terms of the growth and employment targets set out in the strategy Europe 2020:for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; |
| --- | --- |

21.

supports the Commission initiative to have in place very soon (by 2030 at the latest) a strategic network generating significant European added value, particularly in terms of the growth and employment targets set out in the strategy Europe 2020:for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

| 22. | welcomes the importance placed on the concept of ‘multimodal corridors’, aimed at facilitating the coordinated implementation of the core network, based on the principles of modal integration, interoperability, and coordinated and effective resource management (Article 48); is disappointed that motorways of the sea have only been given a limited role to play in the proposed corridors; |
| --- | --- |

22.

welcomes the importance placed on the concept of ‘multimodal corridors’, aimed at facilitating the coordinated implementation of the core network, based on the principles of modal integration, interoperability, and coordinated and effective resource management (Article 48); is disappointed that motorways of the sea have only been given a limited role to play in the proposed corridors;

| 23. | backs the Commission's choice of ten corridors marking the core network's priority routes and the methodology chosen for defining the core network and supports the Commission's choice to concentrate funding on the cross-border projects offering significant European added value, at least for the period 2014–2020; |
| --- | --- |

23.

backs the Commission's choice of ten corridors marking the core network's priority routes and the methodology chosen for defining the core network and supports the Commission's choice to concentrate funding on the cross-border projects offering significant European added value, at least for the period 2014–2020;

| 24. | endorses the principle of giving responsibility for each corridor to a ‘European coordinator’ (Article 51) who will act in the name and on behalf of the Commission with a view to ensuring that the EU's interest is upheld, by overseeing the planned activities in order to respect the schedules and funding arrangements laid down, and reporting on the progress made and any possible difficulties encountered, working on the principle of consulting all the stakeholders involved; |
| --- | --- |

24.

endorses the principle of giving responsibility for each corridor to a ‘European coordinator’ (Article 51) who will act in the name and on behalf of the Commission with a view to ensuring that the EU's interest is upheld, by overseeing the planned activities in order to respect the schedules and funding arrangements laid down, and reporting on the progress made and any possible difficulties encountered, working on the principle of consulting all the stakeholders involved;

| 25. | welcomes the importance placed on the ‘core network nodes’ (Article 47) with a view to achieving intermodality, but suggests adding further details and providing a broader definition for the concept of ‘urban nodes’, so as to include the relevant logistical and port areas (Article 3(o)); |
| --- | --- |

25.

welcomes the importance placed on the ‘core network nodes’ (Article 47) with a view to achieving intermodality, but suggests adding further details and providing a broader definition for the concept of ‘urban nodes’, so as to include the relevant logistical and port areas (Article 3(o));

| 26. | feels that the core network should not only better integrate ports which play a key role in Member States' exports and imports but which are located outside urban nodes, but should also develop the infrastructure for connections with third countries – particularly accession candidate countries – by improving land-based synergies with the motorways of the sea; |
| --- | --- |

26.

feels that the core network should not only better integrate ports which play a key role in Member States' exports and imports but which are located outside urban nodes, but should also develop the infrastructure for connections with third countries – particularly accession candidate countries – by improving land-based synergies with the motorways of the sea;

Clean, sustainable and intelligent transport systems

| 27. | is in favour of stepping up efforts to promote a modal shift towards rail, inland waterway and maritime transport; |
| --- | --- |

27.

is in favour of stepping up efforts to promote a modal shift towards rail, inland waterway and maritime transport;

| 28. | feels that regional and local authorities, acting jointly with the European Union, should support collective modes of transport in general and public transport in particular, and implement proper urban mobility plans to reduce city centre congestion; |
| --- | --- |

28.

feels that regional and local authorities, acting jointly with the European Union, should support collective modes of transport in general and public transport in particular, and implement proper urban mobility plans to reduce city centre congestion;

| 29. | also feels that freight and passenger transport have quite distinct needs; separate management could ensure more efficient operation of these two areas; |
| --- | --- |

29.

also feels that freight and passenger transport have quite distinct needs; separate management could ensure more efficient operation of these two areas;

| 30. | welcomes measures in favour of smart traffic management (ERTMS, SESAR, IFS, SafeSeaNet, ITS), which are essential for securing an integrated European transport system; |
| --- | --- |

30.

welcomes measures in favour of smart traffic management (ERTMS, SESAR, IFS, SafeSeaNet, ITS), which are essential for securing an integrated European transport system;

The governance system

| 31. | stresses that the European Commission must have broad management and decision-making responsibilities for TEN-T projects because it alone, in association with the other European institutions and bodies, can guarantee the European added value and consistency between all the projects across the whole of the European continent in order to create a truly European network that goes beyond merely interconnecting national infrastructures; |
| --- | --- |

31.

stresses that the European Commission must have broad management and decision-making responsibilities for TEN-T projects because it alone, in association with the other European institutions and bodies, can guarantee the European added value and consistency between all the projects across the whole of the European continent in order to create a truly European network that goes beyond merely interconnecting national infrastructures;

| 32. | notes that the regulation meets the subsidiarity principle and gives the EU the option of taking appropriate measures to implement what cannot be undertaken in a satisfactory manner at national and sub-national levels; |
| --- | --- |

32.

notes that the regulation meets the subsidiarity principle and gives the EU the option of taking appropriate measures to implement what cannot be undertaken in a satisfactory manner at national and sub-national levels;

| 33. | endorses the tool for monitoring the activities undertaken by each country for the TEN-T network, which enables the Commission to be constantly updated by the Member States on progress in implementing projects of common interest and the investments approved for this purpose. The Committee also endorses the principle that the Commission publish a progress report every two years for submission to all the relevant EU bodies, as well as the option granted to the Commission to adopt delegated acts to take account of possible changes resulting from the quantitative threshold (Article 54); |
| --- | --- |

33.

endorses the tool for monitoring the activities undertaken by each country for the TEN-T network, which enables the Commission to be constantly updated by the Member States on progress in implementing projects of common interest and the investments approved for this purpose. The Committee also endorses the principle that the Commission publish a progress report every two years for submission to all the relevant EU bodies, as well as the option granted to the Commission to adopt delegated acts to take account of possible changes resulting from the quantitative threshold (Article 54);

| 34. | views as a positive step forward the governance principle chosen for the corridors(Article 52), which gives responsibility for governance to a ‘European coordinator’, the methods for his/her selection (Article 51(2)), the list of his/her responsibilities (Article 51(5)) and the option given to the Commission to adopt implementing decisions relating to the core network corridors (Article 53(3)); |
| --- | --- |

34.

views as a positive step forward the governance principle chosen for the corridors(Article 52), which gives responsibility for governance to a ‘European coordinator’, the methods for his/her selection (Article 51(2)), the list of his/her responsibilities (Article 51(5)) and the option given to the Commission to adopt implementing decisions relating to the core network corridors (Article 53(3));

| 35. | nevertheless, in order to ensure that the projects included in the corridor are seamlessly taken forward, calls for strengthening the powers of the ‘European coordinator’, who must be able not only to mediate in the event of conflict, but also alert the Commission and the Parliament if he/she deems that something is preventing a project from progressing smoothly (Article 51(5)(b)); |
| --- | --- |

35.

nevertheless, in order to ensure that the projects included in the corridor are seamlessly taken forward, calls for strengthening the powers of the ‘European coordinator’, who must be able not only to mediate in the event of conflict, but also alert the Commission and the Parliament if he/she deems that something is preventing a project from progressing smoothly (Article 51(5)(b));

| 36. | welcomes the creation of corridor platforms and their remit of setting the general objectives and preparing and monitoring the corridor deployment measures (Article 52), but is surprised by the absence of local and regional authorities from the governance of core network corridors (Article 52) and advocates making their presence in corridor platforms compulsory. The reason for this proposal lies in the broad responsibilities entrusted to the corridor platform and the tasks and responsibilities of the local and regional authorities as key transport policy stakeholders, often major co-financers and repositories of a democratic legitimacy likely to help ensure that projects are undertaken; |
| --- | --- |

36.

welcomes the creation of corridor platforms and their remit of setting the general objectives and preparing and monitoring the corridor deployment measures (Article 52), but is surprised by the absence of local and regional authorities from the governance of core network corridors (Article 52) and advocates making their presence in corridor platforms compulsory. The reason for this proposal lies in the broad responsibilities entrusted to the corridor platform and the tasks and responsibilities of the local and regional authorities as key transport policy stakeholders, often major co-financers and repositories of a democratic legitimacy likely to help ensure that projects are undertaken;

| 37. | stresses the need for including cities and regions in defining trans-European transport networks and their priorities, so as to take account of each region's specific conditions; moreover, emphasises how much the local and regional levels must contribute to the initiatives planned for transport in terms of decision-making, planning and financing, particularly to ensure coordination with the local and regional development plans; |
| --- | --- |

37.

stresses the need for including cities and regions in defining trans-European transport networks and their priorities, so as to take account of each region's specific conditions; moreover, emphasises how much the local and regional levels must contribute to the initiatives planned for transport in terms of decision-making, planning and financing, particularly to ensure coordination with the local and regional development plans;

| 38. | wonders about the place given to cooperation with the regions concerned in establishing the corridor projects and recommends that cooperation with regional stakeholders should be part of the remit of the corridor platforms and be based largely on regional authorities' know-how in these matters. Hence the period of six months stipulated for drawing up the corridor development plans does not seem consistent with holding a proper cooperation and consultation process (Article 53); |
| --- | --- |

38.

wonders about the place given to cooperation with the regions concerned in establishing the corridor projects and recommends that cooperation with regional stakeholders should be part of the remit of the corridor platforms and be based largely on regional authorities' know-how in these matters. Hence the period of six months stipulated for drawing up the corridor development plans does not seem consistent with holding a proper cooperation and consultation process (Article 53);

| 39. | calls for the ‘programme contracts’, along the lines of the ‘territorial pacts’, to be signed between the European Union, each Member State and the regions concerned, setting out their reciprocal commitments relating to financing and the completion timetable; these contracts should not only cover the infrastructures making up the TEN-T, but also the secondary infrastructures that the countries and regions would undertake to build to ensure the smooth operation of the main networks; |
| --- | --- |

39.

calls for the ‘programme contracts’, along the lines of the ‘territorial pacts’, to be signed between the European Union, each Member State and the regions concerned, setting out their reciprocal commitments relating to financing and the completion timetable; these contracts should not only cover the infrastructures making up the TEN-T, but also the secondary infrastructures that the countries and regions would undertake to build to ensure the smooth operation of the main networks;

Financing instruments

The principles of financing the TEN-T network

| 40. | is aware of the strategic importance that the TEN-T network represents for the EU's vitality and the considerable financial effort involved in its completion; therefore calls for recourse to a European loan which, going well beyond the European Commission's proposal to create ‘project bonds’ to finance the EU's transport infrastructures, would make it possible to invest massively in the European transport system, which is absolutely essential for Europe's competitiveness, for attaining the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy (particularly the environmental goals) and for re-launching the European economy during this crisis period; |
| --- | --- |

40.

is aware of the strategic importance that the TEN-T network represents for the EU's vitality and the considerable financial effort involved in its completion; therefore calls for recourse to a European loan which, going well beyond the European Commission's proposal to create ‘project bonds’ to finance the EU's transport infrastructures, would make it possible to invest massively in the European transport system, which is absolutely essential for Europe's competitiveness, for attaining the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy (particularly the environmental goals) and for re-launching the European economy during this crisis period;

| 41. | is concerned about the level of funding ultimately adopted by the Council and the European Parliament as part of the EU's next multi-annual financial framework. The current budget difficulties should not result in the EU giving up its ambitions for these projects, which are building blocks for the future, as this would be detrimental in the long run; |
| --- | --- |

41.

is concerned about the level of funding ultimately adopted by the Council and the European Parliament as part of the EU's next multi-annual financial framework. The current budget difficulties should not result in the EU giving up its ambitions for these projects, which are building blocks for the future, as this would be detrimental in the long run;

| 42. | points out to what extent these huge investments in TEN-T call for strong and unwavering political will at the very highest level; |
| --- | --- |

42.

points out to what extent these huge investments in TEN-T call for strong and unwavering political will at the very highest level;

| 43. | stresses the need for giving financial priority to missing links (particularly the cross-border links) and bottlenecks; |
| --- | --- |

43.

stresses the need for giving financial priority to missing links (particularly the cross-border links) and bottlenecks;

| 44. | welcomes the level of European co-financing, which is generally up to a maximum of 20 % for work on the core network, up to 40 % for cross-border rail and inland waterway projects, up to 50 % of the costs for studies and up to 50 % for intelligent transport systems and for Member States in the transitional phase; |
| --- | --- |

44.

welcomes the level of European co-financing, which is generally up to a maximum of 20 % for work on the core network, up to 40 % for cross-border rail and inland waterway projects, up to 50 % of the costs for studies and up to 50 % for intelligent transport systems and for Member States in the transitional phase;

| 45. | points out the major contribution by many regional and local authorities to funding the TEN-T in addition to the funding from Member States and the European Union, which fully justifies their active participation in drawing up and implementing infrastructure projects; |
| --- | --- |

45.

points out the major contribution by many regional and local authorities to funding the TEN-T in addition to the funding from Member States and the European Union, which fully justifies their active participation in drawing up and implementing infrastructure projects;

| 46. | believes that when it comes to implementing very large projects, the European contribution should be contractualised as part of global financial plans. This is not possible under current procedures for allocating European subsidies, which are limited to a budgetary period of seven years (less than the completion period for very large projects); |
| --- | --- |

46.

believes that when it comes to implementing very large projects, the European contribution should be contractualised as part of global financial plans. This is not possible under current procedures for allocating European subsidies, which are limited to a budgetary period of seven years (less than the completion period for very large projects);

| 47. | supports the principle of funding the core network from an infrastructure fund, and the comprehensive network from other national and regional resources, including the ERDF; nevertheless, points out that cohesion policy pursues its own objectives and that financing the comprehensive network as part of the integrated development strategies drawn up at regional level should under no circumstances lead to cohesion policy being implemented on a sectoral basis; |
| --- | --- |

47.

supports the principle of funding the core network from an infrastructure fund, and the comprehensive network from other national and regional resources, including the ERDF; nevertheless, points out that cohesion policy pursues its own objectives and that financing the comprehensive network as part of the integrated development strategies drawn up at regional level should under no circumstances lead to cohesion policy being implemented on a sectoral basis;

| 48. | wonders about the impact this regulation might have on regional and local authorities, and particularly on the funding they are allocating for co-financing TEN-T infrastructures. This impact has yet to be ascertained and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. |
| --- | --- |

48.

wonders about the impact this regulation might have on regional and local authorities, and particularly on the funding they are allocating for co-financing TEN-T infrastructures. This impact has yet to be ascertained and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The new instruments for funding the TEN-T network

| 49. | supports the principle of using new sources of funding to speed up implementation of TEN-T activities, spread the risks and secure more private investment, but points out that these new funding sources should in no way replace traditional EU financing, but rather complement it; |
| --- | --- |

49.

supports the principle of using new sources of funding to speed up implementation of TEN-T activities, spread the risks and secure more private investment, but points out that these new funding sources should in no way replace traditional EU financing, but rather complement it;

| 50. | is in favour, to a certain extent, of expanding public/private partnerships (PPP), since they have the advantage of increasing funding transparency and helping stakeholders to keep to infrastructure completion deadlines; nevertheless, points out that PPPs are not the solution to every problem and stresses the need to be alert to the question of infrastructure ownership in the context of a PPP initiative; |
| --- | --- |

50.

is in favour, to a certain extent, of expanding public/private partnerships (PPP), since they have the advantage of increasing funding transparency and helping stakeholders to keep to infrastructure completion deadlines; nevertheless, points out that PPPs are not the solution to every problem and stresses the need to be alert to the question of infrastructure ownership in the context of a PPP initiative;

| 51. | advocates the swift introduction of transport taxation at European level, based on the principle of internalising the external costs of the most polluting modes of transport by means of a harmonised tax system whose revenues would then be allocated for creating more sustainable transport infrastructures (e.g. Eurovignette); |
| --- | --- |

51.

advocates the swift introduction of transport taxation at European level, based on the principle of internalising the external costs of the most polluting modes of transport by means of a harmonised tax system whose revenues would then be allocated for creating more sustainable transport infrastructures (e.g. Eurovignette);

| 52. | calls for the role of the European Investment Bank not to be overlooked. Each year it finances transport-related projects to the tune of EUR 10 billion and remains a sound investment source for the most complex projects.; |
| --- | --- |

52.

calls for the role of the European Investment Bank not to be overlooked. Each year it finances transport-related projects to the tune of EUR 10 billion and remains a sound investment source for the most complex projects.;

| 53. | supports the new Union funding instrument, the Connecting Europe Facility, intended to finance priority European infrastructures, particularly in transport, energy and digital broadband, and welcomes its major leverage effect; |
| --- | --- |

53.

supports the new Union funding instrument, the Connecting Europe Facility, intended to finance priority European infrastructures, particularly in transport, energy and digital broadband, and welcomes its major leverage effect;

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 3 (o)

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (o) | ‘urban node’ means an urban area where the transport infrastructure of the trans-European transport network is connected with other parts of that infrastructure and with the infrastructure for regional and local traffic; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(o)

‘urban node’ means an urban area where the transport infrastructure of the trans-European transport network is connected with other parts of that infrastructure and with the infrastructure for regional and local traffic;

| (o) | ‘urban node’ means an urban area the transport infrastructure of the trans-European transport network connected with other parts of that infrastructure and with the infrastructure for regional and local traffic; |
| --- | --- |

(o)

‘urban node’ means an urban area the transport infrastructure of the trans-European transport network connected with other parts of that infrastructure and with the infrastructure for regional and local traffic;

Reason

It is important for the development of the core network to include the locally-linked logistic facilities (ports, airports, logistical platforms, freight terminals, etc). The purpose of this proposed wording is to make clear this natural connection.

Amendment 2

Article 4(2)

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 4
  Objectives of the trans-European transport network
  2.   In developing the infrastructure of the trans- European transport network, the following objectives shall be pursued:






  (j) | the transport infrastructure that reflects the specific situations in different parts of the Union and provides for a balanced coverage of European regions, including outermost regions and other peripheral ones; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 4

Objectives of the trans-European transport network

2.   In developing the infrastructure of the trans- European transport network, the following objectives shall be pursued:

(j)

the transport infrastructure that reflects the specific situations in different parts of the Union and provides for a balanced coverage of European regions, including outermost regions and other peripheral ones;

Article 4

Objectives of the trans-European transport network

2.   In developing the infrastructure of the trans- European transport network, the following objectives shall be pursued:

| (j) | the transport infrastructure that reflects the specific situations in different parts of the Union and provides for a balanced coverage of European regions, including outermost regions other peripheral ones ; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

the transport infrastructure that reflects the specific situations in different parts of the Union and provides for a balanced coverage of European regions, including outermost regions other peripheral ones ;

Reason

Given the problems of accessibility affecting mountainous areas, TEN-T must take account of these areas together with other vulnerable areas such as peripheral areas and the outermost regions.

Amendment 3

Article 9.3

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3.   The Member States shall ensure that the comprehensive network is completed and fully complies with the relevant provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2050 at the latest. | 3.   The Member States shall ensure that the comprehensive network is completed and fully complies with the relevant provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2050 at the latest. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3.   The Member States shall ensure that the comprehensive network is completed and fully complies with the relevant provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2050 at the latest.

3.   The Member States shall ensure that the comprehensive network is completed and fully complies with the relevant provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2050 at the latest.

Reason

Regional and local authorities are often justified in standing up to States refusing to meet the obligations to which they had subscribed, but frequently lack the means to do so. The rapporteur suggests requesting ‘programme contracts’ along the lines of the territorial pacts.

Amendment 4

Article 45.1

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 45
  Requirements
  1.   The core network shall reflect evolving traffic demand and the need for multi-modal transport. State-of-the-art technologies and regulatory and governance measures for managing the infrastructure use shall be taken into account in order to ensure resource-efficient use of transport infrastructure and to provide for sufficient capacity. | Article 45
  Requirements
  1.   The core network shall reflect evolving traffic demand and the need for multi-modal transport. State-of-the-art technologies and regulatory and governance measures for managing the infrastructure use shall be taken into account in order to ensure resource-efficient use of transport infrastructure and to provide for sufficient capacity |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR Amendment

Article 45

Requirements

1.   The core network shall reflect evolving traffic demand and the need for multi-modal transport. State-of-the-art technologies and regulatory and governance measures for managing the infrastructure use shall be taken into account in order to ensure resource-efficient use of transport infrastructure and to provide for sufficient capacity.

Article 45

Requirements

1.   The core network shall reflect evolving traffic demand and the need for multi-modal transport. State-of-the-art technologies and regulatory and governance measures for managing the infrastructure use shall be taken into account in order to ensure resource-efficient use of transport infrastructure and to provide for sufficient capacity

Reason

Freight transport must have infrastructure with sufficient capacity and must be given the necessary priority over passengers for it to be effective.

Amendment 5

Article 46.3

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3.   Without prejudice to Article 47(2) and (3), the Member States shall ensure the core network is completed and complies with the provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2030 at the latest. | 3.   Without prejudice to Article 47(2) and (3), the Member States shall ensure the core network is completed and complies with the provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2030 at the latest. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3.   Without prejudice to Article 47(2) and (3), the Member States shall ensure the core network is completed and complies with the provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2030 at the latest.

3.   Without prejudice to Article 47(2) and (3), the Member States shall ensure the core network is completed and complies with the provisions of this Chapter by 31 December 2030 at the latest.

Reason

Regional and local authorities are often justified in standing up to States refusing to meet the obligations to which they had subscribed, but frequently lack the means to do so. The rapporteur suggests requesting ‘programme contracts’ along the lines of the territorial pacts.

Amendment 6

Article 47

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 47
  Nodes of the core network
  1.   The nodes of the core network are set out in Annex II and include:






  — | urban nodes, including their ports and airports; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR Amendment

Article 47

Nodes of the core network

1.   The nodes of the core network are set out in Annex II and include:

—

urban nodes, including their ports and airports;

| — | maritime ports; |
| --- | --- |

—

maritime ports;

| — | border crossing points to neighbouring countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

border crossing points to neighbouring countries.

Article 47

Nodes of the core network

1.   The nodes of the core network are set out in Annex II and include:

| — | urban nodes, including their ports airports,; |
| --- | --- |

—

urban nodes, including their ports airports,;

| — | maritime ports; |
| --- | --- |

—

maritime ports;

| — | border crossing points to neighbouring countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

border crossing points to neighbouring countries.

Reason

It is essential that, in accordance with the definition proposed by the rapporteur (Amendment 1 of the draft opinion on the modification of Article 3 of the EC proposal, which defines the term ‘urban node’), urban nodes of the core network include all local logistical facilities for the effective transport of passengers and freight (both ports and airports as well as logistical platforms, freight terminals, etc.).

Amendment 7

Article 51(5)(b)

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 5.   The European Coordinator shall:






  (b) | report to the Member States, to the Commission and, as appropriate, to all other entities directly involved in the development of the core network corridor on any difficulties encountered and contribute to finding appropriate solutions; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

5.   The European Coordinator shall:

(b)

report to the Member States, to the Commission and, as appropriate, to all other entities directly involved in the development of the core network corridor on any difficulties encountered and contribute to finding appropriate solutions;

5.   The European Coordinator shall:

| (b) | report to the Member States, to the Commission and, as appropriate, to all the other entities directly involved in the development of the core network corridor on any difficulties encountered and contribute to finding appropriate solutions |
| --- | --- |

(b)

report to the Member States, to the Commission and, as appropriate, to all the other entities directly involved in the development of the core network corridor on any difficulties encountered and contribute to finding appropriate solutions

Reason

In order to guarantee the smooth progress of the corridor projects, the rapporteur suggests strengthening (or clarifying) the powers granted to the European coordinator. In the event of any delay in the project timetable, the coordinator may alert the Commission so that it may call on the countries concerned to explain the delay and decide to adopt appropriate measures in compliance with the principle of proportionality.

Amendment 8

Article 52.1

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1)   For each core network corridor, the Member States concerned shall establish a corridor platform responsible for defining the general objectives of the core network corridor and for preparing and supervising the measures referred to in Article 53(1); | 1)   For each core network corridor, the shall establish a corridor platform together with the Member States concerned, define the general objectives of the core network corridor and prepare and supervise the measures referred to in Article 53(1); |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR Amendment

1)   For each core network corridor, the Member States concerned shall establish a corridor platform responsible for defining the general objectives of the core network corridor and for preparing and supervising the measures referred to in Article 53(1);

1)   For each core network corridor, the shall establish a corridor platform together with the Member States concerned, define the general objectives of the core network corridor and prepare and supervise the measures referred to in Article 53(1);

Reason

In view of the plans to appoint European Coordinators with additional powers, it makes sense for them to be given responsibility for establishing the core network corridor so as to avoid the need for time-consuming negotiations between the Member States.

Amendment 9

Article 52(2)

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   The corridor platform shall be composed of the representatives of the Member States concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private entities. In any case, the relevant infrastructure managers as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure shall participate in the corridor platform. | 2.   The corridor platform shall be composed of the representatives of the Member States concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private entities. In any case, the relevant infrastructure managers as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure shall participate in the corridor platform. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2.   The corridor platform shall be composed of the representatives of the Member States concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private entities. In any case, the relevant infrastructure managers as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure shall participate in the corridor platform.

2.   The corridor platform shall be composed of the representatives of the Member States concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private entities. In any case, the relevant infrastructure managers as defined in Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure shall participate in the corridor platform.

Reason

As major co-financers of the transport networks, the regions must automatically be involved in the platforms managing the corridors of the core network.

Amendment 10

Article 53.1

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| For each core network corridor, the Member States concerned, in cooperation with the corridor platform, shall jointly draw up and notify to the Commission a corridor development plan within six months after entry into force of this Regulation. | For each core network corridor, the Member States concerned, in cooperation with the corridor platform, shall jointly draw up and notify to the Commission a corridor development plan within . after entry into force of this Regulation. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

For each core network corridor, the Member States concerned, in cooperation with the corridor platform, shall jointly draw up and notify to the Commission a corridor development plan within six months after entry into force of this Regulation.

For each core network corridor, the Member States concerned, in cooperation with the corridor platform, shall jointly draw up and notify to the Commission a corridor development plan within . after entry into force of this Regulation.

Reason

The period of six months stipulated for drawing up the corridor development plans does not seem consistent with holding a proper cooperation and consultation process (Article 5(3)(1)). The law in several EU countries allows the public to be involved in decisions relating to public infrastructures. These consultation phases are long and generally in excess of six months. It is essential for the proposed wording to provide timeframes compatible with the organisation of the consultation phases envisaged by national legislations.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/159

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘European Globalisation Adjustment Fund for the period 2014-2020’

2012/C 225/12

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to continue the EGF for the period after 2013 and supports, in particular, the retention of aspects of the revised scope and intervention criteria that were introduced in 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to continue the EGF for the period after 2013 and supports, in particular, the retention of aspects of the revised scope and intervention criteria that were introduced in 2009;

| — | regrets the decision of the Council not to continue the crisis derogation measures beyond 31 December 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

regrets the decision of the Council not to continue the crisis derogation measures beyond 31 December 2011;

| — | recommends that support under the enterprise pillar of the EGF should benefit from higher rates of co-financing than other pillars so as to encourage enterprise creation and entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends that support under the enterprise pillar of the EGF should benefit from higher rates of co-financing than other pillars so as to encourage enterprise creation and entrepreneurship;

| — | opposes the extension of the EGF to include farmers, as proposed, and underlines that the negotiation of trade agreements must ensure coherence with the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

opposes the extension of the EGF to include farmers, as proposed, and underlines that the negotiation of trade agreements must ensure coherence with the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy;

| — | highlights that the current Regulation allows Member States to designate regions to apply directly for support from the EGF; therefore encourages Member States to exercise this option more regularly; |
| --- | --- |

—

highlights that the current Regulation allows Member States to designate regions to apply directly for support from the EGF; therefore encourages Member States to exercise this option more regularly;

| — | considers that the proposal would benefit from more explicit references to local and regional authorities, in particular in Art. 8.2 where applications should include information on the procedures for consulting with local/regional authorities and also identify the agencies delivering the package of measures and in Art. 11.4 on guidance to local/regional authorities in using the EGF. |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the proposal would benefit from more explicit references to local and regional authorities, in particular in Art. 8.2 where applications should include information on the procedures for consulting with local/regional authorities and also identify the agencies delivering the package of measures and in Art. 11.4 on guidance to local/regional authorities in using the EGF.

| Rapporteur | Mr Gerry BREEN (IE/EPP), Member of Dublin City Council and Dublin Regional Authority |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020)
  COM(2011) 608/3 final |

Rapporteur

Mr Gerry BREEN (IE/EPP), Member of Dublin City Council and Dublin Regional Authority

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020)

COM(2011) 608/3 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | considers that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an important tool to intervene in cases of significant redundancies in order to avoid long-term unemployment at a time of difficult labour market conditions and is also an important European Union mechanism to show solidarity with workers who have lost their jobs; |
| --- | --- |

1.

considers that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an important tool to intervene in cases of significant redundancies in order to avoid long-term unemployment at a time of difficult labour market conditions and is also an important European Union mechanism to show solidarity with workers who have lost their jobs;

| 2. | acknowledges that the EGF has been able to support about 10 % of workers made redundant in the EU during 2009-2010 and that 40 % of workers targeted by the Fund have been successfully reintegrated into the labour market (1) but repeats its call on the European Commission and Member States to improve cooperation with local and regional authorities and other stakeholders in the implementation of the EGF; |
| --- | --- |

2.

acknowledges that the EGF has been able to support about 10 % of workers made redundant in the EU during 2009-2010 and that 40 % of workers targeted by the Fund have been successfully reintegrated into the labour market (1) but repeats its call on the European Commission and Member States to improve cooperation with local and regional authorities and other stakeholders in the implementation of the EGF;

| 3. | endorses the European Social Fund (ESF) to support long-term active labour market policies and assist in unemployment prevention and early intervention, but considers that there is a need for a rapid intervention mechanism, such as the EGF, to assist at times of unemployment crises; |
| --- | --- |

3.

endorses the European Social Fund (ESF) to support long-term active labour market policies and assist in unemployment prevention and early intervention, but considers that there is a need for a rapid intervention mechanism, such as the EGF, to assist at times of unemployment crises;

| 4. | welcomes the European Commission's proposal to continue the EGF for the period after 2013 and supports, in particular, the retention of aspects of the revised scope and intervention criteria that were introduced in 2009. Notes that the rising number of applications since then shows a clear demand for intervention based on events of 500 redundancies or less but accepts that usage of the EGF to date has been well below its indicative budgetary ceiling; |
| --- | --- |

4.

welcomes the European Commission's proposal to continue the EGF for the period after 2013 and supports, in particular, the retention of aspects of the revised scope and intervention criteria that were introduced in 2009. Notes that the rising number of applications since then shows a clear demand for intervention based on events of 500 redundancies or less but accepts that usage of the EGF to date has been well below its indicative budgetary ceiling;

| 5. | supports the efforts to improve and simplify the EGF process but suggests that the following key challenges remain for the future of the EGF:






  — | more efficient and responsive – a truly rapid intervention mechanism; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

supports the efforts to improve and simplify the EGF process but suggests that the following key challenges remain for the future of the EGF:

—

more efficient and responsive – a truly rapid intervention mechanism;

| — | an appropriate and attractive option for Member States when faced with incidents of large redundancies, implying the need for simpler procedures, higher rates of co-financing; and greater flexibility in its application; and |
| --- | --- |

—

an appropriate and attractive option for Member States when faced with incidents of large redundancies, implying the need for simpler procedures, higher rates of co-financing; and greater flexibility in its application; and

| — | providing additionality – to go beyond and complement what other EU funds provide and supplementing measures required under national or community law or collective agreements; |
| --- | --- |

—

providing additionality – to go beyond and complement what other EU funds provide and supplementing measures required under national or community law or collective agreements;

| 6. | considers that the proposed extension of the EGF to farmers affected by trade agreements illustrates a fundamental inconsistency between the EU's trade policy and its agricultural policy; |
| --- | --- |

6.

considers that the proposed extension of the EGF to farmers affected by trade agreements illustrates a fundamental inconsistency between the EU's trade policy and its agricultural policy;

| 7. | considers that extending the EGF to the agricultural sector is a very radical change to the nature of the EGF and is concerned that this proposal creates in effect two EGFs, one for workers in the agricultural sector and another for other workers, with different criteria, application procedures and management and financial control arrangements; |
| --- | --- |

7.

considers that extending the EGF to the agricultural sector is a very radical change to the nature of the EGF and is concerned that this proposal creates in effect two EGFs, one for workers in the agricultural sector and another for other workers, with different criteria, application procedures and management and financial control arrangements;

| 8. | understands the rationale but questions whether the EGF and other proposed crisis mechanisms should be outside the scope of the Multiannual Financial Framework; |
| --- | --- |

8.

understands the rationale but questions whether the EGF and other proposed crisis mechanisms should be outside the scope of the Multiannual Financial Framework;

| 9. | regrets the decision of the Council not to continue the crisis derogation measures beyond 31 December 2011 (2), especially at a time when a number of economies are struggling to combat the impacts of the on-going ‘sovereign debt crisis’ and the resultant pressure on employment and deteriorating social conditions. Furthermore, regrets that this decision was taken at a time when the number of EGF applications has significantly increased, as a result of the derogations introduced in 2009, and when the Fund is delivering positive results; |
| --- | --- |

9.

regrets the decision of the Council not to continue the crisis derogation measures beyond 31 December 2011 (2), especially at a time when a number of economies are struggling to combat the impacts of the on-going ‘sovereign debt crisis’ and the resultant pressure on employment and deteriorating social conditions. Furthermore, regrets that this decision was taken at a time when the number of EGF applications has significantly increased, as a result of the derogations introduced in 2009, and when the Fund is delivering positive results;

| 10. | emphasises that the decision of the Council should not prejudice the negotiations on the proposed EGF for 2014-2020; |
| --- | --- |

10.

emphasises that the decision of the Council should not prejudice the negotiations on the proposed EGF for 2014-2020;

Coverage of the EGF

| 11. | welcomes the extension of the EGF to owner-managers of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and self employed workers but suggests that further clarification maybe required on the application of the EGF to the self-employed given the variation across the Member States on the unemployment status of such persons; |
| --- | --- |

11.

welcomes the extension of the EGF to owner-managers of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and self employed workers but suggests that further clarification maybe required on the application of the EGF to the self-employed given the variation across the Member States on the unemployment status of such persons;

| 12. | welcomes the flexibility to apply the EGF in small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances but suggests that the European Commission provides further guidance on criteria that will be applied in such circumstances; highlights that the extent of the impact of redundancy in a locality or region must be considered and not just the absolute number of redundancies; |
| --- | --- |

12.

welcomes the flexibility to apply the EGF in small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances but suggests that the European Commission provides further guidance on criteria that will be applied in such circumstances; highlights that the extent of the impact of redundancy in a locality or region must be considered and not just the absolute number of redundancies;

| 13. | supports the inclusion of a financial provision for investment in physical assets for self-employment and business start-ups as it will enhance the package of services that the EGF can support; and recommends that support under the enterprise pillar of the EGF should benefit from higher rates of co-financing than other pillars so as to encourage enterprise creation and entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

13.

supports the inclusion of a financial provision for investment in physical assets for self-employment and business start-ups as it will enhance the package of services that the EGF can support; and recommends that support under the enterprise pillar of the EGF should benefit from higher rates of co-financing than other pillars so as to encourage enterprise creation and entrepreneurship;

| 14. | highlights that access to third level education intervention is currently limited by the academic cycle, as the timing of the redundancy restricts the ability of the EGF to support affected workers for two full years of tuition; and proposes that redundant workers under the EGF should benefit from at least two full years of tuition with current restrictions being relaxed or funding front-loaded to allow for this; |
| --- | --- |

14.

highlights that access to third level education intervention is currently limited by the academic cycle, as the timing of the redundancy restricts the ability of the EGF to support affected workers for two full years of tuition; and proposes that redundant workers under the EGF should benefit from at least two full years of tuition with current restrictions being relaxed or funding front-loaded to allow for this;

| 15. | underlines that the EGF must only support additional measures and not replace actions required by national or community law or collective agreements; highlights that there have been conflicts between the aims of the EGF and the inflexible nature of some national policy frameworks, which can hinder the effectiveness of the EGF; encourages Member States to view the EGF as an opportunity to develop new and dynamic approaches to supporting workers made redundant; |
| --- | --- |

15.

underlines that the EGF must only support additional measures and not replace actions required by national or community law or collective agreements; highlights that there have been conflicts between the aims of the EGF and the inflexible nature of some national policy frameworks, which can hinder the effectiveness of the EGF; encourages Member States to view the EGF as an opportunity to develop new and dynamic approaches to supporting workers made redundant;

| 16. | welcomes the proposal to allow Member States the possibility to amend the package of support services to workers by adding other eligible actions; requests that a maximum period be set (of say one month) whereby the European Commission agrees to such changes; |
| --- | --- |

16.

welcomes the proposal to allow Member States the possibility to amend the package of support services to workers by adding other eligible actions; requests that a maximum period be set (of say one month) whereby the European Commission agrees to such changes;

The Application Process - Faster Intervention and Simpler Procedures

| 17. | appreciates the desire of the EU Institutions to speed-up the application and approval procedures but regrets that the proposal is somewhat inadequate for mobilising the EGF as a truly rapid intervention mechanism; |
| --- | --- |

17.

appreciates the desire of the EU Institutions to speed-up the application and approval procedures but regrets that the proposal is somewhat inadequate for mobilising the EGF as a truly rapid intervention mechanism;

| 18. | considers that some of the measures aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the EGF may in fact lead to greater administrative burdens and costs for the implementing authorities; underlines that more onerous control and reporting requirements may have the effect of making the EGF a less attractive option for Member States to deploy in times of employment crisis; |
| --- | --- |

18.

considers that some of the measures aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the EGF may in fact lead to greater administrative burdens and costs for the implementing authorities; underlines that more onerous control and reporting requirements may have the effect of making the EGF a less attractive option for Member States to deploy in times of employment crisis;

| 19. | considers that, in the absence of national redundancy provisions, the application process would benefit from a direct and early involvement of workers or their representatives and suggests that authorities need to incentivise workers engagement with the process by demonstrating that they will be getting additional supports (over and above statutory supports) via the EGF; |
| --- | --- |

19.

considers that, in the absence of national redundancy provisions, the application process would benefit from a direct and early involvement of workers or their representatives and suggests that authorities need to incentivise workers engagement with the process by demonstrating that they will be getting additional supports (over and above statutory supports) via the EGF;

| 20. | proposes also that Article 8.2 provide for applications to include a profile of the redundant workers and an initial assessment of their education and training needs and ambitions for enterprise creation, in order to tailor an appropriate package of personalised supports to meet workers' requirements and expectations from the Fund; |
| --- | --- |

20.

proposes also that Article 8.2 provide for applications to include a profile of the redundant workers and an initial assessment of their education and training needs and ambitions for enterprise creation, in order to tailor an appropriate package of personalised supports to meet workers' requirements and expectations from the Fund;

| 21. | proposes that as well as the social partners, Member States must also consult with the relevant local and regional authorities during the application process and applications should set out implementation procedures clearly, including inter-agency coordination, procedures for communicating with workers and informing them of the supports available and the procedures for applying; |
| --- | --- |

21.

proposes that as well as the social partners, Member States must also consult with the relevant local and regional authorities during the application process and applications should set out implementation procedures clearly, including inter-agency coordination, procedures for communicating with workers and informing them of the supports available and the procedures for applying;

| 22. | suggests that guidance on the submission of applications also have reference to labour market intelligence and in particular the EU skills panorama (3), so that measures funded under the EGF better match EU labour market needs and further considers that the mobility allowance provided for by the EGF Regulation could be used to support workers fill labour market skills gaps in other parts of the Union; |
| --- | --- |

22.

suggests that guidance on the submission of applications also have reference to labour market intelligence and in particular the EU skills panorama (3), so that measures funded under the EGF better match EU labour market needs and further considers that the mobility allowance provided for by the EGF Regulation could be used to support workers fill labour market skills gaps in other parts of the Union;

| 23. | welcomes efforts to simplify the eligibility of costs – however, experience has shown that Member States are reluctant to incur costs until there is a decision on an EGF application; points out that this is resulting in unnecessary delays, disillusionment of workers and undermines the effectiveness and credibility of the EGF and suggests that greater certainty is required if workers are to be supported quickly; |
| --- | --- |

23.

welcomes efforts to simplify the eligibility of costs – however, experience has shown that Member States are reluctant to incur costs until there is a decision on an EGF application; points out that this is resulting in unnecessary delays, disillusionment of workers and undermines the effectiveness and credibility of the EGF and suggests that greater certainty is required if workers are to be supported quickly;

| 24. | recommends that the next Inter-Institutional Agreement speed-up the approval process; but if not proposes that the European Commission provides an interim payment to Member States, after its initial assessment and verification of an application, in an effort to provide more certainty, address the time critical nature of redundancy and reduce the delay in providing EGF funded supports to redundant workers; |
| --- | --- |

24.

recommends that the next Inter-Institutional Agreement speed-up the approval process; but if not proposes that the European Commission provides an interim payment to Member States, after its initial assessment and verification of an application, in an effort to provide more certainty, address the time critical nature of redundancy and reduce the delay in providing EGF funded supports to redundant workers;

| 25. | would hope that the quality of applications improves as familiarity with the EGF develops and in this regard encourages Member States to retain collective knowledge of the Fund and its implementation; further suggests that the European Commission identify experts with experience of the EGF application process who can be deployed to provide pre-application advice and exchange experience with potential new applicants; |
| --- | --- |

25.

would hope that the quality of applications improves as familiarity with the EGF develops and in this regard encourages Member States to retain collective knowledge of the Fund and its implementation; further suggests that the European Commission identify experts with experience of the EGF application process who can be deployed to provide pre-application advice and exchange experience with potential new applicants;

Co-financing Rates

| 26. | bearing in mind the decision of the Council to reinstate the 50 % rate (from January 1, 2012), still supports the provision of a higher co-financing rate for the EGF than that proposed, in order to overcome the lack of co-financing resources and improve the attractiveness of the EGF; |
| --- | --- |

26.

bearing in mind the decision of the Council to reinstate the 50 % rate (from January 1, 2012), still supports the provision of a higher co-financing rate for the EGF than that proposed, in order to overcome the lack of co-financing resources and improve the attractiveness of the EGF;

| 27. | considers that the proposed model for modulation of the co-financing rate (of 50 %-65 %) is inappropriate; |
| --- | --- |

27.

considers that the proposed model for modulation of the co-financing rate (of 50 %-65 %) is inappropriate;

| 28. | welcomes that some provision is made to cover costs associated with preparatory, management, information, publicity, control and reporting activities of authorities implementing an EGF application (Art 7.3) and suggests that this should be no more than 5 % of total costs; |
| --- | --- |

28.

welcomes that some provision is made to cover costs associated with preparatory, management, information, publicity, control and reporting activities of authorities implementing an EGF application (Art 7.3) and suggests that this should be no more than 5 % of total costs;

Extending the EGF to include the Agricultural Sector

| 29. | opposes the extension of the EGF to include farmers, as proposed, and underlines that the negotiation of trade agreements must ensure coherence with the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy; |
| --- | --- |

29.

opposes the extension of the EGF to include farmers, as proposed, and underlines that the negotiation of trade agreements must ensure coherence with the aims of the Common Agricultural Policy;

| 30. | considers that the extension to the agricultural sector, by enabling farmers to adjust their activities within and/or outside agriculture, is partly inconsistent with the stated objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy to maintain agriculture in all territories and the desire to protect the diversity of the sector at European level; |
| --- | --- |

30.

considers that the extension to the agricultural sector, by enabling farmers to adjust their activities within and/or outside agriculture, is partly inconsistent with the stated objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy to maintain agriculture in all territories and the desire to protect the diversity of the sector at European level;

| 31. | asks, in the context of a reduced budget ceiling, a widening of the scope of beneficiaries and efforts to make the EGF more accessible/attractive, whether the balance in the proposed budgetary allocation is appropriate to the objective of the Fund, with a maximum of EUR 2.5 billion (of the EUR 3 billion total budget) being reserved for the agricultural sector; suggests that this would seem to be too high for the EGF as a rapid intervention instrument and too low to compensate for the projected real losses of the farming and food sectors if certain bilateral trade agreements are completed; |
| --- | --- |

31.

asks, in the context of a reduced budget ceiling, a widening of the scope of beneficiaries and efforts to make the EGF more accessible/attractive, whether the balance in the proposed budgetary allocation is appropriate to the objective of the Fund, with a maximum of EUR 2.5 billion (of the EUR 3 billion total budget) being reserved for the agricultural sector; suggests that this would seem to be too high for the EGF as a rapid intervention instrument and too low to compensate for the projected real losses of the farming and food sectors if certain bilateral trade agreements are completed;

| 32. | bearing in mind these fundamental reservations, of extending the scope to the agricultural sector, the Committee has a number of other comments on this aspect of the proposal:






  — | considers that the proposal is vague on when the EGF will apply to individual farmers, in particular, it's not clear what will be accepted as ‘adjustments’ to farm activity in response to market circumstances; |
| --- | --- | --- |

32.

bearing in mind these fundamental reservations, of extending the scope to the agricultural sector, the Committee has a number of other comments on this aspect of the proposal:

—

considers that the proposal is vague on when the EGF will apply to individual farmers, in particular, it's not clear what will be accepted as ‘adjustments’ to farm activity in response to market circumstances;

| — | feels, furthermore, that the proposed procedures for obtaining EGF support for the agricultural sector require the adoption of a number of delegated acts by the European Commission, which would require further consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

feels, furthermore, that the proposed procedures for obtaining EGF support for the agricultural sector require the adoption of a number of delegated acts by the European Commission, which would require further consideration;

| — | considers that the granting of support for a period of three years following the implementation of a trade agreement is insufficient given that the impact of such agreements on agricultural activity may not be immediate; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the granting of support for a period of three years following the implementation of a trade agreement is insufficient given that the impact of such agreements on agricultural activity may not be immediate;

| — | suggests that invoking the EGF for the agricultural sector should not be confined to farmers and farm workers but used to provide personalised supports to workers and suppliers in related downstream activities also affected by trade agreements, such as food processing; |
| --- | --- |

—

suggests that invoking the EGF for the agricultural sector should not be confined to farmers and farm workers but used to provide personalised supports to workers and suppliers in related downstream activities also affected by trade agreements, such as food processing;

| 33. | acknowledges that the Fund should not be used to provide income support to farmers adversely affected by a trade agreement; considers that links with the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) are not sufficiently well developed in the proposal and suggests that the European Commission provide more detail in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

33.

acknowledges that the Fund should not be used to provide income support to farmers adversely affected by a trade agreement; considers that links with the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) are not sufficiently well developed in the proposal and suggests that the European Commission provide more detail in this regard.

Role of Local and Regional Authorities

| 34. | highlights that the potential of local and regional authorities has not been fully exploited by Member States in the use of the EGF and invokes the principle of partnership and multi-level governance (4) in the preparation and implementation of EGF applications and in the, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Fund; |
| --- | --- |

34.

highlights that the potential of local and regional authorities has not been fully exploited by Member States in the use of the EGF and invokes the principle of partnership and multi-level governance (4) in the preparation and implementation of EGF applications and in the, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Fund;

| 35. | drawing on experiences to date, suggests that the EGF is more effective when there is a coordinated local inter-agency approach in the design and delivery of the coordinated package of measures for workers and when there are local points of contact to provide clear and consistent advice and guidance to redundant workers; |
| --- | --- |

35.

drawing on experiences to date, suggests that the EGF is more effective when there is a coordinated local inter-agency approach in the design and delivery of the coordinated package of measures for workers and when there are local points of contact to provide clear and consistent advice and guidance to redundant workers;

| 36. | highlights that the current Regulation allows Member States to designate regions to apply directly for support from the EGF; therefore encourages Member States to exercise this option more regularly, especially where regions have competence for training, education and/or a role in enterprise support and development; considers that this would overcome application delays and capacity issues at national level, where national ministries often do not have the necessary capability nor resources to design and deliver local/regional support services; |
| --- | --- |

36.

highlights that the current Regulation allows Member States to designate regions to apply directly for support from the EGF; therefore encourages Member States to exercise this option more regularly, especially where regions have competence for training, education and/or a role in enterprise support and development; considers that this would overcome application delays and capacity issues at national level, where national ministries often do not have the necessary capability nor resources to design and deliver local/regional support services;

| 37. | proposes that the European Commission compile a database of implementation best practice and that the guidance on the submission of applications (referred to in Art 12.2) include criteria on multi-level partnership; |
| --- | --- |

37.

proposes that the European Commission compile a database of implementation best practice and that the guidance on the submission of applications (referred to in Art 12.2) include criteria on multi-level partnership;

| 38. | feels that, during the on-going sovereign-debt crisis and the resultant pressure on public budgets, consideration may be given to extending the EGF to cases where the public sector is shedding significant numbers of employees and where this is having a negative effect on the labour market in some local/regional economies; |
| --- | --- |

38.

feels that, during the on-going sovereign-debt crisis and the resultant pressure on public budgets, consideration may be given to extending the EGF to cases where the public sector is shedding significant numbers of employees and where this is having a negative effect on the labour market in some local/regional economies;

| 39. | considers that the proposal would benefit from more explicit references to local and regional authorities, in particular in Art. 8.2 where applications should include information on the procedures for consulting with local/regional authorities and also identify the agencies delivering the package of measures and in Art. 11.4 on guidance to local/regional authorities in using the EGF; |
| --- | --- |

39.

considers that the proposal would benefit from more explicit references to local and regional authorities, in particular in Art. 8.2 where applications should include information on the procedures for consulting with local/regional authorities and also identify the agencies delivering the package of measures and in Art. 11.4 on guidance to local/regional authorities in using the EGF;

| 40. | considers that communication channels must be improved with; (a) clearer lines of communication between the authorities responsible for managing the EGF, from the European Commission to national and local/regional bodies; and (b) more effective personalised communication with beneficiary workers; and proposes in this regard that applications have a website with general information and a portal website allowing for confidential exchange of personal information between redundant workers and support agencies. |
| --- | --- |

40.

considers that communication channels must be improved with; (a) clearer lines of communication between the authorities responsible for managing the EGF, from the European Commission to national and local/regional bodies; and (b) more effective personalised communication with beneficiary workers; and proposes in this regard that applications have a website with general information and a portal website allowing for confidential exchange of personal information between redundant workers and support agencies.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital 10

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| When drawing up the coordinated package of active labour market policy measures, Member States should favour measures that will significantly contribute to the employability of the redundant workers. Member States should strive towards the reintegration into employment or new activities of at least 50 % of the targeted workers within 12 months of the date of application. | When drawing up the coordinated package of active labour market policy measures, Member States should favour measures that will significantly contribute to the employability of the redundant workers. Member States should strive towards the reintegration into employment or new activities of at least 50 % of the targeted workers within 12 months of the date of . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

When drawing up the coordinated package of active labour market policy measures, Member States should favour measures that will significantly contribute to the employability of the redundant workers. Member States should strive towards the reintegration into employment or new activities of at least 50 % of the targeted workers within 12 months of the date of application.

When drawing up the coordinated package of active labour market policy measures, Member States should favour measures that will significantly contribute to the employability of the redundant workers. Member States should strive towards the reintegration into employment or new activities of at least 50 % of the targeted workers within 12 months of the date of .

Reason

It takes on average 12 to 17 months from the moment of the application until the approval of funding. Many Member States and local and regional authorities are not in a position to make financial resources available during this period. The requirement for at least 50 % of workers to have returned to employment within 12 months of the date of application will in some cases mean that no application for financial support is made at all.

Amendment 2

Article 4, paragraph 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 4
  Intervention criteria
  2.   In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the applicant Member State, an application for a financial contribution under this Article may be considered admissible even if the criteria laid down in points (a) or (b) of paragraph 1 are not entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employment and the local economy. The Member State shall specify which of the intervention criteria set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 is not entirely met. | Article 4
  Intervention criteria
  2.   In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the applicant Member State, an application for a financial contribution under this Article may be considered admissible even if the criteria laid down in points (a) or (b) of paragraph 1 are not entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employment and the local economy. The Member State shall specify which of the intervention criteria set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 is not entirely met. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 4

Intervention criteria

2.   In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the applicant Member State, an application for a financial contribution under this Article may be considered admissible even if the criteria laid down in points (a) or (b) of paragraph 1 are not entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employment and the local economy. The Member State shall specify which of the intervention criteria set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 is not entirely met.

Article 4

Intervention criteria

2.   In small labour markets or in exceptional circumstances, where duly substantiated by the applicant Member State, an application for a financial contribution under this Article may be considered admissible even if the criteria laid down in points (a) or (b) of paragraph 1 are not entirely met, when redundancies have a serious impact on employment and the local economy. The Member State shall specify which of the intervention criteria set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 is not entirely met.

Reason

Recital (6) of the proposal covers this possibility and so, with a view to greater legal certainty, it should also be included in its articles. Since the proposal for an EGF directive explicitly mentions ‘remote regions’, the CoR considers it crucial that, on the basis of Article 349 TFEU, it be understood that the remote regions mean the outermost regions. This is so that they can also enjoy the series of derogations which would enable them to benefit fully from the Fund. It should also be borne in mind that the outermost regions contain the regions with the highest unemployment rates in Europe, and that the small size of their economies prevents them from building up businesses with the numbers of employees required to be eligible for EGF support, putting them at an obvious disadvantage.

Amendment 3

Article 8.2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The application shall include the following information:






  (a) | a reasoned analysis of the link between the redundancies and the major structural changes in world trade patterns, or the serious disruption of the local, regional or national economy caused by an unexpected crisis, or the new market situation in the agricultural sector in the Member State and resulting from the effects of a trade agreement initialled by the European Union in accordance with Article XXIV of the GATT or a multilateral agreement initialled within the World Trade Organisation as per Article 2(c). This analysis shall be based on statistical and other information at the most appropriate level to demonstrate the fulfilment of the intervention criteria set out in Article 4; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The application shall include the following information:

(a)

a reasoned analysis of the link between the redundancies and the major structural changes in world trade patterns, or the serious disruption of the local, regional or national economy caused by an unexpected crisis, or the new market situation in the agricultural sector in the Member State and resulting from the effects of a trade agreement initialled by the European Union in accordance with Article XXIV of the GATT or a multilateral agreement initialled within the World Trade Organisation as per Article 2(c). This analysis shall be based on statistical and other information at the most appropriate level to demonstrate the fulfilment of the intervention criteria set out in Article 4;

| (b) | an assessment of the number of redundancies in accordance with Article 5, and an explanation of the events giving rise to those redundancies; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

an assessment of the number of redundancies in accordance with Article 5, and an explanation of the events giving rise to those redundancies;

| (c) | the identification, where applicable, of the dismissing enterprises, suppliers or downstream producers, sectors, and the categories of targeted workers; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the identification, where applicable, of the dismissing enterprises, suppliers or downstream producers, sectors, and the categories of targeted workers;

| (d) | the expected impact of the redundancies as regards the local, regional or national economy and employment; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the expected impact of the redundancies as regards the local, regional or national economy and employment;

| (e) | the estimated budget for each of the components of the coordinated package of personalised services in support of the targeted workers; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the estimated budget for each of the components of the coordinated package of personalised services in support of the targeted workers;

| (f) | the dates on which the personalised services to the affected workers and the activities to implement EGF, as set out in Article 7(1) and (3) respectively, were started or are planned to be started; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the dates on which the personalised services to the affected workers and the activities to implement EGF, as set out in Article 7(1) and (3) respectively, were started or are planned to be started;

| (g) | the procedures followed for consulting the social partners or other relevant organisations as applicable; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

the procedures followed for consulting the social partners or other relevant organisations as applicable;

| (h) | a statement of compliance of the requested EGF support with the procedural and material Union rules on state aid as well as a statement that the personalised services do not replace measures that are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

a statement of compliance of the requested EGF support with the procedural and material Union rules on state aid as well as a statement that the personalised services do not replace measures that are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements;

| (i) | the sources of national co-funding; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the sources of national co-funding;

| (j) | if applicable, any further requirements which may have been laid down in the delegated act taken in accordance with Article 4(3). |
| --- | --- |

(j)

if applicable, any further requirements which may have been laid down in the delegated act taken in accordance with Article 4(3).

The application shall include the following information:

| (a) | a reasoned analysis of the link between the redundancies and the major structural changes in world trade patterns, or the serious disruption of the local, regional or national economy caused by an unexpected crisis, or the new market situation in the agricultural sector in the Member State and resulting from the effects of a trade agreement initialled by the European Union in accordance with Article XXIV of the GATT or a multilateral agreement initialled within the World Trade Organisation as per Article 2(c). This analysis shall be based on statistical and other information at the most appropriate level to demonstrate the fulfilment of the intervention criteria set out in Article 4; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a reasoned analysis of the link between the redundancies and the major structural changes in world trade patterns, or the serious disruption of the local, regional or national economy caused by an unexpected crisis, or the new market situation in the agricultural sector in the Member State and resulting from the effects of a trade agreement initialled by the European Union in accordance with Article XXIV of the GATT or a multilateral agreement initialled within the World Trade Organisation as per Article 2(c). This analysis shall be based on statistical and other information at the most appropriate level to demonstrate the fulfilment of the intervention criteria set out in Article 4;

| (b) | an assessment of the number of redundancies in accordance with Article 5, and an explanation of the events giving rise to those redundancies; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

an assessment of the number of redundancies in accordance with Article 5, and an explanation of the events giving rise to those redundancies;

| (c) | the identification, where applicable, of the dismissing enterprises, suppliers or downstream producers, sectors, and the categories of targeted workers; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the identification, where applicable, of the dismissing enterprises, suppliers or downstream producers, sectors, and the categories of targeted workers;

| (d) | the expected impact of the redundancies as regards the local, regional or national economy and employment; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the expected impact of the redundancies as regards the local, regional or national economy and employment;

| | |
| --- | --- |

()

| () | the estimated budget for each of the components of the coordinated package of personalised services in support of the targeted workers; |
| --- | --- |

the estimated budget for each of the components of the coordinated package of personalised services in support of the targeted workers;

| () | the dates on which the personalised services to the affected workers and the activities to implement EGF, as set out in Article 7(1) and (3) respectively, were started or are planned to be started; |
| --- | --- |

()

the dates on which the personalised services to the affected workers and the activities to implement EGF, as set out in Article 7(1) and (3) respectively, were started or are planned to be started;

| () | the procedures followed for consulting social partners, or other relevant organisations as applicable; |
| --- | --- |

()

the procedures followed for consulting social partners, or other relevant organisations as applicable;

| () | a statement of compliance of the requested EGF support with the procedural and material Union rules on state aid as well as a statement that the personalised services do not replace measures that are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements; |
| --- | --- |

()

a statement of compliance of the requested EGF support with the procedural and material Union rules on state aid as well as a statement that the personalised services do not replace measures that are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements;

| | |
| --- | --- |

()

| () | the sources of national co-funding; |
| --- | --- |

the sources of national co-funding;

| (j) | if applicable, any further requirements which may have been laid down in the delegated act taken in accordance with Article 4(3). |
| --- | --- |

(j)

if applicable, any further requirements which may have been laid down in the delegated act taken in accordance with Article 4(3).

Reason

These additions are included to ensure that applications for EGF assistance better meet redundant workers' needs and expectations and that the measures funded fully complement EU and national policy frameworks.

Amendment 4

Article 11.4

Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission's technical assistance shall include the provision of information and guidance to the Member States for using, monitoring and evaluating the EGF. The Commission may also provide information on using the EGF to the European and national social partners. | The Commission's technical assistance shall include the provision of information and guidance to the Member States for using, monitoring and evaluating the EGF. The Commission also provide on using the EGF to the European and national social partners |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission's technical assistance shall include the provision of information and guidance to the Member States for using, monitoring and evaluating the EGF. The Commission may also provide information on using the EGF to the European and national social partners.

The Commission's technical assistance shall include the provision of information and guidance to the Member States for using, monitoring and evaluating the EGF. The Commission also provide on using the EGF to the European and national social partners

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 5

Article 13.1

Determination of financial contribution

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall, on the basis of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 8(3), particularly taking into account the number of targeted workers, the proposed actions and the estimated costs, evaluate and propose as quickly as possible the amount of a financial contribution, if any, that may be made within the limits of the resources available. The amount may not exceed 50 % of the total of the estimated costs referred toin Article 8(2)(e) or 65 % of these costs in the case of applications submitted by a Member State on the territory of which at least one region at NUTS II level is eligible under the ‘Convergence’ objective of the Structural Funds. The Commission, in its assessment of such cases, will decide whether the 65 % co-funding rate is justified. | The Commission shall, on the basis of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 8(3), particularly taking into account the number of targeted workers, the proposed actions and the estimated costs, evaluate and propose as quickly as possible the amount of a financial contribution, if any, that may be made within the limits of the resources available. The amount may not exceed  % of the total of the estimated costs referred toin Article 8(2)(e) or  % of these costs in the case of applications submitted by a Member State on the territory of which at least one region at NUTS II level is of the Structural Funds The Commission, in its assessment of such cases, will decide whether the  % co-funding rate is justified |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall, on the basis of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 8(3), particularly taking into account the number of targeted workers, the proposed actions and the estimated costs, evaluate and propose as quickly as possible the amount of a financial contribution, if any, that may be made within the limits of the resources available. The amount may not exceed 50 % of the total of the estimated costs referred toin Article 8(2)(e) or 65 % of these costs in the case of applications submitted by a Member State on the territory of which at least one region at NUTS II level is eligible under the ‘Convergence’ objective of the Structural Funds. The Commission, in its assessment of such cases, will decide whether the 65 % co-funding rate is justified.

The Commission shall, on the basis of the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 8(3), particularly taking into account the number of targeted workers, the proposed actions and the estimated costs, evaluate and propose as quickly as possible the amount of a financial contribution, if any, that may be made within the limits of the resources available. The amount may not exceed  % of the total of the estimated costs referred toin Article 8(2)(e) or  % of these costs in the case of applications submitted by a Member State on the territory of which at least one region at NUTS II level is of the Structural Funds The Commission, in its assessment of such cases, will decide whether the  % co-funding rate is justified

Reason

The proposal from the European Commission lacks clarity, certainty and equity. In the context of the decision of the Employment Council on December 1, 2011, to return co-financing back to 50 %, the amendment proposes a higher basic rate co-financing and a higher rate for Member States feeling the worst effects of the current sovereign debt crisis, which should help overcome lack of co-financing resources and provide more certainty to Member States when making an application.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  COM(2011) 0500 final.

1

(2)  Employment Affairs Council, December 1, 2011.

2

(3)  As set out in the Europe 2020 flagship initiative, An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs.

3

(4)  Partnership and Multi-level Governance, as set out in the Regulation laying down common provisions for the Structural Funds and other EU funds (COM(2011) 615 final).

4

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/167 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/167

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘European Union programme for social change and innovation’

2012/C 225/13

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | reiterates the need to focus the action under the programme mainly on young people, who have been hit especially hard by the crisis: with more than 20 % of young people out of work, they should be made a priority. Similarly, great attention should be paid to the long-term unemployment, a group which currently represents an average of 3.8 % of the working age population in the EU Members States; |
| --- | --- |

—

reiterates the need to focus the action under the programme mainly on young people, who have been hit especially hard by the crisis: with more than 20 % of young people out of work, they should be made a priority. Similarly, great attention should be paid to the long-term unemployment, a group which currently represents an average of 3.8 % of the working age population in the EU Members States;

| — | reaffirms its belief that the project, in the part relating to social innovation, needs to dedicate a significantly higher portion of the funds than that specified by the Commission to actual experimentation, especially for projects linked to political priorities an in particular, the social inclusion of young people; |
| --- | --- |

—

reaffirms its belief that the project, in the part relating to social innovation, needs to dedicate a significantly higher portion of the funds than that specified by the Commission to actual experimentation, especially for projects linked to political priorities an in particular, the social inclusion of young people;

| — | restates the importance of support for geographical mobility of workers at European level and considers that EURES will be an increasingly useful instrument only if it successfully connects demand with supply of labour and if its results can be effectively assessed. The Committee underscores the contribution that regional and local authorities can make in this sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

restates the importance of support for geographical mobility of workers at European level and considers that EURES will be an increasingly useful instrument only if it successfully connects demand with supply of labour and if its results can be effectively assessed. The Committee underscores the contribution that regional and local authorities can make in this sector;

| — | nonetheless has doubts about the decision to remove the references to gender equality and tackling discrimination from the social innovation programme. |
| --- | --- |

—

nonetheless has doubts about the decision to remove the references to gender equality and tackling discrimination from the social innovation programme.

| Rapporteur | Enrico ROSSI (IT/PES), President of Tuscany Region |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation
  COM(2011) 609 final |

Rapporteur

Enrico ROSSI (IT/PES), President of Tuscany Region

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation

COM(2011) 609 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes the Commission's decision to present, for the period 2014-2020, the new Progress, Microfinance and EURES regulations, bringing them together in the Programme for Social Change and Innovation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the Commission's decision to present, for the period 2014-2020, the new Progress, Microfinance and EURES regulations, bringing them together in the Programme for Social Change and Innovation;

| 2. | stresses the importance of fleshing out the concept of social innovation, which it considers a key instrument for responding to the risks of social exclusion and combating it where it already exists, especially during a period of crisis that is in danger of jeopardising Europe's cohesion and its social model; |
| --- | --- |

2.

stresses the importance of fleshing out the concept of social innovation, which it considers a key instrument for responding to the risks of social exclusion and combating it where it already exists, especially during a period of crisis that is in danger of jeopardising Europe's cohesion and its social model;

| 3. | nonetheless has doubts about the decision to remove the references to gender equality and tackling discrimination from the social innovation programme; |
| --- | --- |

3.

nonetheless has doubts about the decision to remove the references to gender equality and tackling discrimination from the social innovation programme;

| 4. | reiterates the need to focus the action under the programme mainly on young people, who have been hit especially hard by the crisis: with more than 20 % of young people out of work, they should be made a priority. Similarly, great attention should be paid to the long-term unemployment, a group which currently represents an average of 3.8 % of the working age population in the EU Members States; |
| --- | --- |

4.

reiterates the need to focus the action under the programme mainly on young people, who have been hit especially hard by the crisis: with more than 20 % of young people out of work, they should be made a priority. Similarly, great attention should be paid to the long-term unemployment, a group which currently represents an average of 3.8 % of the working age population in the EU Members States;

| 5. | stresses also the need for a clearer definition of ‘social economy’, and refers in this regard in particular to the European Parliament report on Social Economy
   (1); |
| --- | --- |

5.

stresses also the need for a clearer definition of ‘social economy’, and refers in this regard in particular to the European Parliament report on Social Economy
   (1);

| 6. | reiterates the importance of consistency in the use of funds allocated to this programme and those of the European Social Fund. The Committee stresses the need for a commitment from the Commission and from regional authorities themselves to ensure such consistency, through the measures identified by the Commission. This could be reflected when the guidelines on public contracts and the project analysis procedures are being drafted; |
| --- | --- |

6.

reiterates the importance of consistency in the use of funds allocated to this programme and those of the European Social Fund. The Committee stresses the need for a commitment from the Commission and from regional authorities themselves to ensure such consistency, through the measures identified by the Commission. This could be reflected when the guidelines on public contracts and the project analysis procedures are being drafted;

| 7. | reaffirms its belief that the project, in the part relating to social innovation, needs to dedicate a significantly higher portion of the funds than that specified by the Commission to actual experimentation, especially for projects linked to political priorities an in particular, the social inclusion of young people; |
| --- | --- |

7.

reaffirms its belief that the project, in the part relating to social innovation, needs to dedicate a significantly higher portion of the funds than that specified by the Commission to actual experimentation, especially for projects linked to political priorities an in particular, the social inclusion of young people;

| 8. | confirms the importance of microcredits in the current political and economic climate. These should help citizens (especially young people and women) to start their own businesses, develop their entrepreneurship or build up operational capacity; |
| --- | --- |

8.

confirms the importance of microcredits in the current political and economic climate. These should help citizens (especially young people and women) to start their own businesses, develop their entrepreneurship or build up operational capacity;

| 9. | reiterates that, in this sector, too, the main focus should be on weak and vulnerable sections of the population or on social enterprises; recalls the efficiency hitherto demonstrated by microfinance experiments, both as regards the success of the investments and as regards the low rate of non-repayment of loans; |
| --- | --- |

9.

reiterates that, in this sector, too, the main focus should be on weak and vulnerable sections of the population or on social enterprises; recalls the efficiency hitherto demonstrated by microfinance experiments, both as regards the success of the investments and as regards the low rate of non-repayment of loans;

| 10. | restates the importance of support for geographical mobility of workers at European level and considers that EURES will be an increasingly useful instrument only if it successfully connects demand with supply of labour and if its results can be effectively assessed. The Committee underscores the contribution that regional and local authorities can make in this sector; |
| --- | --- |

10.

restates the importance of support for geographical mobility of workers at European level and considers that EURES will be an increasingly useful instrument only if it successfully connects demand with supply of labour and if its results can be effectively assessed. The Committee underscores the contribution that regional and local authorities can make in this sector;

| 11. | recalls that, notwithstanding the commitment of the institutions, significant practical obstacles remain to the geographical mobility of workers within the EU, particularly those who live in the regions furthest away from the continent or the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

11.

recalls that, notwithstanding the commitment of the institutions, significant practical obstacles remain to the geographical mobility of workers within the EU, particularly those who live in the regions furthest away from the continent or the outermost regions;

| 12. | calls for improvement of evaluation procedures so that the impact of the programme as a whole can be understood, and asks the Commission to commit to rapidly following up the envisaged final evaluations of equivalent ongoing programmes by making adjustments to the new programmes where appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

12.

calls for improvement of evaluation procedures so that the impact of the programme as a whole can be understood, and asks the Commission to commit to rapidly following up the envisaged final evaluations of equivalent ongoing programmes by making adjustments to the new programmes where appropriate;

| 13. | emphasises that social innovation makes it possible to respond to the risks of social exclusion and combat it where it already exists, especially during a crisis that is in danger of jeopardising Europe's cohesion and its social model.; points out that we are in real danger of a ‘generational crisis’ with incalculable consequences for our societal model and for the democratic system itself; therefore calls on Europe to shoulder its responsibility, and promote social experimentation and disseminate good practices that result from it so as to develop effective models for intervention that can be applied throughout the Union; |
| --- | --- |

13.

emphasises that social innovation makes it possible to respond to the risks of social exclusion and combat it where it already exists, especially during a crisis that is in danger of jeopardising Europe's cohesion and its social model.; points out that we are in real danger of a ‘generational crisis’ with incalculable consequences for our societal model and for the democratic system itself; therefore calls on Europe to shoulder its responsibility, and promote social experimentation and disseminate good practices that result from it so as to develop effective models for intervention that can be applied throughout the Union;

| 14. | recalls the Committee's opinion on the microfinance instrument
   (2) of 7 October 2009 and the importance that the microfinance facility could play in combating exclusion. The Committee's comments on the definition of the categories targeted by this instrument, and the statement that it is not an instrument for financing consumption but rather the setting-up or consolidation of innovative or social small businesses which have traditionally had trouble obtaining finance from traditional sources, should help clarify its purpose. Emphasises that European action remains secondary, i.e. supporting national, regional or local actors who supply microcredit; also emphasises that the importance of the instrument lies in creating a virtuous, self-sustaining mechanism for beneficiary enterprises that regenerates available funds thanks to the high reimbursement rate. Calls, therefore, for sound European regulation setting out the common factors at European level to harmonise or standardise practices relating to microcredit. The Committee also draws the Commission's attention to the positive examples of non-profit organisations already doing an excellent job of providing microcredit. To maintain this it is important that the EU does not develop its own parallel system, but rather support existing efforts; |
| --- | --- |

14.

recalls the Committee's opinion on the microfinance instrument
   (2) of 7 October 2009 and the importance that the microfinance facility could play in combating exclusion. The Committee's comments on the definition of the categories targeted by this instrument, and the statement that it is not an instrument for financing consumption but rather the setting-up or consolidation of innovative or social small businesses which have traditionally had trouble obtaining finance from traditional sources, should help clarify its purpose. Emphasises that European action remains secondary, i.e. supporting national, regional or local actors who supply microcredit; also emphasises that the importance of the instrument lies in creating a virtuous, self-sustaining mechanism for beneficiary enterprises that regenerates available funds thanks to the high reimbursement rate. Calls, therefore, for sound European regulation setting out the common factors at European level to harmonise or standardise practices relating to microcredit. The Committee also draws the Commission's attention to the positive examples of non-profit organisations already doing an excellent job of providing microcredit. To maintain this it is important that the EU does not develop its own parallel system, but rather support existing efforts;

| 15. | with regard to EURES, calls on the Commission to ensure that this instrument should become more effective by bringing supply into line with demand, and by availing itself of national and regional employment services; calls on EURES to do more to address the needs of young people looking for their first job by supporting the movement of people with no work experience, whilst taking into account that there is also a demand for young qualified workers in many smaller cities and rural areas; also stresses the need to adopt an ambitious approach to tackling the obstacles to the free movement of workers, including distance from the continent; the instrument should address these and not confine itself merely to job-matching activities; |
| --- | --- |

15.

with regard to EURES, calls on the Commission to ensure that this instrument should become more effective by bringing supply into line with demand, and by availing itself of national and regional employment services; calls on EURES to do more to address the needs of young people looking for their first job by supporting the movement of people with no work experience, whilst taking into account that there is also a demand for young qualified workers in many smaller cities and rural areas; also stresses the need to adopt an ambitious approach to tackling the obstacles to the free movement of workers, including distance from the continent; the instrument should address these and not confine itself merely to job-matching activities;

Specific issues

| 16. | is concerned about the removal, compared to the current Progress programme, of the reference to gender equality and non-discrimination, in light of two major risks: the shift of focus from the need to remove social barriers that hinder equality to the mere, traditional recognition of rights and the risk of fragmentation of innovative schemes in the social sphere; |
| --- | --- |

16.

is concerned about the removal, compared to the current Progress programme, of the reference to gender equality and non-discrimination, in light of two major risks: the shift of focus from the need to remove social barriers that hinder equality to the mere, traditional recognition of rights and the risk of fragmentation of innovative schemes in the social sphere;

| 17. | confirms that the programme's budget remains below needs, especially in the field of social experimentation, even though the Commission proposes that 17 % of the budget be used for this purpose; |
| --- | --- |

17.

confirms that the programme's budget remains below needs, especially in the field of social experimentation, even though the Commission proposes that 17 % of the budget be used for this purpose;

| 18. | with regard to the microfinance aspect, considers it necessary to repeat what was said in the Committee's 2009 opinion, not least considering that the programme has only been being implemented – with co-financing from the EIB and the EIF – for a little more than a year. Points out that particular additional attention should be given to specific actions to support microcredit operators to enable them to meet the minimum conditions of balance and sustainability, recalling that the effectiveness of microfinance measures is closely related to the size of the operators and the quality of microfinance services they provide. Hence the need to encourage and support national and/or regional microfinance networks that work as second-level support structures for individual local operators; |
| --- | --- |

18.

with regard to the microfinance aspect, considers it necessary to repeat what was said in the Committee's 2009 opinion, not least considering that the programme has only been being implemented – with co-financing from the EIB and the EIF – for a little more than a year. Points out that particular additional attention should be given to specific actions to support microcredit operators to enable them to meet the minimum conditions of balance and sustainability, recalling that the effectiveness of microfinance measures is closely related to the size of the operators and the quality of microfinance services they provide. Hence the need to encourage and support national and/or regional microfinance networks that work as second-level support structures for individual local operators;

| 19. | reiterates the need for consistency in European action when there are a number of programmes in the filed of innovation an microfinance; calls for greater consistency between the PSCI programme and the ESF to be guaranteed, taking account of the diversity of the managing entities – the Commission for this programme and the national and regional authorities for the Social Fund. In this regard, puts forward three proposals: a commitment by regions to use the Social Fund or other funds to apply established good practices; the possibility of the Committee of the Regions putting forward guidelines on the matter of consistency at the time of publication of calls for tender; where appropriate to the territorial dimension of the projects, the regional and local authorities concerned should issue an opinion on the individual projects put forward so as to ensure synergy and coordination with their use of the ESF; |
| --- | --- |

19.

reiterates the need for consistency in European action when there are a number of programmes in the filed of innovation an microfinance; calls for greater consistency between the PSCI programme and the ESF to be guaranteed, taking account of the diversity of the managing entities – the Commission for this programme and the national and regional authorities for the Social Fund. In this regard, puts forward three proposals: a commitment by regions to use the Social Fund or other funds to apply established good practices; the possibility of the Committee of the Regions putting forward guidelines on the matter of consistency at the time of publication of calls for tender; where appropriate to the territorial dimension of the projects, the regional and local authorities concerned should issue an opinion on the individual projects put forward so as to ensure synergy and coordination with their use of the ESF;

| 20. | finally, there is the problem, for the three axes of the programme, of carrying out more accurate evaluations of effectiveness, especially as regards microfinance and EURES, in order to know how much has been done or how many people have actually found work thanks to the programme. Considers that the Commission should commit to quicker presentation of the results of evaluations of ongoing programmes, which are to be published only after the new ones enter into force, and, if appropriate, to propose changes or enhancements to the latter. |
| --- | --- |

20.

finally, there is the problem, for the three axes of the programme, of carrying out more accurate evaluations of effectiveness, especially as regards microfinance and EURES, in order to know how much has been done or how many people have actually found work thanks to the programme. Considers that the Commission should commit to quicker presentation of the results of evaluations of ongoing programmes, which are to be published only after the new ones enter into force, and, if appropriate, to propose changes or enhancements to the latter.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Whereas (19)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (19) | Pursuant to Article 9 of the Treaty, the Programme should ensure that the requirements linked to the promotion of a high-level of employment, a guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion are taken into account in defining and implementing the Union's policies and activities. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(19)

Pursuant to Article 9 of the Treaty, the Programme should ensure that the requirements linked to the promotion of a high-level of employment, a guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion are taken into account in defining and implementing the Union's policies and activities.

| (19) | Pursuant to Article 9 of the Treaty, the Programme should ensure that the requirements linked to the promotion of a high-level of employment, a guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion are taken into account in defining and implementing the Union's policies and activities. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Pursuant to Article 9 of the Treaty, the Programme should ensure that the requirements linked to the promotion of a high-level of employment, a guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion are taken into account in defining and implementing the Union's policies and activities.

Reason

It is necessary to underline the need for coherence of the implementation of this programme with the EU 2020 strategy.

Amendment 2

Article 4, paragraph 1, new indent (f)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 4
  General objectives of the Programme
  1.   The Programme shall seek to achieve the following general objectives:






  (a) | ... |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 4

General objectives of the Programme

1.   The Programme shall seek to achieve the following general objectives:

(a)

...

| (b) | Support the development of adequate, accessible and efficient social protection systems and labour markets and facilitate policy reform, by promoting good governance, mutual learning and social innovation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Support the development of adequate, accessible and efficient social protection systems and labour markets and facilitate policy reform, by promoting good governance, mutual learning and social innovation;

| (c) | ... |
| --- | --- |

(c)

...

| (d) | Promote workers' geographical mobility and boost employment opportunities by developing Union labour markets that are open and accessible to all; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Promote workers' geographical mobility and boost employment opportunities by developing Union labour markets that are open and accessible to all;

| (e) | Promote employment and social inclusion by increasing the availability and accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises, and by increasing access to finance for social enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Promote employment and social inclusion by increasing the availability and accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises, and by increasing access to finance for social enterprises.

Article 4

General objectives of the Programme

1.   The Programme shall seek to achieve the following general objectives:

| (a) | Strengthen ownership of the Union objectives in the employment, social and working conditions fields among key Union and national policy-makers, as well as other interested parties in order to bring about concrete and coordinated actions at both Union and Member State level; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Strengthen ownership of the Union objectives in the employment, social and working conditions fields among key Union and national policy-makers, as well as other interested parties in order to bring about concrete and coordinated actions at both Union and Member State level;

| (b) | Support the development of adequate, accessible and efficient social protection systems and labour markets and facilitate policy reform, by promoting good governance, mutual learning and social innovation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Support the development of adequate, accessible and efficient social protection systems and labour markets and facilitate policy reform, by promoting good governance, mutual learning and social innovation;

| (c) | Modernise Union law in line with the Smart Regulation principles and ensure that Union law on matters relating to working conditions is effectively applied; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Modernise Union law in line with the Smart Regulation principles and ensure that Union law on matters relating to working conditions is effectively applied;

| (d) | Promote workers' geographical mobility and boost employment opportunities by developing Union labour markets that are open and accessible to all; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Promote workers' geographical mobility and boost employment opportunities by developing Union labour markets that are open and accessible to all;

| (e) | Promote employment and social inclusion by increasing the availability and accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises, and by increasing access to finance for social enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Promote employment and social inclusion by increasing the availability and accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises, and by increasing access to finance for social enterprises.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

For point b: It is necessary to promote the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the development of social protection systems. For point d: microfinance can be the only way for young people to start up or develop an enterprise. For point f: The active engagement of all relevant actors is a condition for this programme.

Amendment 3

Article 5, paragraph 2, indent a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   The following indicative percentages shall be allocated to the axes set out in Article 3 (1) as follows:






  (a) | 60 % to the Progress axis, of which at least 17 % shall be allocated to promoting social experimentation as a method for testing and evaluating innovative solutions with a view to scaling them up; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2.   The following indicative percentages shall be allocated to the axes set out in Article 3 (1) as follows:

(a)

60 % to the Progress axis, of which at least 17 % shall be allocated to promoting social experimentation as a method for testing and evaluating innovative solutions with a view to scaling them up;

| (b) | 15 % to the EURES axis; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

15 % to the EURES axis;

| (c) | 20 % to the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

20 % to the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis.

2.   The following indicative percentages shall be allocated to the axes set out in Article 3 (1) as follows:

| (a) | 60 % to the Progress axis, of which at least shall be allocated to promoting social experimentation as a method for testing and evaluating innovative solutions with a view to scaling them up |
| --- | --- |

(a)

60 % to the Progress axis, of which at least shall be allocated to promoting social experimentation as a method for testing and evaluating innovative solutions with a view to scaling them up

| (b) | 15 % to the EURES axis; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

15 % to the EURES axis;

| (c) | 20 % to the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

20 % to the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis.

Reason

It is very important to stress the need for specific attention to be given to concrete experimentation and to fighting youth unemployment, especially in the light of recent statistics.

Amendment 4

Article 8, paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Consistency and complementarity
  1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall ensure that activities carried out under the Programme are consistent with, and complementary to other Union action, in particular under the European Social Fund (ESF) and in such areas as social dialogue, justice and fundamental rights, education, vocational training and youth policy, research and innovation, entrepreneurship, health, enlargement and external relations, and general economic policy. | Consistency and complementarity
  1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall ensure that activities carried out under the Programme are consistent with, and complementary to other Union action, in particular under the European Social Fund (ESF) and in such areas as social dialogue, justice and fundamental rights, education, vocational training and youth policy, research and innovation, entrepreneurship, health, enlargement and external relations, and general economic policy. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Consistency and complementarity

1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall ensure that activities carried out under the Programme are consistent with, and complementary to other Union action, in particular under the European Social Fund (ESF) and in such areas as social dialogue, justice and fundamental rights, education, vocational training and youth policy, research and innovation, entrepreneurship, health, enlargement and external relations, and general economic policy.

Consistency and complementarity

1.   The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall ensure that activities carried out under the Programme are consistent with, and complementary to other Union action, in particular under the European Social Fund (ESF) and in such areas as social dialogue, justice and fundamental rights, education, vocational training and youth policy, research and innovation, entrepreneurship, health, enlargement and external relations, and general economic policy.

Reason

Given the relative scarcity of European and national public funds, it is of fundamental importance to ensure consistency and synergy in expenditure. For this reason, it is necessary to strengthen the operational continuity between experimental actions and the definition of good practice and actions under the operational funds such as the ERDF and, in particular, the ESF. In many situations, it is important to check the consistency between experimental expenditure and operational expenditure that is to follow, on the basis of the guidelines established by the competent regional authorities, without prejudice to the Commission's independence in decision-making on the approval of projects in compliance with the relevant rules.

Amendment 5

Article 13

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Monitoring
  With a view to regular monitoring of the Programme and making any adjustments needed to its policy and funding priorities, the Commission shall draw up biennial monitoring reports and send them to the European Parliament and the Council. Such reports shall cover the Programme's results and the extent to which gender equality and anti-discrimination considerations, including accessibility issues, have been addressed through its activities. | Monitoring
  With a view to regular monitoring of the Programme and making any adjustments needed to its policy and funding priorities, the Commission shall draw up biennial monitoring reports and send them to the European Parliament the Council . Such reports shall cover the Programme's results and the extent to which gender equality and anti-discrimination considerations, including accessibility issues, have been addressed through its activities. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Monitoring

With a view to regular monitoring of the Programme and making any adjustments needed to its policy and funding priorities, the Commission shall draw up biennial monitoring reports and send them to the European Parliament and the Council. Such reports shall cover the Programme's results and the extent to which gender equality and anti-discrimination considerations, including accessibility issues, have been addressed through its activities.

Monitoring

With a view to regular monitoring of the Programme and making any adjustments needed to its policy and funding priorities, the Commission shall draw up biennial monitoring reports and send them to the European Parliament the Council . Such reports shall cover the Programme's results and the extent to which gender equality and anti-discrimination considerations, including accessibility issues, have been addressed through its activities.

Reason

Many of the actions provided for in the Programme have significant effects on regional action or are driven by it. That is why the CoR must be able to issue an opinion to propose guidance to the Commission that is consistent with regional policy.

Amendment 6

Article 22

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 22
  Specific objectives
  In addition to the general objectives set out in Article 4, the specific objectives of the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis shall be to:






  1. | Increase access to, and the availability of, microfinance for:






  (a) | persons who have lost or are at risk of losing their jobs, or who have difficulty in entering or re-entering the labour market, persons at risk of social exclusion and vulnerable persons who are in a disadvantaged position with regard to access to the conventional credit market and who wish to start up or develop their own micro-enterprises; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 22

Specific objectives

In addition to the general objectives set out in Article 4, the specific objectives of the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis shall be to:

1.

Increase access to, and the availability of, microfinance for:

(a)

persons who have lost or are at risk of losing their jobs, or who have difficulty in entering or re-entering the labour market, persons at risk of social exclusion and vulnerable persons who are in a disadvantaged position with regard to access to the conventional credit market and who wish to start up or develop their own micro-enterprises;

| (b) | micro-enterprises, especially those which employ persons as referred to in point (a); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

micro-enterprises, especially those which employ persons as referred to in point (a);

| 2. | Build up the institutional capacity of microcredit providers; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Build up the institutional capacity of microcredit providers;

| 3. | Support the development of social enterprises, in particular by facilitating access to finance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Support the development of social enterprises, in particular by facilitating access to finance.

Article 22

Specific objectives

In addition to the general objectives set out in Article 4, the specific objectives of the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis shall be to:

| | access to, and availability of, microfinance for:






  (a) | persons who have lost or are at risk of losing their jobs, or who have difficulty in entering or re-entering the labour market, persons at risk of social exclusion, and vulnerable persons who are in a disadvantaged position with regard to access to the conventional credit market and who wish to start up or develop their own micro-enterprises, |
| --- | --- | --- |

access to, and availability of, microfinance for:

(a)

persons who have lost or are at risk of losing their jobs, or who have difficulty in entering or re-entering the labour market, persons at risk of social exclusion, and vulnerable persons who are in a disadvantaged position with regard to access to the conventional credit market and who wish to start up or develop their own micro-enterprises,

| (b) | micro-enterprises, especially those which employ persons as referred to in point (a); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

micro-enterprises, especially those which employ persons as referred to in point (a);

| | Build up the institutional capacity of microcredit providers, |
| --- | --- |

Build up the institutional capacity of microcredit providers,

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 4. | Support the development of social enterprises, in particular by facilitating access to finance. |
| --- | --- |

Support the development of social enterprises, in particular by facilitating access to finance.

Reason

The amendment to paragraph 1 is necessary to specify the categories of final beneficiaries of microcredit for the purposes of production or professional development. The second highlights an issue already raised by the European Commission itself and by civil society organisations dealing with microcredit, particularly at a time when entrepreneurship, including small business, needs to be stimulated and encouraged.

Amendment 7

Article 23

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Participation
  1.   Participation under the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis shall be open to public and private bodies established at national, regional or local level in the countries referred to in Article 16(1) and providing in those countries:






  (a) | microfinance for persons and micro-enterprises; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Participation

1.   Participation under the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis shall be open to public and private bodies established at national, regional or local level in the countries referred to in Article 16(1) and providing in those countries:

(a)

microfinance for persons and micro-enterprises;

| (b) | financing for social enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

financing for social enterprises.

2.   To reach out to the final beneficiaries and create competitive, viable micro-enterprises, public and private bodies that carry out activities as referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall cooperate closely with organisations representing the interests of the final beneficiaries of microcredit and with organisations, in particular those supported by the ESF, which provide mentoring and training programmes to such final beneficiaries.

3.   Public and private bodies that carry out activities as referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall adhere to high standards concerning governance, management and customer protection in line with the principles of the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision and shall seek to prevent persons and undertakings from becoming over-indebted.

Participation

1.   Participation under the Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship axis shall be open to public and private bodies established at national, regional or local level in the countries referred to in Article 16(1) and providing in those countries:

| (a) | microfinance for persons and micro-enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

microfinance for persons and micro-enterprises;

| (b) | financing for social enterprises. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

financing for social enterprises.

2.   To reach out to the final beneficiaries and create competitive, viable micro-enterprises, public and private bodies that carry out activities as referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall cooperate closely with organisations representing the interests of the final beneficiaries of microcredit and with organisations, in particular those supported by the ESF, which provide mentoring and training programmes to such final beneficiaries.

3.   Public and private bodies that carry out activities as referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall adhere to high standards concerning governance, management and customer protection in line with the principles of the European Code of Good Conduct for Microcredit Provision and shall seek to prevent persons and undertakings over-indebted.

Brussels, 3 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  European Parliament Report on the Social Economy (2008/2250(INI).

1

(2)  The ‘Progress’ Microfinance Facility CdR 224/2009.

2

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/174

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Legislative proposals on the reform of the common agricultural policy and rural development policy post-2013’

2012/C 225/14

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | considers that the Commission's proposals continue to fall far short of the thorough reform of the CAP which is needed to preserve Europe's agriculture and rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the Commission's proposals continue to fall far short of the thorough reform of the CAP which is needed to preserve Europe's agriculture and rural areas;

| — | considers that the Commission is making a strategic error by focusing on a posteriori crisis management in place of an upstream market regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the Commission is making a strategic error by focusing on a posteriori crisis management in place of an upstream market regulation;

| — | asks the Commission to reconsider the proposal to end the various quota and production rights systems; |
| --- | --- |

—

asks the Commission to reconsider the proposal to end the various quota and production rights systems;

| — | considers that it is vital to redress the balance of power within the food production chain in favour of producers; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that it is vital to redress the balance of power within the food production chain in favour of producers;

| — | considers that a review of the European Union's trade policy is vital for the agricultural sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that a review of the European Union's trade policy is vital for the agricultural sector;

| — | considers that the Commission's proposal to rebalance support is a vital step but feels that the Commission's proposal is insufficient for introducing greater competition at small and medium farms; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the Commission's proposal to rebalance support is a vital step but feels that the Commission's proposal is insufficient for introducing greater competition at small and medium farms;

| — | urges the Commission to lower the degressivity threshold to EUR 100 000 of aid, with a cap of EUR 200 000 per farm; |
| --- | --- |

—

urges the Commission to lower the degressivity threshold to EUR 100 000 of aid, with a cap of EUR 200 000 per farm;

| — | calls for full convergence at European level to be the subject of a provisional timetable; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for full convergence at European level to be the subject of a provisional timetable;

| — | asks that the instrument for promoting areas with specific natural constraints be used by Member States at 10 % of the annual national ceiling; |
| --- | --- |

—

asks that the instrument for promoting areas with specific natural constraints be used by Member States at 10 % of the annual national ceiling;

| — | considers that it is crucial to reserve sufficient EAFRD funds for the development of local infrastructure in rural areas and to ensure that rural authorities have access to cohesion policy funds under the ERDF as part of a holistic rural development policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that it is crucial to reserve sufficient EAFRD funds for the development of local infrastructure in rural areas and to ensure that rural authorities have access to cohesion policy funds under the ERDF as part of a holistic rural development policy;

| — | recommends greater application of subsidiarity in the reform to ensure more flexibility for Member States and regions; |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends greater application of subsidiarity in the reform to ensure more flexibility for Member States and regions;

| — | hopes that the option of implementing payments for agricultural practises beneficial for the climate and the environment at regional level could lead to the introduction of territorial pacts signed between regional authorities and groups of farmers; |
| --- | --- |

—

hopes that the option of implementing payments for agricultural practises beneficial for the climate and the environment at regional level could lead to the introduction of territorial pacts signed between regional authorities and groups of farmers;

| — | urges the full involvement of representatives of rural regions in drafting partnership contracts. |
| --- | --- |

—

urges the full involvement of representatives of rural regions in drafting partnership contracts.

| Rapporteur | René SOUCHON (FR/PES), President of the Auvergne Regional Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy
  COM(2011) 625 final/2
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO regulation)
  COM(2011) 626 final/2
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
  COM(2011) 627 final/2
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy
  COM(2011) 628 final/2
  Proposal for a Council Regulation determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products
  COM(2011) 629 final
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013
  COM(2011) 630 final
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine-growers
  COM(2011) 631 final |

Rapporteur

René SOUCHON (FR/PES), President of the Auvergne Regional Council

Reference documents

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy

COM(2011) 625 final/2

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO regulation)

COM(2011) 626 final/2

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

COM(2011) 627 final/2

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy

COM(2011) 628 final/2

Proposal for a Council Regulation determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products

COM(2011) 629 final

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards the application of direct payments to farmers in respect of the year 2013

COM(2011) 630 final

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the regime of the single payment scheme and support to vine-growers

COM(2011) 631 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

CAP priorities

| 1. | endorses the objectives set out by the European Commission for the future Common Agricultural Policy in the area of the sustainable management of natural resources, food security, agricultural activity across Europe, balanced regional development, the competitiveness of European farming and the simplification of the CAP; |
| --- | --- |

1.

endorses the objectives set out by the European Commission for the future Common Agricultural Policy in the area of the sustainable management of natural resources, food security, agricultural activity across Europe, balanced regional development, the competitiveness of European farming and the simplification of the CAP;

| 2. | considers, nevertheless, that the Commission's proposals continue to fall far short of the thorough reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which is needed to preserve Europe's agriculture and rural areas and which must be shaped by the expectations of European farms, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and ensure equal treatment of all European farmers; |
| --- | --- |

2.

considers, nevertheless, that the Commission's proposals continue to fall far short of the thorough reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which is needed to preserve Europe's agriculture and rural areas and which must be shaped by the expectations of European farms, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and ensure equal treatment of all European farmers;

| 3. | considers that the Common Agricultural Policy, as provided for under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, must enable the rural population to enjoy a fair standard of living that is comparable with that of the general population. This objective should be supported by market stabilisation measures to ensure regular prices for producers, while at the same time guaranteeing reasonable prices for consumers; |
| --- | --- |

3.

considers that the Common Agricultural Policy, as provided for under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, must enable the rural population to enjoy a fair standard of living that is comparable with that of the general population. This objective should be supported by market stabilisation measures to ensure regular prices for producers, while at the same time guaranteeing reasonable prices for consumers;

| 4. | considers that the Commission's proposal to rebalance support is a vital step but feels that the Commission's proposal is insufficient for introducing greater competition at small and medium farms, areas facing specific natural constraints, island regions and certain fragile industries, and would like other criteria, especially employment, to be taken into account to ensure that support is rebalanced; |
| --- | --- |

4.

considers that the Commission's proposal to rebalance support is a vital step but feels that the Commission's proposal is insufficient for introducing greater competition at small and medium farms, areas facing specific natural constraints, island regions and certain fragile industries, and would like other criteria, especially employment, to be taken into account to ensure that support is rebalanced;

| 5. | recommends greater application of subsidiarity in the reform to ensure more flexibility for Member States and regions; |
| --- | --- |

5.

recommends greater application of subsidiarity in the reform to ensure more flexibility for Member States and regions;

| 6. | considers it especially important for farmers that the administrative rules for implementing the Common Agricultural Policy be simplified, but does feel that such simplification should not be reflected in an excessive standardisation of the criteria to be taken into account, which could run counter to the preservation of specific local and regional features; |
| --- | --- |

6.

considers it especially important for farmers that the administrative rules for implementing the Common Agricultural Policy be simplified, but does feel that such simplification should not be reflected in an excessive standardisation of the criteria to be taken into account, which could run counter to the preservation of specific local and regional features;

| 7. | considers it vital that the Common Agricultural Policy should be able to promote the quality of its agricultural production more widely, in particular production that has an official agricultural quality label. Accordingly calls on the European Commission to ensure a closer link between the Common Agricultural Policy and agricultural product quality policy; |
| --- | --- |

7.

considers it vital that the Common Agricultural Policy should be able to promote the quality of its agricultural production more widely, in particular production that has an official agricultural quality label. Accordingly calls on the European Commission to ensure a closer link between the Common Agricultural Policy and agricultural product quality policy;

Market regulation

| 8. | considers that the market regulation measures put forward by the Commission are disappointing and represent a veritable step backwards for the development of the Common Agricultural Policy. While market stabilisation is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Commission has not put forward any effective mechanism for the public control of production; |
| --- | --- |

8.

considers that the market regulation measures put forward by the Commission are disappointing and represent a veritable step backwards for the development of the Common Agricultural Policy. While market stabilisation is enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Commission has not put forward any effective mechanism for the public control of production;

| 9. | considers that the Commission is making a strategic error by focusing on a posteriori crisis management in place of an upstream regulation that would enable price volatility to be tackled effectively and at a lower cost; |
| --- | --- |

9.

considers that the Commission is making a strategic error by focusing on a posteriori crisis management in place of an upstream regulation that would enable price volatility to be tackled effectively and at a lower cost;

| 10. | asks the Commission, when the results of the new impact assessments are known, to reconsider the proposal to end the various quota and production rights systems (for sugar, milk and vine plantation rights), particularly as regards less-favoured areas, specifically mountain areas; |
| --- | --- |

10.

asks the Commission, when the results of the new impact assessments are known, to reconsider the proposal to end the various quota and production rights systems (for sugar, milk and vine plantation rights), particularly as regards less-favoured areas, specifically mountain areas;

| 11. | calls on the Commission to safeguard Community Preference Mechanisms (1) and to focus on intervention and storage mechanisms (public and private); |
| --- | --- |

11.

calls on the Commission to safeguard Community Preference Mechanisms (1) and to focus on intervention and storage mechanisms (public and private);

| 12. | considers that in order to achieve the food security objective established by the Commission for the future Common Agricultural Policy it is vital to redress the balance of power within the food production chain in favour of producers; |
| --- | --- |

12.

considers that in order to achieve the food security objective established by the Commission for the future Common Agricultural Policy it is vital to redress the balance of power within the food production chain in favour of producers;

| 13. | considers that a review of the European Union's trade policy is vital for the agricultural sector, which must not be used as a bargaining chip for the sole benefit of developing exports towards third countries in the industry and services sectors; |
| --- | --- |

13.

considers that a review of the European Union's trade policy is vital for the agricultural sector, which must not be used as a bargaining chip for the sole benefit of developing exports towards third countries in the industry and services sectors;

| 14. | considers that the European Fund for Globalisation, which has some EUR 2,5 billion, is poorly adapted for tackling the consequences of such trade agreements on the agricultural sector. In particular, it is not intended to cushion the foreseeable impact of the bilateral trade agreements currently under negotiation; |
| --- | --- |

14.

considers that the European Fund for Globalisation, which has some EUR 2,5 billion, is poorly adapted for tackling the consequences of such trade agreements on the agricultural sector. In particular, it is not intended to cushion the foreseeable impact of the bilateral trade agreements currently under negotiation;

Convergence

| 15. | considers that local and regional authorities, with due respect for the institutional framework of each Member State, have every right to participate in the implementation of the CAP under the first pillar as the participation of regional government can allow support to be allocated more effectively, in line with the social, environmental, agronomic and local specificities of the type of agriculture in question and thus ensure the more efficient use of funds; |
| --- | --- |

15.

considers that local and regional authorities, with due respect for the institutional framework of each Member State, have every right to participate in the implementation of the CAP under the first pillar as the participation of regional government can allow support to be allocated more effectively, in line with the social, environmental, agronomic and local specificities of the type of agriculture in question and thus ensure the more efficient use of funds;

| 16. | welcomes the fact that the Commission's proposal abandons the use of historical references which represented an unequal and unfair system for the distribution of support among farmers; |
| --- | --- |

16.

welcomes the fact that the Commission's proposal abandons the use of historical references which represented an unequal and unfair system for the distribution of support among farmers;

| 17. | considers nonetheless that the distribution of support proposed by the Commission continues to be too unequal as regards the new Member States and particularly the Baltic countries, which receive the smallest direct payments in the European Union, and regrets that the Commission has not specified any deadline for full convergence between the Member States. The conditions and resulting timetable should take account of production costs in each Member State; |
| --- | --- |

17.

considers nonetheless that the distribution of support proposed by the Commission continues to be too unequal as regards the new Member States and particularly the Baltic countries, which receive the smallest direct payments in the European Union, and regrets that the Commission has not specified any deadline for full convergence between the Member States. The conditions and resulting timetable should take account of production costs in each Member State;

| 18. | hopes that the convergence of the basic payments within each Member State will be carried out on a gradual basis but over a reasonable period which also takes account of the Member States' different starting points, and that full convergence at European level will be the subject of a provisional timetable; |
| --- | --- |

18.

hopes that the convergence of the basic payments within each Member State will be carried out on a gradual basis but over a reasonable period which also takes account of the Member States' different starting points, and that full convergence at European level will be the subject of a provisional timetable;

Degressivity and capping

| 19. | urges the Commission to lower the degressivity threshold to EUR 100 000 of aid, with a cap of EUR 200 000 per farm, by subtracting the salaries effectively paid and declared, including remuneration for the work of the farmer; |
| --- | --- |

19.

urges the Commission to lower the degressivity threshold to EUR 100 000 of aid, with a cap of EUR 200 000 per farm, by subtracting the salaries effectively paid and declared, including remuneration for the work of the farmer;

| 20. | calls on the Commission to enable the funds resulting from this degressivity to be directed at measures and actions determined by a Member States for its territory; |
| --- | --- |

20.

calls on the Commission to enable the funds resulting from this degressivity to be directed at measures and actions determined by a Member States for its territory;

Coupling

| 21. | considers that it is vital to retain aid coupling for certain forms of production or in selected fragile regions in order to achieve an adequate level of production and added value; |
| --- | --- |

21.

considers that it is vital to retain aid coupling for certain forms of production or in selected fragile regions in order to achieve an adequate level of production and added value;

| 22. | urges the Commission to ensure that the Member States may grant coupled support to farmers, deciding themselves which agricultural sectors are facing a certain number of difficulties and are of particular importance for economic, social or environmental reasons; also calls on the Commission to strengthen the rules on coupling in areas facing specific natural constraints and in island and the outermost regions by taking into account, in addition to the productions already mentioned in the draft regulation, agricultural productions subject to official agricultural product quality labels, including organic labels; |
| --- | --- |

22.

urges the Commission to ensure that the Member States may grant coupled support to farmers, deciding themselves which agricultural sectors are facing a certain number of difficulties and are of particular importance for economic, social or environmental reasons; also calls on the Commission to strengthen the rules on coupling in areas facing specific natural constraints and in island and the outermost regions by taking into account, in addition to the productions already mentioned in the draft regulation, agricultural productions subject to official agricultural product quality labels, including organic labels;

| 23. | believes that to give substance to European agricultural market stabilisation strategies, without setting up artificial support systems under the second pillar, it would be worth implementing risk management measures, which should removed from rural development; |
| --- | --- |

23.

believes that to give substance to European agricultural market stabilisation strategies, without setting up artificial support systems under the second pillar, it would be worth implementing risk management measures, which should removed from rural development;

Agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment

| 24. | considers the change in the European agricultural model advocated by the Commission as part of greening to be necessary but believes that the schedule of greening measures is too rigid to deliver tailor-made regional or local solutions and contribute optimally to achieving the Europe 2020 goals; |
| --- | --- |

24.

considers the change in the European agricultural model advocated by the Commission as part of greening to be necessary but believes that the schedule of greening measures is too rigid to deliver tailor-made regional or local solutions and contribute optimally to achieving the Europe 2020 goals;

| 25. | considers that the progress towards sustainable modes of production for European agriculture as well as its adaptation to climate change must be accompanied by increased support for innovative agricultural applications. The European Union's mission to create an innovative and sustainable economy requires more synergies between sustainable agricultural and fisheries policy, climate and energy policy, regional policy and research policy. The CoR draws attention here to the value of food research and the potential of innovative applications in the bio-based sector; |
| --- | --- |

25.

considers that the progress towards sustainable modes of production for European agriculture as well as its adaptation to climate change must be accompanied by increased support for innovative agricultural applications. The European Union's mission to create an innovative and sustainable economy requires more synergies between sustainable agricultural and fisheries policy, climate and energy policy, regional policy and research policy. The CoR draws attention here to the value of food research and the potential of innovative applications in the bio-based sector;

| 26. | considers that the measures proposed by the Commission are poorly adapted as they are too general in nature and therefore urges a greater degree of subsidiarity so that these measures may be rolled out as closely as possible to local agronomic, environmental and socio-economic realities on the ground, by conferring on local and regional authorities the power to initiate and manage targeted environmental measures and allowing them to introduce territorial contracts which are signed jointly with farmers or their representatives. The Committee would also argue that it must be made possible for all farms to have access, by means of a broad review of the categories of measure available; |
| --- | --- |

26.

considers that the measures proposed by the Commission are poorly adapted as they are too general in nature and therefore urges a greater degree of subsidiarity so that these measures may be rolled out as closely as possible to local agronomic, environmental and socio-economic realities on the ground, by conferring on local and regional authorities the power to initiate and manage targeted environmental measures and allowing them to introduce territorial contracts which are signed jointly with farmers or their representatives. The Committee would also argue that it must be made possible for all farms to have access, by means of a broad review of the categories of measure available;

| 27. | considers that farmers who have obtained agro-environmental labels recognised by the Member States should be able to fully benefit from support for greening, provided that the specifications for such procedures are stringent and officially recognised by the European Commission, in order to ensure an equivalent basis in terms of requirements throughout all Member States; |
| --- | --- |

27.

considers that farmers who have obtained agro-environmental labels recognised by the Member States should be able to fully benefit from support for greening, provided that the specifications for such procedures are stringent and officially recognised by the European Commission, in order to ensure an equivalent basis in terms of requirements throughout all Member States;

| 28. | considers that the 7 % threshold for agricultural land that is to be transformed into ecological focus areas, land which is effectively rendered non-productive, may be too high in certain cases, calls on the Commission to introduce some flexibility and requests that regions be allowed to set this rate based on local circumstances and to consider including permanent grazing areas; |
| --- | --- |

28.

considers that the 7 % threshold for agricultural land that is to be transformed into ecological focus areas, land which is effectively rendered non-productive, may be too high in certain cases, calls on the Commission to introduce some flexibility and requests that regions be allowed to set this rate based on local circumstances and to consider including permanent grazing areas;

| 29. | calls on the Commission to propose, using suitable instruments, the implementation of a ‘protein plan’ at European level to support the development of protein and legume crops, in order to ensure protein autonomy for European livestock farmers, reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizers and improve soil fertility; |
| --- | --- |

29.

calls on the Commission to propose, using suitable instruments, the implementation of a ‘protein plan’ at European level to support the development of protein and legume crops, in order to ensure protein autonomy for European livestock farmers, reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizers and improve soil fertility;

| 30. | calls on the Commission to modify the proposal's definition of permanent grassland and to maintain the definition in force, without the requirement for grasses to predominate; |
| --- | --- |

30.

calls on the Commission to modify the proposal's definition of permanent grassland and to maintain the definition in force, without the requirement for grasses to predominate;

Areas facing specific natural constraints

| 31. | asks that the instrument for promoting areas with specific natural constraints be made mandatory for all Member States. This provision would thus constitute a separate third level of aid that could complement the basic payment and greening payment; |
| --- | --- |

31.

asks that the instrument for promoting areas with specific natural constraints be made mandatory for all Member States. This provision would thus constitute a separate third level of aid that could complement the basic payment and greening payment;

| 32. | asks that the instrument for promoting areas with specific natural constraints be used by Member States at 10 % of the annual national ceiling; |
| --- | --- |

32.

asks that the instrument for promoting areas with specific natural constraints be used by Member States at 10 % of the annual national ceiling;

| 33. | calls for the definition of areas with natural and specific constraints to be widened to include territorial cohesion and land-planning criteria so as to take into account factors such as isolation, access to infrastructure and the fragility of particular ecosystems, in accordance with previous recommendations issued by the Committee of the Regions (2); |
| --- | --- |

33.

calls for the definition of areas with natural and specific constraints to be widened to include territorial cohesion and land-planning criteria so as to take into account factors such as isolation, access to infrastructure and the fragility of particular ecosystems, in accordance with previous recommendations issued by the Committee of the Regions (2);

Installation

| 34. | considers that the Commission's proposal for an additional special form of aid for young farmers that will top up the basic payments is a step in the right direction but that it does not go far enough, and should be made a voluntary measure; |
| --- | --- |

34.

considers that the Commission's proposal for an additional special form of aid for young farmers that will top up the basic payments is a step in the right direction but that it does not go far enough, and should be made a voluntary measure;

| 35. | calls on the Commission to adopt a more determined approach to encourage installation; |
| --- | --- |

35.

calls on the Commission to adopt a more determined approach to encourage installation;

| 36. | considers that the problem of installation is above all linked to difficulties with access to land or bank loans and therefore calls for the Member States to be encouraged to provide land and bank guarantee measures, with due regard for the subsidiarity principle; |
| --- | --- |

36.

considers that the problem of installation is above all linked to difficulties with access to land or bank loans and therefore calls for the Member States to be encouraged to provide land and bank guarantee measures, with due regard for the subsidiarity principle;

Active Farmers and Small Farmers

| 37. | calls on the Commission to be more specific when defining the concept of active farmer in order to prevent direct payments being granted to natural or legal persons who do not participate directly in the management and work at a farm; |
| --- | --- |

37.

calls on the Commission to be more specific when defining the concept of active farmer in order to prevent direct payments being granted to natural or legal persons who do not participate directly in the management and work at a farm;

| 38. | considers that the Commission's proposal to recognise the specific status of small farmers is important since agricultural accounts for a significant percentage of rural employment in several EU Member States and considers that this scheme will help simplify the Common Agricultural Policy but asks that the minimum support threshold be raised to EUR 1 000; |
| --- | --- |

38.

considers that the Commission's proposal to recognise the specific status of small farmers is important since agricultural accounts for a significant percentage of rural employment in several EU Member States and considers that this scheme will help simplify the Common Agricultural Policy but asks that the minimum support threshold be raised to EUR 1 000;

Rural Development

| 39. | welcomes the proposal for a Common Strategic Framework for all structural funds, including the EAFRD; |
| --- | --- |

39.

welcomes the proposal for a Common Strategic Framework for all structural funds, including the EAFRD;

| 40. | considers that implementation of the Common Strategic Framework may provide an opportunity to extend the zoning arrangements applied in cohesion policy to cover rural development policy. Such an extension would be along the lines of improved harmonisation of co-financing levels; therefore urges the Commission to examine the consequences of such an extension; |
| --- | --- |

40.

considers that implementation of the Common Strategic Framework may provide an opportunity to extend the zoning arrangements applied in cohesion policy to cover rural development policy. Such an extension would be along the lines of improved harmonisation of co-financing levels; therefore urges the Commission to examine the consequences of such an extension;

| 41. | considers that the Commission's intention to incorporate rural development within the Europe 2020 strategy and to integrate it as part of the new Common Strategic Framework alongside the ERDF, ESF, CF and EMFF represents an opportunity to ensure the harmonious and integrated development of rural areas. In many European Union Member States, rural areas are not synonymous with agriculture, but are also home to small business operations and housing; |
| --- | --- |

41.

considers that the Commission's intention to incorporate rural development within the Europe 2020 strategy and to integrate it as part of the new Common Strategic Framework alongside the ERDF, ESF, CF and EMFF represents an opportunity to ensure the harmonious and integrated development of rural areas. In many European Union Member States, rural areas are not synonymous with agriculture, but are also home to small business operations and housing;

| 42. | therefore considers that it is crucial to reserve sufficient EAFRD funds for the development of local infrastructure in rural areas and to ensure that rural authorities have access to cohesion policy funds under the ERDF as part of a holistic rural development policy; |
| --- | --- |

42.

therefore considers that it is crucial to reserve sufficient EAFRD funds for the development of local infrastructure in rural areas and to ensure that rural authorities have access to cohesion policy funds under the ERDF as part of a holistic rural development policy;

| 43. | considers that, when defining disadvantaged areas, EU-wide, common and comparable objective criteria should be used; considers that in order to achieve this, the new definition of such areas should be used, although this definition should incorporate other criteria to cater for the needs and specific characteristics of rural areas across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

43.

considers that, when defining disadvantaged areas, EU-wide, common and comparable objective criteria should be used; considers that in order to achieve this, the new definition of such areas should be used, although this definition should incorporate other criteria to cater for the needs and specific characteristics of rural areas across the EU;

| 44. | notes that the six priorities outlined seem to be only very loosely related to one another, and with the eleven thematic objectives of the Common Provisions Regulation, and that this new structure neither matches the current Regulation, which is structured around four axes, nor facilitates an integrated approach with the other funds under a Common Strategic Framework; |
| --- | --- |

44.

notes that the six priorities outlined seem to be only very loosely related to one another, and with the eleven thematic objectives of the Common Provisions Regulation, and that this new structure neither matches the current Regulation, which is structured around four axes, nor facilitates an integrated approach with the other funds under a Common Strategic Framework;

| 45. | accordingly urges the Commission to establish a European regional development strategy, which may be adapted by each Member State within the framework of the partnership contracts at regional level; |
| --- | --- |

45.

accordingly urges the Commission to establish a European regional development strategy, which may be adapted by each Member State within the framework of the partnership contracts at regional level;

| 46. | supports the possibility of transferring up to 10 % of the funds from the first to the second pillar; |
| --- | --- |

46.

supports the possibility of transferring up to 10 % of the funds from the first to the second pillar;

| 47. | welcomes the fact that the new Common Provisions Regulation provides common rules to be shared between EAFRD with ERDF, ESF, CF and EMFF and sees this as a crucial breakthrough to ensure integrated territorial approaches delivered jointly across these funds; |
| --- | --- |

47.

welcomes the fact that the new Common Provisions Regulation provides common rules to be shared between EAFRD with ERDF, ESF, CF and EMFF and sees this as a crucial breakthrough to ensure integrated territorial approaches delivered jointly across these funds;

| 48. | considers that it is vital for the Rural Development Regulation to participate in introducing more dynamism into non-agricultural employment in rural areas but also considers it equally important that all structural funds take account of rural issues, and is concerned by the developments regarding the support that the European Union has earmarked for rural areas which have not been mentioned in the new ERDF Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

48.

considers that it is vital for the Rural Development Regulation to participate in introducing more dynamism into non-agricultural employment in rural areas but also considers it equally important that all structural funds take account of rural issues, and is concerned by the developments regarding the support that the European Union has earmarked for rural areas which have not been mentioned in the new ERDF Regulation;

| 49. | feels that it is not advisable to include a mechanism for the management of rural development risks and, accordingly, urges the Commission to withdraw this measure from the Regulation by giving preference to regulatory measures in the first pillar; |
| --- | --- |

49.

feels that it is not advisable to include a mechanism for the management of rural development risks and, accordingly, urges the Commission to withdraw this measure from the Regulation by giving preference to regulatory measures in the first pillar;

| 50. | strongly welcomes the fact that the LEADER provisions have now been enlarged to cover the other funds through a new community-led Local Development approach, which will ensure integrated delivery of local development strategies and be supported by the most suitable funds; |
| --- | --- |

50.

strongly welcomes the fact that the LEADER provisions have now been enlarged to cover the other funds through a new community-led Local Development approach, which will ensure integrated delivery of local development strategies and be supported by the most suitable funds;

| 51. | draws attention to the particular role played by farmers and rural areas in peri-urban areas in promoting solutions that meet the Europe 2020 objectives and considers that peri-urban agricultural areas have specific advantages and constraints justifying the implementation of thematic sub-programmes under the second pillar; |
| --- | --- |

51.

draws attention to the particular role played by farmers and rural areas in peri-urban areas in promoting solutions that meet the Europe 2020 objectives and considers that peri-urban agricultural areas have specific advantages and constraints justifying the implementation of thematic sub-programmes under the second pillar;

Governance

| 52. | considers that it is vital for local and regional authorities – in their capacity as co-financers – to play a central role in implementing the Regulation on Rural Development, and believes that an approach based on local and regional projects can ensure the more effective and efficient use of EU funds; |
| --- | --- |

52.

considers that it is vital for local and regional authorities – in their capacity as co-financers – to play a central role in implementing the Regulation on Rural Development, and believes that an approach based on local and regional projects can ensure the more effective and efficient use of EU funds;

| 53. | considers that the implementation of a framework of multi-level governance – European, national and regional – is a vital condition for the successful reformulation of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013; |
| --- | --- |

53.

considers that the implementation of a framework of multi-level governance – European, national and regional – is a vital condition for the successful reformulation of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013;

| 54. | urges the full involvement of representatives of rural regions in drafting partnership contracts; |
| --- | --- |

54.

urges the full involvement of representatives of rural regions in drafting partnership contracts;

| 55. | considers that the introduction of sub-programmes for specific zones such as mountain areas and island regions, or for individual sectors represents an interesting proposal but that it will only provide genuine added value if these sub-programmes are also provided for in the Structural Funds Regulations – in order to extend the range of regional development measures to all EU funding instruments – and are followed up by local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

55.

considers that the introduction of sub-programmes for specific zones such as mountain areas and island regions, or for individual sectors represents an interesting proposal but that it will only provide genuine added value if these sub-programmes are also provided for in the Structural Funds Regulations – in order to extend the range of regional development measures to all EU funding instruments – and are followed up by local and regional authorities;

| 56. | calls for a representative of the local and regional authorities to sit on the Committee for Rural Development that will assist the Commission with the adoption of delegated acts. More generally, calls for a review of the composition of the consultative groups at the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development in order to ensure that these groups are more representative of rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

56.

calls for a representative of the local and regional authorities to sit on the Committee for Rural Development that will assist the Commission with the adoption of delegated acts. More generally, calls for a review of the composition of the consultative groups at the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development in order to ensure that these groups are more representative of rural areas;

Budget

| 57. | considers that for the 2014-2020 period, the budget of EUR 435,6 billion provided in the multiannual financial framework for the CAP as an integrated policy area should be maintained in real terms, under both the first pillar and the second pillar, given the major challenges facing the agri-food sector in coming years; |
| --- | --- |

57.

considers that for the 2014-2020 period, the budget of EUR 435,6 billion provided in the multiannual financial framework for the CAP as an integrated policy area should be maintained in real terms, under both the first pillar and the second pillar, given the major challenges facing the agri-food sector in coming years;

| 58. | is concerned, however, about the context of the public debt crisis at European level and the possible resulting threat to the budget of the future Common Agricultural Policy and considers that this makes it all the more necessary to maintain an ambitious level of funding for the future CAP. |
| --- | --- |

58.

is concerned, however, about the context of the public debt crisis at European level and the possible resulting threat to the budget of the future Common Agricultural Policy and considers that this makes it all the more necessary to maintain an ambitious level of funding for the future CAP.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

COM(2011) 626 final/2

Amendment 1

Amendment of Article 21(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3.   When drawing up their strategies, Member States shall draw up a list of products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, and bananas sectors that will be eligible under their respective schemes. This list, however, shall not include products excluded by the measures adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts pursuant to point (a) of Article 22(2). Member States shall choose their products on the basis of objective criteria which may include seasonality, availability of produce or environmental concerns. In this connection, Member States may give preference to products originating in the Union. | 3.   When drawing up their strategies, Member States shall draw up a list of products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, and bananas sectors that will be eligible under their respective schemes. This list, however, shall not include products excluded by the measures adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts pursuant to point (a) of Article 22(2). Member States shall choose their products on the basis of objective criteria which may include seasonality, availability of produce or environmental concerns. In this connection, . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3.   When drawing up their strategies, Member States shall draw up a list of products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, and bananas sectors that will be eligible under their respective schemes. This list, however, shall not include products excluded by the measures adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts pursuant to point (a) of Article 22(2). Member States shall choose their products on the basis of objective criteria which may include seasonality, availability of produce or environmental concerns. In this connection, Member States may give preference to products originating in the Union.

3.   When drawing up their strategies, Member States shall draw up a list of products of the fruit and vegetables, processed fruit and vegetables, and bananas sectors that will be eligible under their respective schemes. This list, however, shall not include products excluded by the measures adopted by the Commission by means of delegated acts pursuant to point (a) of Article 22(2). Member States shall choose their products on the basis of objective criteria which may include seasonality, availability of produce or environmental concerns. In this connection, .

Reason

The intention is to apply the system of Community preference for EU products compared to those originating from non-EU countries.

Amendment 2

Insert new point before Article 101

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

Several expert reports suggest that the removal of planting rights (Study of the impact of the relaxation of planting rights in the wine sector, AREV-MOISA, March 2012) and quotas is synonymous with the concentration of production in certain regions, which entails economic, territorial and environmental effects that have been incorrectly assessed by the Commission.

Amendment 3

Amendment of Article 108(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Interbranch organisations
  1.   Member States shall recognise, on request, interbranch organisations in any of the sectors listed in Article 1(2) which:






  (a) | are constituted of representatives of economic activities linked to the production of, trade in, and/or processing of products in one or more sectors; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Interbranch organisations

1.   Member States shall recognise, on request, interbranch organisations in any of the sectors listed in Article 1(2) which:

(a)

are constituted of representatives of economic activities linked to the production of, trade in, and/or processing of products in one or more sectors;

| (b) | are formed on the initiative of all or some of the organisations or associations which constitute them; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are formed on the initiative of all or some of the organisations or associations which constitute them;

| (c) | pursue a specific aim, which may include at least one of the following objectives:






  (i) | improving knowledge and the transparency of production and the market, including by publication of statistical data on the prices, volumes and duration of contracts which have been previously concluded, and by providing analyses of potential future market developments at regional or national level; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

pursue a specific aim, which may include at least one of the following objectives:

(i)

improving knowledge and the transparency of production and the market, including by publication of statistical data on the prices, volumes and duration of contracts which have been previously concluded, and by providing analyses of potential future market developments at regional or national level;

| (ii) | helping to better coordinate the way the products are placed on the market, in particular by means of research and market studies; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

helping to better coordinate the way the products are placed on the market, in particular by means of research and market studies;

| (iii) | drawing up standard forms of contract compatible with Union rules; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

drawing up standard forms of contract compatible with Union rules;

| (iv) | exploiting to a fuller extent the potential of the products; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

exploiting to a fuller extent the potential of the products;

| (v) | providing the information and carrying out the research necessary to rationalise, improve and adjust production towards products more suited to market requirements and consumer tastes and expectations, in particular with regard to product quality, including the particular characteristics of products with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, and protection of the environment; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

providing the information and carrying out the research necessary to rationalise, improve and adjust production towards products more suited to market requirements and consumer tastes and expectations, in particular with regard to product quality, including the particular characteristics of products with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, and protection of the environment;

| (vi) | seeking ways of restricting the use of animal-health or plant protection products and other inputs and ensuring product quality and soil and water conservation; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

seeking ways of restricting the use of animal-health or plant protection products and other inputs and ensuring product quality and soil and water conservation;

| (vii) | developing methods and instruments for improving product quality at all stages of production and marketing; |
| --- | --- |

(vii)

developing methods and instruments for improving product quality at all stages of production and marketing;

| (viii) | exploiting the potential of organic farming and protecting and promoting such farming as well as designations of origin, quality labels and geographical indications; |
| --- | --- |

(viii)

exploiting the potential of organic farming and protecting and promoting such farming as well as designations of origin, quality labels and geographical indications;

| (ix) | promoting and carrying out research into integrated, sustainable production or other environmentally sound production methods; |
| --- | --- |

(ix)

promoting and carrying out research into integrated, sustainable production or other environmentally sound production methods;

| (x) | encouraging healthy consumption of the products and informing about the harm linked to hazardous consumption patterns; |
| --- | --- |

(x)

encouraging healthy consumption of the products and informing about the harm linked to hazardous consumption patterns;

| (xi) | carrying out promotion actions, especially in third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(xi)

carrying out promotion actions, especially in third countries.

Interbranch organisations

1.   Member States shall recognise, on request, interbranch organisations in any of the sectors listed in Article 1(2) which:

| (a) | are constituted of representatives of economic activities linked to the production of, trade in, and/or processing of products in one or more sectors; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

are constituted of representatives of economic activities linked to the production of, trade in, and/or processing of products in one or more sectors;

| (b) | are formed on the initiative of all or some of the organisations or associations which constitute them; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are formed on the initiative of all or some of the organisations or associations which constitute them;

| (c) | pursue a specific aim, which may include at least one of the following objectives:






  (i) | improving knowledge and the transparency of production and the market, including by publication of statistical data on the prices, volumes and duration of contracts which have been previously concluded, and by providing analyses of potential future market developments at regional or national level; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

pursue a specific aim, which may include at least one of the following objectives:

(i)

improving knowledge and the transparency of production and the market, including by publication of statistical data on the prices, volumes and duration of contracts which have been previously concluded, and by providing analyses of potential future market developments at regional or national level;

| (ii) | helping to better coordinate the way the products are placed on the market, in particular by means of research and market studies; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

helping to better coordinate the way the products are placed on the market, in particular by means of research and market studies;

| (iii) | drawing up standard forms of contract compatible with Union rules; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

drawing up standard forms of contract compatible with Union rules;

| (iv) | exploiting to a fuller extent the potential of the products; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

exploiting to a fuller extent the potential of the products;

| (v) | providing the information and carrying out the research necessary to rationalise, improve and adjust production towards products more suited to market requirements and consumer tastes and expectations, in particular with regard to product quality, including the particular characteristics of products with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, and protection of the environment; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

providing the information and carrying out the research necessary to rationalise, improve and adjust production towards products more suited to market requirements and consumer tastes and expectations, in particular with regard to product quality, including the particular characteristics of products with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, and protection of the environment;

| (vi) | seeking ways of restricting the use of animal-health or plant protection products and other inputs and ensuring product quality and soil and water conservation; |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

seeking ways of restricting the use of animal-health or plant protection products and other inputs and ensuring product quality and soil and water conservation;

| (vii) | developing methods and instruments for improving product quality at all stages of production and marketing; |
| --- | --- |

(vii)

developing methods and instruments for improving product quality at all stages of production and marketing;

| (viii) | exploiting the potential of organic farming and protecting and promoting such farming as well as designations of origin, quality labels and geographical indications; |
| --- | --- |

(viii)

exploiting the potential of organic farming and protecting and promoting such farming as well as designations of origin, quality labels and geographical indications;

| (ix) | promoting and carrying out research into integrated, sustainable production or other environmentally sound production methods; |
| --- | --- |

(ix)

promoting and carrying out research into integrated, sustainable production or other environmentally sound production methods;

| (x) | encouraging healthy consumption of the products and informing about the harm linked to hazardous consumption patterns; |
| --- | --- |

(x)

encouraging healthy consumption of the products and informing about the harm linked to hazardous consumption patterns;

| (xi) | carrying out promotion actions. |
| --- | --- |

(xi)

carrying out promotion actions.

Reason

It is essential that the market has a price reference made up of different factors, although it need not be mandatory of course. The promotion of agricultural products of EU origin should not be prioritised in third countries, since it is also essential within the internal market, where the pressure from the supply of imported third-country products is felt.

Amendment 4

Amendment of Article 112

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Measures to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements
  Taking into account the need to encourage action by the organisations referred to in Articles 106 to 108 to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements, with the exception of action relating to withdrawal from the market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 160, concerning the live plants, beef and veal, pigmeat, sheepmeat and goatmeat, eggs and poultrymeat sectors on measures:






  (a) | to improve quality; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Measures to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements

Taking into account the need to encourage action by the organisations referred to in Articles 106 to 108 to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements, with the exception of action relating to withdrawal from the market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 160, concerning the live plants, beef and veal, pigmeat, sheepmeat and goatmeat, eggs and poultrymeat sectors on measures:

(a)

to improve quality;

| (b) | to promote better organisation of production, processing and marketing; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to promote better organisation of production, processing and marketing;

| (c) | to facilitate the recording of market price trends; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to facilitate the recording of market price trends;

| d) | to permit the establishment of short and long-term forecasts on the basis of the means of production used. |
| --- | --- |

d)

to permit the establishment of short and long-term forecasts on the basis of the means of production used.

Measures to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements

Taking into account the need to encourage action by the organisations referred to in Articles 106 to 108 to facilitate the adjustment of supply to market requirements, with the exception of action relating to withdrawal from the market, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 160, concerning on measures:

| (a) | to improve quality; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

to improve quality;

| (b) | to promote better organisation of production, processing and marketing; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to promote better organisation of production, processing and marketing;

| (c) | to facilitate the recording of market price trends; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to facilitate the recording of market price trends;

| d) | to permit the establishment of short and long-term forecasts on the basis of the means of production used. |
| --- | --- |

d)

to permit the establishment of short and long-term forecasts on the basis of the means of production used.

Reason

EU legislation must allow for all possible instruments so that all sectors are subject to these measures, since these issues affect all sectors and not just a particular group of them, and are a fundamental aspect of the functions of producers' organisations, associations of producers' organisations and interbranch organisations in any sector.

Amendment 5

Amendment of Article 117

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General rules
  1.   Without prejudice to cases where import or export licences are required in accordance with this Regulation, the import for release into free circulation or the export of one or more agricultural products into or from the Union may be made subject to the presentation of a licence, taking into account the need for licences for the management of the markets concerned and, in particular, for monitoring trade in the products concerned.
  2.   Licences shall be issued by Member States to any applicant, irrespective of their place of establishment in the Union, unless an act adopted in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Treaty provides otherwise, and without prejudice to measures adopted for the application of this Chapter.
  3.   Licences shall be valid throughout the Union. | General rules
  1.   Without prejudice to cases where import or export licences are required in accordance with this Regulation, the import for release into free circulation or the export of one or more agricultural products into or from the Union may be made subject to the presentation of a licence, taking into account the need for licences for the management of the markets concerned and, in particular, for monitoring trade in the products concerned.
  2.   Licences shall be issued by Member States to any applicant, irrespective of their place of establishment in the Union, unless an act adopted in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Treaty provides otherwise, and without prejudice to measures adopted for the application of this Chapter.
  3.   Licences shall be valid throughout the Union.
     . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General rules

1.   Without prejudice to cases where import or export licences are required in accordance with this Regulation, the import for release into free circulation or the export of one or more agricultural products into or from the Union may be made subject to the presentation of a licence, taking into account the need for licences for the management of the markets concerned and, in particular, for monitoring trade in the products concerned.

2.   Licences shall be issued by Member States to any applicant, irrespective of their place of establishment in the Union, unless an act adopted in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Treaty provides otherwise, and without prejudice to measures adopted for the application of this Chapter.

3.   Licences shall be valid throughout the Union.

General rules

1.   Without prejudice to cases where import or export licences are required in accordance with this Regulation, the import for release into free circulation or the export of one or more agricultural products into or from the Union may be made subject to the presentation of a licence, taking into account the need for licences for the management of the markets concerned and, in particular, for monitoring trade in the products concerned.

2.   Licences shall be issued by Member States to any applicant, irrespective of their place of establishment in the Union, unless an act adopted in accordance with Article 43(2) of the Treaty provides otherwise, and without prejudice to measures adopted for the application of this Chapter.

3.   Licences shall be valid throughout the Union.

.

Reason

European products marketed must comply with quality rules and must therefore meet the conditions relating to food safety, traceability and health, plant health, environmental and animal welfare which are obligatory for EU products. These standards must be applied to external policy in general and to agreements with third countries in particular.

Amendment 6

Amendment of Article 131

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Safeguard measures
  1.   Safeguard measures against imports into the Union shall be taken by the Commission, subject to paragraph 3 of this Article, in accordance with Council Regulations (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (3) and (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (4).
  2.   Save as otherwise provided for pursuant to any other act of the European Parliament and the Council and any other act of the Council, safeguard measures against imports into the Union provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty shall be taken by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.
  3.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, take measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).
  Where the Commission receives a request from a Member State, it shall, by means of implementing acts, take a decision thereon within five working days following receipt of the request. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).
  On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3).
  The measures adopted shall be communicated to the Members States and shall take effect immediately.
  4.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, revoke or amend Union safeguard measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).
  On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3). | Safeguard measures
  1.   Safeguard measures against imports into the Union shall be taken by the Commission, subject to paragraph 3 of this Article, in accordance with Council Regulations (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (3) and (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (4).
  2.   Save as otherwise provided for pursuant to any other act of the European Parliament and the Council and any other act of the Council, safeguard measures against imports into the Union provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty shall be taken by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.
  3.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, take measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).
  Where the Commission receives a request from a Member State, it shall, by means of implementing acts, take a decision thereon within five working days following receipt of the request. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).
  On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3).
  The measures adopted shall be communicated to the Members States and shall take effect immediately.
  4.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, revoke or amend Union safeguard measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).
  On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Safeguard measures

1.   Safeguard measures against imports into the Union shall be taken by the Commission, subject to paragraph 3 of this Article, in accordance with Council Regulations (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (3) and (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (4).

2.   Save as otherwise provided for pursuant to any other act of the European Parliament and the Council and any other act of the Council, safeguard measures against imports into the Union provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty shall be taken by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.

3.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, take measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).

Where the Commission receives a request from a Member State, it shall, by means of implementing acts, take a decision thereon within five working days following receipt of the request. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).

On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3).

The measures adopted shall be communicated to the Members States and shall take effect immediately.

4.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, revoke or amend Union safeguard measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).

On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3).

Safeguard measures

1.   Safeguard measures against imports into the Union shall be taken by the Commission, subject to paragraph 3 of this Article, in accordance with Council Regulations (EC) No 260/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the common rules for imports (3) and (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 on common rules for imports from certain third countries (4).

2.   Save as otherwise provided for pursuant to any other act of the European Parliament and the Council and any other act of the Council, safeguard measures against imports into the Union provided for in international agreements concluded in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty shall be taken by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article.

3.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, take measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).

Where the Commission receives a request from a Member State, it shall, by means of implementing acts, take a decision thereon within five working days following receipt of the request. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).

On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3).

The measures adopted shall be communicated to the Members States and shall take effect immediately.

4.   The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, revoke or amend Union safeguard measures adopted pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 162(2).

On duly justified grounds of urgency, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 162(3).

Reason

Flexible procedures should be established for controls at Community borders to make it easier to detect and prevent as swiftly as possible imports of agricultural products that could give rise to unfair competition with Community produce or imbalances on the internal market.

Amendment 7

Amendment of Article 144

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Exceptions for the objectives of the CAP and farmers and their associations
  1.   Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to the agreements, decisions and practices referred to in Article 143 of this Regulation necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty.
  In particular, Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to agreements, decisions and practices of farmers, farmers' associations, or associations of such associations, or producer organisations recognised under Article 106 of this Regulation, or associations of producer organisations recognised under Article 107 of this Regulation, which concern the production or sale of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing of agricultural products, and under which there is no obligation to charge identical prices, unless competition is thereby excluded or the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty are jeopardised.
  2.   After consulting the Member States and hearing the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned and any other natural or legal person that it considers appropriate, the Commission shall have sole power, subject to review by the Court of Justice, to determine, by adopting, by means of implementing acts, a Decision which shall be published, which agreements, decisions and practices fulfil the conditions specified in paragraph 1.
  The Commission shall undertake such determination either on its own initiative or at the request of a competent authority of a Member State or of an interested undertaking or association of undertakings.
  3.   The publication of the Decision referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 shall state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision. It shall have regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets. | Exceptions for the objectives of the CAP and farmers and their associations
  1.   Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to the agreements, decisions and practices referred to in Article 143 of this Regulation necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty.
  In particular, Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to | agreements, decisions and practices of farmers, farmers' associations, or associations of such associations, or producer organisations recognised under Article 106 of this Regulation, or associations of producer organisations recognised under Article 107 of this Regulation, which concern the production or sale of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing of agricultural products, and under which there is no obligation to charge identical prices, unless competition is thereby excluded or the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty are jeopardised |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Exceptions for the objectives of the CAP and farmers and their associations

1.   Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to the agreements, decisions and practices referred to in Article 143 of this Regulation necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty.

In particular, Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to agreements, decisions and practices of farmers, farmers' associations, or associations of such associations, or producer organisations recognised under Article 106 of this Regulation, or associations of producer organisations recognised under Article 107 of this Regulation, which concern the production or sale of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing of agricultural products, and under which there is no obligation to charge identical prices, unless competition is thereby excluded or the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty are jeopardised.

2.   After consulting the Member States and hearing the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned and any other natural or legal person that it considers appropriate, the Commission shall have sole power, subject to review by the Court of Justice, to determine, by adopting, by means of implementing acts, a Decision which shall be published, which agreements, decisions and practices fulfil the conditions specified in paragraph 1.

The Commission shall undertake such determination either on its own initiative or at the request of a competent authority of a Member State or of an interested undertaking or association of undertakings.

3.   The publication of the Decision referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 shall state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision. It shall have regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

Exceptions for the objectives of the CAP and farmers and their associations

1.   Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to the agreements, decisions and practices referred to in Article 143 of this Regulation necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty.

In particular, Article 101(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to

agreements, decisions and practices of farmers, farmers' associations, or associations of such associations, or producer organisations recognised under Article 106 of this Regulation, or associations of producer organisations recognised under Article 107 of this Regulation, which concern the production or sale of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing of agricultural products, and under which there is no obligation to charge identical prices, unless competition is thereby excluded or the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty are jeopardised

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   After consulting the Member States and hearing the undertakings or associations of undertakings concerned and any other natural or legal person that it considers appropriate, the Commission shall have sole power, subject to review by the Court of Justice, to determine, by adopting, by means of implementing acts, a Decision which shall be published, which agreements, decisions and practices fulfil the conditions specified in paragraph 1.

| | |
| --- | --- |

The Commission shall undertake such determination either on its own initiative or at the request of a competent authority of a Member State or of an interested undertaking or association of undertakings.

3.   The publication of the Decision referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 shall state the names of the parties and the main content of the decision. It shall have regard to the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets.

Reason

Contractual relations and negotiations conducted in the first phase of the food chain should be exempt from the rules of competition. This is all the more important given that the milk and milk products and fruits and vegetables sectors (the latter as a result of the amendments to Article 105(2) and (3) of document COM 626) are regulated by the same single CMO. We believe this exception to be fully justified, in view of the possible exemptions listed in Article 101(3) of the Treaty and the safeguards provided for in Article 144(1)(b) and (c) as amended. On the other hand, it must be permissible, under certain conditions, to set reference levels for market prices, to be factored into the marketing process. Account needs to be taken of production costs, supply, demand, price movements and other historical, structural or cyclical factors affecting prices. The aim of setting price levels is not to impose conditions but to ensure that operators take these levels into consideration when making decisions related to buying and selling.

Amendment 8

Amendment of Article 155(5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 5.   The Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by Member States for the measures provided for in paragraph 1.
  However, with regard to the beef and veal, milk and milk products, pigmeat and sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors, the Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 60 % of such expenditure when combating foot-and-mouth disease. | 5.   The Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by Member States for the measures provided for in paragraph 1.
  However, with regard to the beef and veal, milk and milk products, pigmeat and sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors, the Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 60 % of such expenditure when combating foot-and-mouth disease. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

5.   The Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by Member States for the measures provided for in paragraph 1.

However, with regard to the beef and veal, milk and milk products, pigmeat and sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors, the Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 60 % of such expenditure when combating foot-and-mouth disease.

5.   The Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by Member States for the measures provided for in paragraph 1.

However, with regard to the beef and veal, milk and milk products, pigmeat and sheepmeat and goatmeat sectors, the Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 60 % of such expenditure when combating foot-and-mouth disease.

Reason

We consider that programmes in place in the Member States to combat, prevent and eradicate recognised animal diseases should be treated on a par with anti-foot-and-mouth measures and receive 60 % Community funding.

COM(2011) 625 final/2

Amendment 9

Amendment of Article 9(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| No direct payments shall be granted to natural or legal persons, or to groups of natural or legal persons, where one of the following applies:






  (a) | the annual amount of direct payments is less than 5 % of the total receipts they obtained from non-agricultural activities in the most recent fiscal year; or |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

No direct payments shall be granted to natural or legal persons, or to groups of natural or legal persons, where one of the following applies:

(a)

the annual amount of direct payments is less than 5 % of the total receipts they obtained from non-agricultural activities in the most recent fiscal year; or

| (b) | their agricultural areas are mainly areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation and they do not carry out on those areas the minimum activity established by Member States in accordance with Article 4(1)(c). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

their agricultural areas are mainly areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation and they do not carry out on those areas the minimum activity established by Member States in accordance with Article 4(1)(c).

No direct payments shall be granted to natural or legal persons, or to groups of natural or legal persons, where one of the following applies:

| (a) | |
| --- | --- |

(a)

(b)

| (b) | |
| --- | --- |

their agricultural areas are mainly areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation and they do not carry out on those areas the minimum activity established by Member States in accordance with Article 4(1)(c).

| | their agricultural areas are mainly areas naturally kept in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation and they do not carry out on those areas the minimum activity established by Member States in accordance with Article 4(1)(c). |
| --- | --- |

Amendment 10

Amendment of Article 11(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The amount of direct payments to be granted to a farmer under this Regulation in a given calendar year shall be reduced as follows: | The amount of direct payments to be granted to a farmer under this Regulation in a given calendar year shall be reduced as follows: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The amount of direct payments to be granted to a farmer under this Regulation in a given calendar year shall be reduced as follows:

The amount of direct payments to be granted to a farmer under this Regulation in a given calendar year shall be reduced as follows:

Reason

As the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment is linked to production, their inclusion in degressivity and capping measures is also justified by the need to ensure a fairer distribution of support.

Amendment 11

Amendment of Article 14(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Flexibility between pillars
  1.   Before 1 August 2013, Member States may decide to make available as additional support for measures under rural development programming financed under the EAFRD as specified under Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR], up to 10 % of their annual national ceilings for calendar years 2014 to 2019 as set out in Annex II to this Regulation. As a result, the corresponding amount shall no longer be available for granting direct payments.
  The decision referred to in the first subparagraph shall be notified to the Commission by the date referred to in that subparagraph.
  The percentage notified in accordance with the second subparagraph shall be the same for the years referred to in the first subparagraph. | Flexibility between pillars
  1.   Before 1 August 2013, Member States may decide to make available as additional support for measures under rural development programming financed under the EAFRD as specified under Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR], up to 10 % of their annual national ceilings for calendar years 2014 to 2019 as set out in Annex II to this Regulation. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Flexibility between pillars

1.   Before 1 August 2013, Member States may decide to make available as additional support for measures under rural development programming financed under the EAFRD as specified under Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR], up to 10 % of their annual national ceilings for calendar years 2014 to 2019 as set out in Annex II to this Regulation. As a result, the corresponding amount shall no longer be available for granting direct payments.

The decision referred to in the first subparagraph shall be notified to the Commission by the date referred to in that subparagraph.

The percentage notified in accordance with the second subparagraph shall be the same for the years referred to in the first subparagraph.

Flexibility between pillars

1.   Before 1 August 2013, Member States may decide to make available as additional support for measures under rural development programming financed under the EAFRD as specified under Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR], up to 10 % of their annual national ceilings for calendar years 2014 to 2019 as set out in Annex II to this Regulation.

Reason

When resources are to be earmarked for rural development, it makes sense for them to be shared out in accordance with the distribution criteria established under the second pillar. The system ought to be flexible. For instance, if a ‘Lombardy plains’ region is established with a national ceiling, the regions covered might find it worthwhile putting a share of resources into their respective rural development programmes for sector-based policies.

Amendment 12

Amendment of Article 22(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3.   Member States making use of the possibility provided for in paragraph 2 shall use the part of the ceiling which remains after the application of that paragraph to increase the value of payment entitlements in cases where the total value of payment entitlements held by a farmers under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 is lower than the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, he held on 31 December 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.
  To this end, the national or regional unit value of each of the payment entitlement of the farmer concerned shall be increased by a share of the difference between the total value of the payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 and the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, which the farmer held on 31 December 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.
  For the calculation of the increase, a Member State may also take into account the support granted in calendar year 2013 pursuant to Articles 52, 53(1), and 68(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provided that the Member State has decided not to apply the voluntary coupled support pursuant to Title IV of this Regulation to the relevant sectors.
  For the purpose of the first subparagraph, a farmer is considered to hold payment entitlements on 31 December 2013 where payment entitlements were allocated or definitively transferred to him by that date. | 3.   Member States making use of the possibility provided for in paragraph 2 shall use the part of the ceiling which remains after the application of that paragraph to increase the value of payment entitlements in cases where the total value of payment entitlements held by a farmers under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 is lower than the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, held 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.
  To this end, the national or regional unit value of each of the payment entitlement of the farmer concerned shall be increased by a share of the difference between the total value of the payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 and the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, which the farmer held on 31 December 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.
  For the calculation of the increase, a Member State may also take into account the support granted in calendar year 2013 pursuant to Articles 52, 53(1), and 68(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provided that the Member State has decided not to apply the voluntary coupled support pursuant to Title IV of this Regulation to the relevant sectors.
  For the purpose of the first subparagraph, a farmer is considered to hold payment entitlements on 31 December 2013 where payment entitlements were allocated or definitively transferred to him by that date. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3.   Member States making use of the possibility provided for in paragraph 2 shall use the part of the ceiling which remains after the application of that paragraph to increase the value of payment entitlements in cases where the total value of payment entitlements held by a farmers under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 is lower than the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, he held on 31 December 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

To this end, the national or regional unit value of each of the payment entitlement of the farmer concerned shall be increased by a share of the difference between the total value of the payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 and the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, which the farmer held on 31 December 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

For the calculation of the increase, a Member State may also take into account the support granted in calendar year 2013 pursuant to Articles 52, 53(1), and 68(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provided that the Member State has decided not to apply the voluntary coupled support pursuant to Title IV of this Regulation to the relevant sectors.

For the purpose of the first subparagraph, a farmer is considered to hold payment entitlements on 31 December 2013 where payment entitlements were allocated or definitively transferred to him by that date.

3.   Member States making use of the possibility provided for in paragraph 2 shall use the part of the ceiling which remains after the application of that paragraph to increase the value of payment entitlements in cases where the total value of payment entitlements held by a farmers under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 is lower than the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, held 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

To this end, the national or regional unit value of each of the payment entitlement of the farmer concerned shall be increased by a share of the difference between the total value of the payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme calculated according to paragraph 2 and the total value of payment entitlements, including special entitlements, which the farmer held on 31 December 2013 under the single payment scheme in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

For the calculation of the increase, a Member State may also take into account the support granted in calendar year 2013 pursuant to Articles 52, 53(1), and 68(1)(b), of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 provided that the Member State has decided not to apply the voluntary coupled support pursuant to Title IV of this Regulation to the relevant sectors.

For the purpose of the first subparagraph, a farmer is considered to hold payment entitlements on 31 December 2013 where payment entitlements were allocated or definitively transferred to him by that date.

Reason

Amendment to Article 22(3) (final paragraph). When the 2014 entitlements are set, there will be mechanisms for transferring the entitlements from inactive to active farmers. The 31 December date could lend itself to fraud. Entitlements should be determined on the basis of the set of entitlements used for the payment of the 2013 single claim.

Amendment 13

Amendment of Article 22(5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| As of claim year 2019 at the latest, all payment entitlements in a Member State or, in case of application of Article 20, in a region, shall have a uniform unit value. | As of claim year 2019 at the latest, all payment entitlements in a Member State or, in case of application of Article 20, in a region, shall have a uniform unit value. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

As of claim year 2019 at the latest, all payment entitlements in a Member State or, in case of application of Article 20, in a region, shall have a uniform unit value.

As of claim year 2019 at the latest, all payment entitlements in a Member State or, in case of application of Article 20, in a region, shall have a uniform unit value.

Reason

The Commission proposes convergence within individual Member States, but does not specify any deadline or other measures for ensuring convergence between Member States.

Amendment 14

Insert new point before Article 29

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Amendment 15

Insert new point before Article 29

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Amendment 16

Amendment of Article 29(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General rules
  1.   Farmers entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1 shall observe on their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2) the following agricultural practises beneficial for the climate and the environment:






  (a) | to have three different crops on their arable land where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General rules

1.   Farmers entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1 shall observe on their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2) the following agricultural practises beneficial for the climate and the environment:

(a)

to have three different crops on their arable land where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year;

| (b) | to maintain existing permanent grassland on their holding; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to maintain existing permanent grassland on their holding; and

| (c) | to have ecological focus area on their agricultural area. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to have ecological focus area on their agricultural area.

General rules

1.   Farmers entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1 shall observe on their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2) the following agricultural practises beneficial for the climate and the environment:

| (a) | to have three different crops on their arable land where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

to have three different crops on their arable land where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year;

| (b) | to maintain existing permanent grassland on their holding; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to maintain existing permanent grassland on their holding; and

| (c) | to have ecological focus area on their agricultural area. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to have ecological focus area on their agricultural area.

Amendment 17

Amendment of Article 29(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 4.   Farmers complying with the requirements laid down in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards organic farming shall be entitled ipso facto to the payment referred to in this Chapter.
  The first subparagraph shall apply only to the units of a holding that are used for organic production in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. | 4.   Farmers complying with the requirements laid down in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards organic farming shall be entitled ipso facto to the payment referred to in this Chapter.

  The first subparagraph shall apply only to the units of a holding that are used for organic production in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

4.   Farmers complying with the requirements laid down in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards organic farming shall be entitled ipso facto to the payment referred to in this Chapter.

The first subparagraph shall apply only to the units of a holding that are used for organic production in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.

4.   Farmers complying with the requirements laid down in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards organic farming shall be entitled ipso facto to the payment referred to in this Chapter.

The first subparagraph shall apply only to the units of a holding that are used for organic production in accordance with Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.

Amendment 18

Amendment of Article 30

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Crop diversification
  1.   Where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year, cultivation on the arable land shall consist of at least three different crops. None of those three crops shall cover less than 5 % of the arable land and the main one shall not exceed 70 % of the arable land.
  2.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 laying down the definition of ‘crop’ and the rules concerning the application of the precise calculation of shares of different crops. | Crop diversification
  1.   Where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year, cultivation on the arable land shall consist of at least three different crops. None of those three crops shall cover less than 5 % of the arable land and the main one shall not exceed 70 % of the arable land.
  2.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 laying down the definition of ‘crop’ and the rules concerning the application of the precise calculation of shares of different crops. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Crop diversification

1.   Where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year, cultivation on the arable land shall consist of at least three different crops. None of those three crops shall cover less than 5 % of the arable land and the main one shall not exceed 70 % of the arable land.

2.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 laying down the definition of ‘crop’ and the rules concerning the application of the precise calculation of shares of different crops.

Crop diversification

1.   Where the arable land of the farmer covers more than 3 hectares and is not entirely used for grass production (sown or natural), entirely left fallow or entirely cultivated with crops under water for a significant part of the year, cultivation on the arable land shall consist of at least three different crops. None of those three crops shall cover less than 5 % of the arable land and the main one shall not exceed 70 % of the arable land.

2.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 laying down the definition of ‘crop’ and the rules concerning the application of the precise calculation of shares of different crops.

Amendment 19

Amendment of Article 32(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Farmers shall ensure that at least 7 % of their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2), excluding areas under permanent grassland, is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips and afforested areas as referred to in article 25(2)(b)(ii). | Farmers shall ensure that at least 7 % of their eligible hectares is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips and afforested areas. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Farmers shall ensure that at least 7 % of their eligible hectares as defined in Article 25(2), excluding areas under permanent grassland, is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips and afforested areas as referred to in article 25(2)(b)(ii).

Farmers shall ensure that at least 7 % of their eligible hectares is ecological focus area such as land left fallow, terraces, landscape features, buffer strips and afforested areas.

Reason

From an agricultural and environmental perspective, the farm is not the right level for establishing the percentage of land to be turned into ecological focus areas and will have a stifling effect on farmers. This level should be fixed for a group of farms or for small agricultural regions through a provision that pools together resources, enabling the application of an average rate.

Amendment 20

Amendment of Article 33(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 33
  Financial provisions
  1.   In order to finance the payment referred to in this Chapter, Member States shall use 30 % of the annual national ceiling set out in Annex II. | Article 33
  Financial provisions
  1.   In order to finance the payment referred to in this Chapter, Member States shall use 30 % of the annual national ceiling set out in Annex II.
  2. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 33

Financial provisions

1.   In order to finance the payment referred to in this Chapter, Member States shall use 30 % of the annual national ceiling set out in Annex II.

Article 33

Financial provisions

1.   In order to finance the payment referred to in this Chapter, Member States shall use 30 % of the annual national ceiling set out in Annex II.

2.

Reason

Providing for different levels of funding for greening would ensure greater flexibility and subsidiarity in implementation.

Amendment 21

Amendment of Article 34

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General rules
  1.   Member States may grant a payment to farmers entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1 and whose holdings are fully or partly situated in areas with natural constraints designated by Member States in accordance with Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].
  2.   Member States may decide to grant the payment referred to in paragraph 1 to all areas falling within the scope of that paragraph or, alternatively, and on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria, to restrict the payment to some of the areas referred to in Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].
  3.   Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and to the application of financial discipline, progressive reduction and capping, linear reduction as referred in Article 7, and any reductions and exclusions imposed pursuant to Article 65 of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR], the payment referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted annually per eligible hectare situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be paid upon activation of payment entitlements on those hectares held by the farmer concerned.
  4.   The payment per hectare referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by dividing the amount resulting from the application of Article 35 by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.
  5.   Member States may apply the payment referred to in this Chapter at regional level under the conditions laid down in this paragraph.
  In that case, Member States shall define the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria such as their natural constraint characteristics and agronomic conditions.
  Member State shall divide the national ceiling referred to in Article 35(1) between the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria.
  The payment at regional level shall be calculated by dividing the regional ceiling calculated in accordance with the third subparagraph by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article. | General rules
  1.   Member States may grant a payment to farmers entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1 and whose holdings are fully or partly situated in areas with natural constraints designated by Member States in accordance with Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].
  2.   Member States may decide to grant the payment referred to in paragraph 1 to all areas falling within the scope of that paragraph or, alternatively, and on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria, to restrict the payment to some of the areas referred to in Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].
  3.   Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and to the application of financial discipline, progressive reduction and capping, linear reduction as referred in Article 7, and any reductions and exclusions imposed pursuant to Article 65 of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR], the payment referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted annually per eligible hectare situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be paid upon activation of payment entitlements on those hectares held by the farmer concerned.
  4.   The payment per hectare referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by dividing the amount resulting from the application of Article 35 by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.
  5.    Member States may apply the payment referred to in this Chapter at regional level under the conditions laid down in this paragraph.
  In that case, Member States shall define the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria such as their natural constraint characteristics and agronomic conditions.
  Member State shall divide the national ceiling referred to in Article 35(1) between the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria.
  The payment at regional level shall be calculated by dividing the regional ceiling calculated in accordance with the third subparagraph by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General rules

1.   Member States may grant a payment to farmers entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1 and whose holdings are fully or partly situated in areas with natural constraints designated by Member States in accordance with Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].

2.   Member States may decide to grant the payment referred to in paragraph 1 to all areas falling within the scope of that paragraph or, alternatively, and on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria, to restrict the payment to some of the areas referred to in Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].

3.   Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and to the application of financial discipline, progressive reduction and capping, linear reduction as referred in Article 7, and any reductions and exclusions imposed pursuant to Article 65 of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR], the payment referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted annually per eligible hectare situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be paid upon activation of payment entitlements on those hectares held by the farmer concerned.

4.   The payment per hectare referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by dividing the amount resulting from the application of Article 35 by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.

5.   Member States may apply the payment referred to in this Chapter at regional level under the conditions laid down in this paragraph.

In that case, Member States shall define the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria such as their natural constraint characteristics and agronomic conditions.

Member State shall divide the national ceiling referred to in Article 35(1) between the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria.

The payment at regional level shall be calculated by dividing the regional ceiling calculated in accordance with the third subparagraph by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.

General rules

1.   Member States may grant a payment to farmers entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1 and whose holdings are fully or partly situated in areas with natural constraints designated by Member States in accordance with Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].

2.   Member States may decide to grant the payment referred to in paragraph 1 to all areas falling within the scope of that paragraph or, alternatively, and on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria, to restrict the payment to some of the areas referred to in Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR].

3.   Without prejudice to paragraph 2 and to the application of financial discipline, progressive reduction and capping, linear reduction as referred in Article 7, and any reductions and exclusions imposed pursuant to Article 65 of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR], the payment referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted annually per eligible hectare situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and shall be paid upon activation of payment entitlements on those hectares held by the farmer concerned.

4.   The payment per hectare referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated by dividing the amount resulting from the application of Article 35 by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.

5.    Member States may apply the payment referred to in this Chapter at regional level under the conditions laid down in this paragraph.

In that case, Member States shall define the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria such as their natural constraint characteristics and agronomic conditions.

Member State shall divide the national ceiling referred to in Article 35(1) between the regions in accordance with objective and non-discriminatory criteria.

The payment at regional level shall be calculated by dividing the regional ceiling calculated in accordance with the third subparagraph by the number of eligible hectares declared according to Article 26(1) which are situated in the areas to which Member States decided to grant a payment in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.

Reason

Enables application on a regional basis under Article 20.

Amendment 22

Amendment of Article 35(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In order to finance the payment referred to in Article 34, Member States may decide, by 1 August 2013, to use up to 5 % of their annual national ceiling set out in Annex II. | In order to finance the payment referred to in Article 34, Member States may decide, by 1 August 2013, to use up to % of their annual national ceiling set out in Annex II. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In order to finance the payment referred to in Article 34, Member States may decide, by 1 August 2013, to use up to 5 % of their annual national ceiling set out in Annex II.

In order to finance the payment referred to in Article 34, Member States may decide, by 1 August 2013, to use up to % of their annual national ceiling set out in Annex II.

Reason

For the 2007-2013 period, support for less favoured areas has amounted to EUR 12,6 billion. Doubling the proposed envelope to 10 % of national envelopes, i.e. EUR 31,7 billion, would secure significant re-balancing to the benefit of less favoured areas and areas with natural constraints.

Amendment 23

Amendment of Article 36(1) and (2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Member States shall grant an annual payment to young farmers who are entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1.
  2.   For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘young farmers’, shall mean:






  (a) | natural persons who are setting up for the first time an agricultural holding as head of the holding, or who have already set up such a holding during the five years preceding the first submission of an application to the basic payment scheme as referred in Article 73(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR], and |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Member States shall grant an annual payment to young farmers who are entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1.

2.   For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘young farmers’, shall mean:

(a)

natural persons who are setting up for the first time an agricultural holding as head of the holding, or who have already set up such a holding during the five years preceding the first submission of an application to the basic payment scheme as referred in Article 73(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR], and

| (b) | who are less than 40 years of age at the moment of submitting the application referred to in point (a). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

who are less than 40 years of age at the moment of submitting the application referred to in point (a).

1.   Member States shall grant an annual payment to who are entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme referred to in Chapter 1.

2.   For the purposes of this Chapter, ‘ farmers’, shall mean

| | natural persons who are setting up for the first time an agricultural holding as head of the holding, or who have already set up such a holding during the five years preceding the first submission of an application to the basic payment scheme as referred in Article 73(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR]. |
| --- | --- |

natural persons who are setting up for the first time an agricultural holding as head of the holding, or who have already set up such a holding during the five years preceding the first submission of an application to the basic payment scheme as referred in Article 73(1) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [HZR].

| | |
| --- | --- |

Amendment 24

Amendment of Article 38(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (1)   Member States may grant coupled support to farmers under the conditions laid down in this Chapter. Coupled support may be granted to the following sectors and productions: cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oil, silk worms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, fruit and vegetables and short rotation coppice.
  (...) | (1)   Member States may grant coupled support to the following sectors and productions: agricultural productions subject to official agricultural product quality labels, cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oil, silk worms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, fruit and vegetables and short rotation coppice.(...) |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(1)   Member States may grant coupled support to farmers under the conditions laid down in this Chapter. Coupled support may be granted to the following sectors and productions: cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oil, silk worms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, fruit and vegetables and short rotation coppice.

(...)

(1)   Member States may grant coupled support to the following sectors and productions: agricultural productions subject to official agricultural product quality labels, cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oil, silk worms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, fruit and vegetables and short rotation coppice.(...)

Reason

Coupled support is necessary for both economic and territorial reasons in order to ensure levels of production in the areas concerned.

Amendment 25

Amendment of Article 38(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 4.   Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the regions concerned. | 4.   Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the regions concerned. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

4.   Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the regions concerned.

4.   Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the regions concerned.

Reason

Coupled support is necessary for both economic and territorial reasons in order to ensure levels of production in the areas concerned.

Amendment 26

Amendment of Article 38(5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General rules
  1.   Member States may grant coupled support to farmers under the conditions laid down in this Chapter.
  Coupled support may be granted to the following sectors and productions: cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oil, silk worms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, fruit and vegetables and short rotation coppice.
  2.   Coupled support may only be granted to sectors or to regions of a Member State where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors undergo certain difficulties and are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons.
  3.   By way of derogation from paragraph 2, coupled support may also be granted to farmers who held, on 31 December 2013, payment entitlements granted in accordance with Section 2 of Chapter 3 of Title III and Article 71 m of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and in accordance with Article 60 and the fourth subparagraph of Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009; and who are without eligible hectares for the activation of payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme as referred to in Chapter 1 of Title III of this Regulation.
  4.   Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the regions concerned.
  5.   Coupled support shall take the form of an annual payment and shall be granted within defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals.
  6.   Any coupled support granted under this Article shall be consistent with other Union measures and policies.
  7.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning:






  (a) | the conditions for granting the support referred to in this Chapter, |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General rules

1.   Member States may grant coupled support to farmers under the conditions laid down in this Chapter.

Coupled support may be granted to the following sectors and productions: cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oil, silk worms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, fruit and vegetables and short rotation coppice.

2.   Coupled support may only be granted to sectors or to regions of a Member State where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors undergo certain difficulties and are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons.

3.   By way of derogation from paragraph 2, coupled support may also be granted to farmers who held, on 31 December 2013, payment entitlements granted in accordance with Section 2 of Chapter 3 of Title III and Article 71 m of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and in accordance with Article 60 and the fourth subparagraph of Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009; and who are without eligible hectares for the activation of payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme as referred to in Chapter 1 of Title III of this Regulation.

4.   Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the regions concerned.

5.   Coupled support shall take the form of an annual payment and shall be granted within defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals.

6.   Any coupled support granted under this Article shall be consistent with other Union measures and policies.

7.   The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning:

(a)

the conditions for granting the support referred to in this Chapter,

| (b) | rules on consistency with other Union measures and on the cumulation of support. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

rules on consistency with other Union measures and on the cumulation of support.

General rules

1.   Member States may grant coupled support to farmers under the conditions laid down in this Chapter.

Coupled support may be granted to the following sectors and productions: cereals, oilseeds, protein crops, grain legumes, flax, hemp, rice, nuts, starch potato, milk and milk products, seeds, sheepmeat and goatmeat, beef and veal, olive oil, silk worms, dried fodder, hops, sugar beet, cane and chicory, fruit and vegetables and short rotation coppice.

2.   Coupled support may only be granted to sectors or to regions of a Member State where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors undergo certain difficulties and are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons.

3.   By way of derogation from paragraph 2, coupled support may also be granted to farmers who held, on 31 December 2013, payment entitlements granted in accordance with Section 2 of Chapter 3 of Title III and Article 71 m of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and in accordance with Article 60 and the fourth subparagraph of Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009; and who are without eligible hectares for the activation of payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme as referred to in Chapter 1 of Title III of this Regulation.

4.   Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production in the regions concerned.

5.

Coupled support shall take the form of an annual payment and shall be granted within defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals.

.   Any coupled support granted under this Article shall be consistent with other Union measures and policies.

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 concerning:

| (a) | the conditions for granting the support referred to in this Chapter, |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the conditions for granting the support referred to in this Chapter,

| (b) | rules on consistency with other Union measures and on the cumulation of support. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

rules on consistency with other Union measures and on the cumulation of support.

Reason

Enables application on a regional basis under Article 20.

Amendment 27

Amendment of Article 47

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| General rules
  1.   Farmers holding payment entitlements allocated in 2014 pursuant to Article 21 and fulfilling the minimum requirements provided for in Article 10(1) may opt for participation in a simplified scheme under the conditions laid down in this Title, hereinafter referred to as ‘small farmers scheme’.
  2.   Payments under the small farmers scheme shall replace the payments to be granted pursuant to Titles III and IV.
  3.   Farmers participating in the small farmers scheme shall be exempted from the agricultural practises provided for in Chapter 2 of Title III.
  4.   Member States shall ensure that no payment is made to farmers for whom it is established that, as from the date of publication of the Commission proposal for this Regulation, they divide their holding with the sole purpose of benefiting from the small farmers scheme. This shall also apply to farmers whose holdings result from that division. | General rules
  1.   Farmers holding payment entitlements allocated in 2014 pursuant to Article 21 and fulfilling the minimum requirements provided for in Article 10(1) may opt for participation in a simplified scheme under the conditions laid down in this Title, hereinafter referred to as ‘small farmers scheme’.
  2.   Payments under the small farmers scheme shall replace the payments to be granted pursuant to Titles III and IV.
  3.   Farmers participating in the small farmers scheme shall be exempted from the agricultural practises provided for in Chapter 2 of Title III.
  4.   Member States shall ensure that no payment is made to farmers for whom it is established that, as from the date of publication of the Commission proposal for this Regulation, they divide their holding with the sole purpose of benefiting from the small farmers scheme. This shall also apply to farmers whose holdings result from that division. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

General rules

1.   Farmers holding payment entitlements allocated in 2014 pursuant to Article 21 and fulfilling the minimum requirements provided for in Article 10(1) may opt for participation in a simplified scheme under the conditions laid down in this Title, hereinafter referred to as ‘small farmers scheme’.

2.   Payments under the small farmers scheme shall replace the payments to be granted pursuant to Titles III and IV.

3.   Farmers participating in the small farmers scheme shall be exempted from the agricultural practises provided for in Chapter 2 of Title III.

4.   Member States shall ensure that no payment is made to farmers for whom it is established that, as from the date of publication of the Commission proposal for this Regulation, they divide their holding with the sole purpose of benefiting from the small farmers scheme. This shall also apply to farmers whose holdings result from that division.

General rules

1.   Farmers holding payment entitlements allocated in 2014 pursuant to Article 21 and fulfilling the minimum requirements provided for in Article 10(1) may opt for participation in a simplified scheme under the conditions laid down in this Title, hereinafter referred to as ‘small farmers scheme’.

2.   Payments under the small farmers scheme shall replace the payments to be granted pursuant to Titles III and IV.

3.   Farmers participating in the small farmers scheme shall be exempted from the agricultural practises provided for in Chapter 2 of Title III.

4.   Member States shall ensure that no payment is made to farmers for whom it is established that, as from the date of publication of the Commission proposal for this Regulation, they divide their holding with the sole purpose of benefiting from the small farmers scheme. This shall also apply to farmers whose holdings result from that division.

Reason

Enables application on a regional basis under Article 20.

Amendment 28

Amendment of Article 48

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Farmers wishing to participate in the small farmers scheme shall submit an application by 15 October 2014.
  Farmers not having applied for participation in the small farmers scheme by 15 October 2014 or deciding to withdraw from it after that date or selected for support under Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR] shall no longer have the right to participate in that scheme. | Farmers wishing to participate in the small farmers scheme shall submit an application by 15 October 2014.

  Farmers not having applied for participation in the small farmers scheme by 15 October 2014 or deciding to withdraw from it after or selected for support under Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR] shall no longer have the right to participate in that scheme. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Farmers wishing to participate in the small farmers scheme shall submit an application by 15 October 2014.

Farmers not having applied for participation in the small farmers scheme by 15 October 2014 or deciding to withdraw from it after that date or selected for support under Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR] shall no longer have the right to participate in that scheme.

Farmers wishing to participate in the small farmers scheme shall submit an application by 15 October 2014.

Farmers not having applied for participation in the small farmers scheme by 15 October 2014 or deciding to withdraw from it after or selected for support under Article 20(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No [...] [RDR] shall no longer have the right to participate in that scheme.

COM(2011) 627 final/2

Amendment 29

Amendment of Article 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The EAFRD shall contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy by promoting sustainable rural development throughout the Union in a complementary manner to the other instruments of the common agricultural policy (hereinafter ‘CAP’), to cohesion policy and to the common fisheries policy. It shall contribute to a more territorially and environmentally balanced, climate-friendly and resilient and innovative Union agricultural sector. | The EAFRD shall contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy by promoting sustainable rural development throughout the Union in a complementary manner to the other instruments of the common agricultural policy (hereinafter ‘CAP’) and cohesion policy and the common fisheries policy. It shall contribute to a more territorially and environmentally balanced, climate-friendly and resilient and innovative Union agricultural sector. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The EAFRD shall contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy by promoting sustainable rural development throughout the Union in a complementary manner to the other instruments of the common agricultural policy (hereinafter ‘CAP’), to cohesion policy and to the common fisheries policy. It shall contribute to a more territorially and environmentally balanced, climate-friendly and resilient and innovative Union agricultural sector.

The EAFRD shall contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy by promoting sustainable rural development throughout the Union in a complementary manner to the other instruments of the common agricultural policy (hereinafter ‘CAP’) and cohesion policy and the common fisheries policy. It shall contribute to a more territorially and environmentally balanced, climate-friendly and resilient and innovative Union agricultural sector.

Reason

There is a need for a genuine rural development strategy at European Union level. This strategy is missing from the Commission's proposals. It should be implemented by each Member State within the framework of partnership contracts and founded on the requirement to ensure balanced regional development.

Amendment 30

Amendment of Article 5(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (1)   fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas with a focus on the following areas:






  (a) | fostering innovation and the knowledge base in rural areas; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(1)   fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas with a focus on the following areas:

(a)

fostering innovation and the knowledge base in rural areas;

| (b) | strengthening the links between agriculture and forestry and research and innovation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

strengthening the links between agriculture and forestry and research and innovation;

| (c) | fostering lifelong learning and vocational training in the agricultural and forestry sectors. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

fostering lifelong learning and vocational training in the agricultural and forestry sectors.

(1)   fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas with a focus on the following areas:

| (a) | fostering innovation and the knowledge base in rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

fostering innovation and the knowledge base in rural areas;

| (b) | strengthening the links between agriculture and forestry and research and innovation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

strengthening the links between agriculture and forestry and research and innovation;

| (c) | fostering lifelong learning and vocational training in the agricultural and forestry sectors. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

fostering lifelong learning and vocational training in the agricultural and forestry sectors.

Reason

This move to boost agricultural research goes towards improving the competitiveness of European farming in the long term, from both an economic and an ecological viewpoint. These efforts come in response to high expectations on the part of farmers and the European public, who want healthy, quality foodstuffs and want to keep the environment in a good state. In order to take better account of natural resources and climate change, 10 % allocated to innovation translates into EUR 1,45 billion per annum across the EU. By way of comparison, the 30 % allocated to greening under the first pillar amounts to EUR 13,6 billion. Responding to the challenge posed by environmental issues requires more research into agricultural innovation. Such additional efforts are especially necessary to meet the challenge of climate change, the consequences of which will lead to shifts in traditional production areas in the long term.

Amendment 31

Amendment of Article 5(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (2)   enhancing competitiveness of all types of agriculture and enhancing farm viability, with a focus on the following areas:






  (a) | facilitating restructuring of farms facing major structural problems, notably farms with a low degree of market participation, market-oriented farms in particular sectors and farms in need of agricultural diversification; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(2)   enhancing competitiveness of all types of agriculture and enhancing farm viability, with a focus on the following areas:

(a)

facilitating restructuring of farms facing major structural problems, notably farms with a low degree of market participation, market-oriented farms in particular sectors and farms in need of agricultural diversification;

| (b) | facilitating generational renewal in the agricultural sector. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

facilitating generational renewal in the agricultural sector.

(2)   enhancing competitiveness of all types of agriculture and enhancing farm viability, with a focus on the following areas:

| (a) | facilitating restructuring farms ; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

facilitating restructuring farms ;

| (b) | facilitating generational renewal in the agricultural sector. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

facilitating generational renewal in the agricultural sector.

Amendment 32

Amendment of Article 5(6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (6)   promoting social inclusion poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas, with a focus on the following areas:






  (a) | facilitating diversification, creation of new small enterprises and job creation; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(6)   promoting social inclusion poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas, with a focus on the following areas:

(a)

facilitating diversification, creation of new small enterprises and job creation;

| (b) | fostering local development in rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

fostering local development in rural areas;

| (c) | enhancing accessibility to, use and quality of information and communication technologies (ICT) in rural areas. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

enhancing accessibility to, use and quality of information and communication technologies (ICT) in rural areas.

(6)   promoting social inclusion poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas, with a focus on the following areas:

| (a) | diversification, creation of new enterprises and job; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

diversification, creation of new enterprises and job;

| (b) | fostering local development in rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

fostering local development in rural areas;

| (c) | enhancing accessibility to, use and quality of information and communication technologies |
| --- | --- |

(c)

enhancing accessibility to, use and quality of information and communication technologies

| | in rural areas. |
| --- | --- |

in rural areas.

Amendment 33

Amendment of Article 7

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Rural development programmes
  1.   The EAFRD shall act in the Member States through rural development programmes. These programmes shall implement a strategy to meet the Union priorities for rural development through a set of measures defined in Title III, for the achievement of which aid from the EAFRD will be sought.
  2.   A Member State may submit either a single programme for its entire territory or a set of regional programmes.
  3.   Member States with regional programmes may also submit for approval a national framework containing common elements for these programmes without a separate budgetary allocation. | Rural development programmes
  1.   The EAFRD shall act in the Member States through rural development programmes. These programmes shall implement a strategy to meet the Union priorities for rural development through a set of measures defined in Title III, for the achievement of which aid from the EAFRD will be sought.
  2.   A Member State may submit either a single programme for its entire territory or a set of regional programmes.
  3.   Member States with regional programmes may also submit for approval a national framework containing common elements for these programmes without a separate budgetary allocation. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Rural development programmes

1.   The EAFRD shall act in the Member States through rural development programmes. These programmes shall implement a strategy to meet the Union priorities for rural development through a set of measures defined in Title III, for the achievement of which aid from the EAFRD will be sought.

2.   A Member State may submit either a single programme for its entire territory or a set of regional programmes.

3.   Member States with regional programmes may also submit for approval a national framework containing common elements for these programmes without a separate budgetary allocation.

Rural development programmes

1.   The EAFRD shall act in the Member States through rural development programmes. These programmes shall implement a strategy to meet the Union priorities for rural development through a set of measures defined in Title III, for the achievement of which aid from the EAFRD will be sought.

2.   A Member State may submit either a single programme for its entire territory or a set of regional programmes.

3.   Member States with regional programmes may also submit for approval a national framework containing common elements for these programmes without a separate budgetary allocation.

Reason

This amendment maintains direct regional programming for rural development while also enabling certain measures to be effected at national level, such as those set out in the risk management package (Article 37), so as to ensure their more effective implementation given the need for sufficiently sizeable resources and uniform implementation procedures that do not distort competition. Ensuring that measures implemented through national and regional programmes are mutually exclusive provides the Commission with a guarantee that measures and funding will not overlap.

Amendment 34

Amendment of Article 8(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Member States may include within their rural development programmes thematic sub-programmes, contributing to the Union priorities for rural development, aimed to address specific needs identified, in particular in relation to:






  (a) | young farmers; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Member States may include within their rural development programmes thematic sub-programmes, contributing to the Union priorities for rural development, aimed to address specific needs identified, in particular in relation to:

(a)

young farmers;

| (b) | small farms as referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 20(2); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

small farms as referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 20(2);

| (c) | mountain areas as referred to in Article 33(2); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

mountain areas as referred to in Article 33(2);

| (d) | short supply chains. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

short supply chains.

An indicative list of measures and types of operations of particular relevance to each thematic sub-programme is set out in Annex III.

1.   Member States may include within their rural development programmes thematic sub-programmes, contributing to the Union priorities for rural development, aimed to address specific needs identified, in particular in relation to:

| (a) | young farmers; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

young farmers;

| (b) | small farms as referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 20(2); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

small farms as referred to in the third subparagraph of Article 20(2);

| (c) | mountain areas as referred to in Article 33(2); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

mountain areas as referred to in Article 33(2);

| (d) | short supply chains. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

short supply chains.

| | |
| --- | --- |

An indicative list of measures and types of operations of particular relevance to each thematic sub-programme is set out in Annex III.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Amendment 35

Amendment of Article 21(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Investments under paragraph 1 shall be eligible for support where the relevant operations are implemented in accordance with plans for the development of municipalities in rural areas and their basic services, where such plans exist and shall be consistent with any local development strategy where one exists. | Investments under paragraph 1 shall be eligible for support where the relevant operations are implemented in accordance with plans for the development of municipalities in rural areas and their basic services, shall be consistent with any local development strategy. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Investments under paragraph 1 shall be eligible for support where the relevant operations are implemented in accordance with plans for the development of municipalities in rural areas and their basic services, where such plans exist and shall be consistent with any local development strategy where one exists.

Investments under paragraph 1 shall be eligible for support where the relevant operations are implemented in accordance with plans for the development of municipalities in rural areas and their basic services, shall be consistent with any local development strategy.

Reason

These investments must be compatible with the plans for the development of municipalities in rural areas and their basic services, in order to ensure that they are used effectively and integrated into the development of municipalities.

Amendment 36

Amendment of Article 29(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Agri-environment-climate payments shall be granted to farmers, groups of farmers or groups of farmers and other land-managers who undertake, on a voluntary basis, to carry out operations consisting of one or more agri-environment-climate commitments on agricultural land. Where duly justified to achieve environmental objectives, agri-environment-climate payments may be granted to other land-managers or groups of other land-managers. | Agri-environment-climate payments shall be granted to farmers, groups of farmers or groups of farmers and other land-managers who undertake, on a voluntary basis, to carry out operations one or more agri-environment-climate commitments. Where duly justified to achieve environmental objectives, agri-environment-climate payments may be granted to other land-managers or groups of other land-managers. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Agri-environment-climate payments shall be granted to farmers, groups of farmers or groups of farmers and other land-managers who undertake, on a voluntary basis, to carry out operations consisting of one or more agri-environment-climate commitments on agricultural land. Where duly justified to achieve environmental objectives, agri-environment-climate payments may be granted to other land-managers or groups of other land-managers.

Agri-environment-climate payments shall be granted to farmers, groups of farmers or groups of farmers and other land-managers who undertake, on a voluntary basis, to carry out operations one or more agri-environment-climate commitments. Where duly justified to achieve environmental objectives, agri-environment-climate payments may be granted to other land-managers or groups of other land-managers.

Reason

The restriction to measures ‘on agricultural land’ should be deleted, as it presents a serious risk to key environmental and climate objectives. This applies, for example, to the use of areas not regarded as agricultural land for grazing, and the use of agri-environmental measures on ponds, peat bogs and riparian zones.

Amendment 37

Amendment of Article 46(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Eligible expenditure shall be limited to:






  (a) | the construction, acquisition, including leasing, or improvement of immovable property; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Eligible expenditure shall be limited to:

(a)

the construction, acquisition, including leasing, or improvement of immovable property;

| (b) | the purchase or lease purchase of new machinery and equipment including computing software up to the market value of the asset; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the purchase or lease purchase of new machinery and equipment including computing software up to the market value of the asset;

| (c) | general costs linked to expenditure referred to in points (a), and (b), such as fees of architects and engineers and consultation fees, feasibility studies, the acquisition of patent rights and licences. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

general costs linked to expenditure referred to in points (a), and (b), such as fees of architects and engineers and consultation fees, feasibility studies, the acquisition of patent rights and licences.

Eligible expenditure shall be limited to:

| (a) | the construction, acquisition, including leasing, or improvement of immovable property; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the construction, acquisition, including leasing, or improvement of immovable property;

| (b) | the purchase or lease purchase of new machinery and equipment including computing software up to the market value of the asset; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the purchase or lease purchase of new machinery and equipment including computing software up to the market value of the asset;

| (c) | |
| --- | --- |

(c)

general costs linked to expenditure referred to in points (a), and (b), such as fees of architects and engineers and consultation fees, feasibility studies, the acquisition of patent rights and licences.

| | general costs linked to expenditure referred to in points (a), and (b), such as fees of architects and engineers and consultation fees, feasibility studies, the acquisition of patent rights and licences. |
| --- | --- |

Amendment 38

Amendment of Article 64(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, make an annual breakdown by Member State of the amounts referred to in paragraph 1, after deduction of the amount referred to in paragraph 2 and taking into account the transfer of funds referred to in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No DP/2012. In making the annual breakdown the Commission shall take into account:






  (a) | objective criteria linked to the objectives referred to in Article 4; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, make an annual breakdown by Member State of the amounts referred to in paragraph 1, after deduction of the amount referred to in paragraph 2 and taking into account the transfer of funds referred to in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No DP/2012. In making the annual breakdown the Commission shall take into account:

(a)

objective criteria linked to the objectives referred to in Article 4;

| (b) | past performance. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

past performance.

The Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, make an annual breakdown by Member State of the amounts referred to in paragraph 1, after deduction of the amount referred to in paragraph 2 and taking into account the transfer of funds referred to in Article 14(2) of Regulation (EU) No DP/2012. In making the annual breakdown the Commission shall take into account:

| (a) | objective criteria linked to the objectives referred to in Article 4; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

objective criteria linked to the objectives referred to in Article 4;

| (b) | past performance |
| --- | --- |

(b)

past performance

| | |
| --- | --- |

Amendment 39

| | |
| --- | --- |

Amendment of Article 64(6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| For the purposes of the allocation of the performance reserve referred to in Article 20(2) of Regulation (EU) No [CSF/2012], available assigned revenue collected in accordance with Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No HR/2012 for the EAFRD shall be added to the amounts referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No [CSF/2012]. It shall be allocated to Member States proportionally to their share of the total amount of support from the EAFRD. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

For the purposes of the allocation of the performance reserve referred to in Article 20(2) of Regulation (EU) No [CSF/2012], available assigned revenue collected in accordance with Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No HR/2012 for the EAFRD shall be added to the amounts referred to in Article 18 of Regulation (EU) No [CSF/2012]. It shall be allocated to Member States proportionally to their share of the total amount of support from the EAFRD.

COM(2011) 628 final

Amendment 40

Amendment of Article 34(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent 4 % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. It may be split into a maximum of three instalments depending on budget availability. The first instalment shall represent 2 % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. | Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. It may be split into a maximum of three instalments depending on budget availability. The first instalment shall represent 2 % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent 4 % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. It may be split into a maximum of three instalments depending on budget availability. The first instalment shall represent 2 % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned.

Following the Commission decision approving the programme, an initial prefinancing amount for the whole programming period shall be paid by the Commission. This initial pre-financing amount shall represent % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned. It may be split into a maximum of three instalments depending on budget availability. The first instalment shall represent 2 % of the EAFRD contribution to the programme concerned.

Reason

Given the major significance and wide-ranging impact of measures for rural areas (ERDF), the prefinancing amount for the participation of the ERDF in the relevant rural development programme should be maintained at the current level of 7 %. Article 34(1) of the proposal for a financial regulation provides only for a prefinancing amount of 4 %. This significant deterioration of liquidity at programme level would lead to unintended delays in the implementation of programmes for rural areas and/or to significant extra prefinancing costs.

Amendment 41

Amendment of Article 43(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Reductions and suspensions under this Article shall be without prejudice to Articles 17, 20 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx.
  The suspensions referred to in Articles 17 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx shall be applied following the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article. | Reductions and suspensions under this Article shall be without prejudice to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx. The suspensions referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx shall be applied following the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reductions and suspensions under this Article shall be without prejudice to Articles 17, 20 and 21 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx.

The suspensions referred to in Articles 17 and 20 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx shall be applied following the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article.

Reductions and suspensions under this Article shall be without prejudice to Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx. The suspensions referred to in Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No CR/xxx shall be applied following the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article.

Reason

The Common Strategic Framework (CSR) for the Structural Funds, including the ERDF and EMFF (fisheries fund), stipulates that reductions are possible if ex-ante conditionalities are not met (Article 17). Furthermore, a performance reserve of 5 % is set aside, the allocation of which is conditional upon the reaching of the milestones set (Articles 18, 20 and 21). These arrangements are to be rejected, as they mean an enormous increase in bureaucracy without achieving any progress. This rejection is also in line with the CoR's position in the draft opinion on the Common Strategic Framework (CSR) for the Structural Funds.

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  The future of the CAP after 2013, Committee of the Regions, René Souchon, 2010. CdR 127/2010 fin.

1

The future of the CAP after 2013

(2)  Aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps, Committee of the Regions, Luis Durnwalder, 2010. CdR 314/2009 fin.

2

Aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps

(3)  OJ L 84, 31.3.2009, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 185, 17.7.2009, p. 1.

4

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/200 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/200

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Erasmus for All’

2012/C 225/15

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | strongly supports the increased budget proposed for the programme. Funding should be distributed between the various educational and youth sectors such that all areas benefit from budget increases; |
| --- | --- |

—

strongly supports the increased budget proposed for the programme. Funding should be distributed between the various educational and youth sectors such that all areas benefit from budget increases;

| — | underlines the importance of lifelong learning, and therefore of the programme supporting all age groups and types of learning equally; |
| --- | --- |

—

underlines the importance of lifelong learning, and therefore of the programme supporting all age groups and types of learning equally;

| — | feels that support should be most generous where the need and chances of impact are greatest. This should mean a clear relocation of funds to projects aimed at people who currently have little contact with mobility programmes, such as schools, young people not in formal education, and adults in training and further education; |
| --- | --- |

—

feels that support should be most generous where the need and chances of impact are greatest. This should mean a clear relocation of funds to projects aimed at people who currently have little contact with mobility programmes, such as schools, young people not in formal education, and adults in training and further education;

| — | believes that if the big challenges can be met at local and regional level, people will be prepared for a future characterised by flux. They will be equipped for lifelong learning, and more and more will complete their studies, go through higher education and identify opportunities to complete phases of their education in different parts of Europe and also see the whole of Europe as a potential work location; |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that if the big challenges can be met at local and regional level, people will be prepared for a future characterised by flux. They will be equipped for lifelong learning, and more and more will complete their studies, go through higher education and identify opportunities to complete phases of their education in different parts of Europe and also see the whole of Europe as a potential work location;

| — | can see advantages in institutional cooperation, including for mobility projects. When mobility occurs within an institutional framework, it may provide a more solid foundation for higher quality and more sustained, strategic impact; |
| --- | --- |

—

can see advantages in institutional cooperation, including for mobility projects. When mobility occurs within an institutional framework, it may provide a more solid foundation for higher quality and more sustained, strategic impact;

| — | notes its positive experience with parts of previous programmes, such as Comenius Regio, that provide opportunities to involve institutions other than educational ones, and which are aimed at promoting European cooperation in education at local and regional level. |
| --- | --- |

—

notes its positive experience with parts of previous programmes, such as Comenius Regio, that provide opportunities to involve institutions other than educational ones, and which are aimed at promoting European cooperation in education at local and regional level.

| Rapporteur | Yoomi RENSTRÖM (SE/PES), Member of Ovanåker Municipal Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Erasmus for All, the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport.
  COM(2011) 788 final |

Rapporteur

Yoomi RENSTRÖM (SE/PES), Member of Ovanåker Municipal Council

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Erasmus for All, the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport.

COM(2011) 788 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Major challenges

| 1. | notes that Europe faces mounting challenges as a result of the financial and economic crisis. Structural problems have become increasingly manifest, in terms of low productivity growth, large groups of people that are outside the labour market, the growing demand for welfare services due to an ageing population, and fiscal deficits; |
| --- | --- |

1.

notes that Europe faces mounting challenges as a result of the financial and economic crisis. Structural problems have become increasingly manifest, in terms of low productivity growth, large groups of people that are outside the labour market, the growing demand for welfare services due to an ageing population, and fiscal deficits;

| 2. | sees widening economic gaps as a fundamental issue that is becoming more and more pressing and presents challenges for democracy. Far too many young people are finishing their education without the skills needed to take part in the democratic process and have a good working life that will be characterised by variety. The opportunity for everybody to benefit from lifelong learning is a basic precondition for a robust democracy and future growth. To break the cycle of unemployment and exclusion we also need to break the cycle of a gender-segregated labour market; |
| --- | --- |

2.

sees widening economic gaps as a fundamental issue that is becoming more and more pressing and presents challenges for democracy. Far too many young people are finishing their education without the skills needed to take part in the democratic process and have a good working life that will be characterised by variety. The opportunity for everybody to benefit from lifelong learning is a basic precondition for a robust democracy and future growth. To break the cycle of unemployment and exclusion we also need to break the cycle of a gender-segregated labour market;

| 3. | considers education to be a key instrument with which the EU should be able to meet these great challenges and ensure that the knowledge society includes everyone; takes note of the Commission's proposal for a new programme to replace and merge the current education and youth programmes. The programme should strengthen EU citizenship by emphasising the European dimension and promote social cohesion by ensuring that more and more people have access to high-quality education over their lifetime. It is important to ensure that all target groups from previous programmes have adequate opportunities to continue to receive EU support; |
| --- | --- |

3.

considers education to be a key instrument with which the EU should be able to meet these great challenges and ensure that the knowledge society includes everyone; takes note of the Commission's proposal for a new programme to replace and merge the current education and youth programmes. The programme should strengthen EU citizenship by emphasising the European dimension and promote social cohesion by ensuring that more and more people have access to high-quality education over their lifetime. It is important to ensure that all target groups from previous programmes have adequate opportunities to continue to receive EU support;

| 4. | fully supports the two headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy that are most relevant to the proposed education programme: (1) reducing the share of early school leavers to less than 10 %, and (2) ensuring that at least 40 % of 30-34–year-olds complete third level education. If these goals are to be achieved, education programmes must be organised and run differently from the way they were when only a small minority received an education. This creates new requirements for action at local and regional level to raise quality and accessibility so as to include everybody; |
| --- | --- |

4.

fully supports the two headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy that are most relevant to the proposed education programme: (1) reducing the share of early school leavers to less than 10 %, and (2) ensuring that at least 40 % of 30-34–year-olds complete third level education. If these goals are to be achieved, education programmes must be organised and run differently from the way they were when only a small minority received an education. This creates new requirements for action at local and regional level to raise quality and accessibility so as to include everybody;

| 5. | believes that the big challenge of reaching everybody, which is also pointed to in the explanatory memorandum, means that schools should adopt a different way of working. High-quality education that starts with an extensive pre-school system will facilitate an approach that maintains and increases children's curiosity and interest in learning from when they are small; notes that promoting lifelong learning not only requires opportunities for education, continuing education and possibilities for career change over a whole lifetime, but means also seeing the education of children and young people as a first phase in lifelong learning; |
| --- | --- |

5.

believes that the big challenge of reaching everybody, which is also pointed to in the explanatory memorandum, means that schools should adopt a different way of working. High-quality education that starts with an extensive pre-school system will facilitate an approach that maintains and increases children's curiosity and interest in learning from when they are small; notes that promoting lifelong learning not only requires opportunities for education, continuing education and possibilities for career change over a whole lifetime, but means also seeing the education of children and young people as a first phase in lifelong learning;

| 6. | holds that access to university must become more democratic, so that universities are open to as many people as possible. Moreover, the labour market of tomorrow will set new requirements, which means that efforts to better match skills with work opportunities must be continued and stepped up, at EU level, in the Member States and at local and regional level. It is therefore important to bring together the different Europe 2020 initiatives and to make it clear that the priorities of the education programme support all the relevant initiatives (1); |
| --- | --- |

6.

holds that access to university must become more democratic, so that universities are open to as many people as possible. Moreover, the labour market of tomorrow will set new requirements, which means that efforts to better match skills with work opportunities must be continued and stepped up, at EU level, in the Member States and at local and regional level. It is therefore important to bring together the different Europe 2020 initiatives and to make it clear that the priorities of the education programme support all the relevant initiatives (1);

| 7. | considers that a broad range of education opportunities are needed so as to reach everybody. For example, technology (ICT) should be fully exploited, regional higher education should be accessible to a wide target group, and informal and non-formal learning should be promoted for young people and adults to make it easier to return to education while creating the necessary conditions that ensure the completion of education and facilitate lifelong learning; |
| --- | --- |

7.

considers that a broad range of education opportunities are needed so as to reach everybody. For example, technology (ICT) should be fully exploited, regional higher education should be accessible to a wide target group, and informal and non-formal learning should be promoted for young people and adults to make it easier to return to education while creating the necessary conditions that ensure the completion of education and facilitate lifelong learning;

Local and regional remit

| 8. | notes that local and regional government has a key role to play in implementing both the EU's education programmes and other relevant European initiatives, since in many European countries the main responsibility for general and vocational training at primary and secondary level, as well as for adult education, lies with local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

8.

notes that local and regional government has a key role to play in implementing both the EU's education programmes and other relevant European initiatives, since in many European countries the main responsibility for general and vocational training at primary and secondary level, as well as for adult education, lies with local and regional authorities;

| 9. | observes that local and regional authorities coordinate local and regional development and growth, and therefore have a stake in also developing workforce skills. New skills needs on the labour market are identified first and most clearly at local and regional level, which is where an effective skills-matching process can take place that includes continuing learning for the individual; |
| --- | --- |

9.

observes that local and regional authorities coordinate local and regional development and growth, and therefore have a stake in also developing workforce skills. New skills needs on the labour market are identified first and most clearly at local and regional level, which is where an effective skills-matching process can take place that includes continuing learning for the individual;

| 10. | points out that many local and regional partnerships exist now to promote innovation and know-how, in which public authorities, local businesses, youth organisations, regional higher education bodies and other education providers are developing different types of cooperation opportunities. Such partnerships can effectively align education programmes with the needs of society and work, as well as the specific needs of regions facing similar challenges. The National Agencies must therefore seek cooperation with these partnerships in order to implement EU education programmes because such partnerships are of strategic importance since they foster cross-border cooperation and knowledge transfer between local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

10.

points out that many local and regional partnerships exist now to promote innovation and know-how, in which public authorities, local businesses, youth organisations, regional higher education bodies and other education providers are developing different types of cooperation opportunities. Such partnerships can effectively align education programmes with the needs of society and work, as well as the specific needs of regions facing similar challenges. The National Agencies must therefore seek cooperation with these partnerships in order to implement EU education programmes because such partnerships are of strategic importance since they foster cross-border cooperation and knowledge transfer between local and regional authorities;

| 11. | notes that another reason to ensure strong local and regional participation in education programmes is its relevance to an important aspect of democracy, namely the possibility to be part of, grow within and uphold a democratic society; |
| --- | --- |

11.

notes that another reason to ensure strong local and regional participation in education programmes is its relevance to an important aspect of democracy, namely the possibility to be part of, grow within and uphold a democratic society;

| 12. | remarks that local and regional government is also the level that is most relevant for recent immigrants and that supports their integration into the host country. Education – for both children and adults - plays a critical role here, and the situation can vary widely within a country; |
| --- | --- |

12.

remarks that local and regional government is also the level that is most relevant for recent immigrants and that supports their integration into the host country. Education – for both children and adults - plays a critical role here, and the situation can vary widely within a country;

General considerations on the proposed programme

| 13. | notes that the EU's education and youth programme, Erasmus For All, is intended to improve the quality of education and learning and promote the European dimension of education through internationalisation. The Committee endorses this overarching goal and thinks that the Commission's proposals are a good basis for achieving real changes. More exchange will mean that good ideas and methods are spread more widely and will underpin the reforms needed for modern education systems; |
| --- | --- |

13.

notes that the EU's education and youth programme, Erasmus For All, is intended to improve the quality of education and learning and promote the European dimension of education through internationalisation. The Committee endorses this overarching goal and thinks that the Commission's proposals are a good basis for achieving real changes. More exchange will mean that good ideas and methods are spread more widely and will underpin the reforms needed for modern education systems;

| 14. | believes that the programme could contribute very significantly to efforts to mobilise all the relevant stakeholders with a view to spurring change in education systems and in work with young people, making it possible to meet the needs of the new knowledge economy as well as Community objectives for individual participation and responsibility in society; |
| --- | --- |

14.

believes that the programme could contribute very significantly to efforts to mobilise all the relevant stakeholders with a view to spurring change in education systems and in work with young people, making it possible to meet the needs of the new knowledge economy as well as Community objectives for individual participation and responsibility in society;

| 15. | emphasises that periods of general education, vocational training and practical experience abroad are particularly effective approaches which help people to develop and provide useful experience for continuing education and working life. Applying skills in a new environment involves developing not just specialist and general knowledge but also autonomy and communication skills; |
| --- | --- |

15.

emphasises that periods of general education, vocational training and practical experience abroad are particularly effective approaches which help people to develop and provide useful experience for continuing education and working life. Applying skills in a new environment involves developing not just specialist and general knowledge but also autonomy and communication skills;

| 16. | is convinced that, at a time of accelerating globalisation and cross-border networking of all areas of life and work, intercultural competences, language skills and international knowledge are continuing to grow in importance; |
| --- | --- |

16.

is convinced that, at a time of accelerating globalisation and cross-border networking of all areas of life and work, intercultural competences, language skills and international knowledge are continuing to grow in importance;

| 17. | agrees with the Commission that youth mobility and international projects can encourage a deeper understanding of Europe's identity and a sense of European citizenship, while helping to combat xenophobia; |
| --- | --- |

17.

agrees with the Commission that youth mobility and international projects can encourage a deeper understanding of Europe's identity and a sense of European citizenship, while helping to combat xenophobia;

| 18. | reiterates its belief that specific measures must be taken to ensure equal access to mobility for all target groups addressed by the programme, irrespective of the geographical location of the region they come from (2), and not least for those living in sparsely-populated areas, on islands, in mountain regions and in the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

18.

reiterates its belief that specific measures must be taken to ensure equal access to mobility for all target groups addressed by the programme, irrespective of the geographical location of the region they come from (2), and not least for those living in sparsely-populated areas, on islands, in mountain regions and in the outermost regions;

| 19. | believes that if the big challenges can be met at local and regional level, people will be prepared for a future characterised by flux. They will be equipped for lifelong learning, and more and more will complete their studies, go through higher education and identify opportunities to complete phases of their education in different parts of Europe and also see the whole of Europe as a potential work location; |
| --- | --- |

19.

believes that if the big challenges can be met at local and regional level, people will be prepared for a future characterised by flux. They will be equipped for lifelong learning, and more and more will complete their studies, go through higher education and identify opportunities to complete phases of their education in different parts of Europe and also see the whole of Europe as a potential work location;

Different objectives and broad role of education

| 20. | fully endorses the goal of improving people's knowledge, skills and experience so that it is easier for everybody to enter the labour market and improve their employability, while pointing out that education is not just about improving employability but must also serve the overarching goal of personal growth; also underlines the importance of lifelong learning, and therefore of the programme supporting all age groups and types of learning equally; |
| --- | --- |

20.

fully endorses the goal of improving people's knowledge, skills and experience so that it is easier for everybody to enter the labour market and improve their employability, while pointing out that education is not just about improving employability but must also serve the overarching goal of personal growth; also underlines the importance of lifelong learning, and therefore of the programme supporting all age groups and types of learning equally;

| 21. | also notes that education should stimulate individual creativity and innovation potential, as well as providing intellectual and social enrichment. In times of economic crisis with high unemployment it is easy to focus primarily on the role of education in promoting employability, whereas the Committee would point out that during crises there is still a need to ensure positive development over the longer term so that Europe is stronger in the future. This means promoting an inclusive education system designed to look at the whole person and develop lifelong learning systems; |
| --- | --- |

21.

also notes that education should stimulate individual creativity and innovation potential, as well as providing intellectual and social enrichment. In times of economic crisis with high unemployment it is easy to focus primarily on the role of education in promoting employability, whereas the Committee would point out that during crises there is still a need to ensure positive development over the longer term so that Europe is stronger in the future. This means promoting an inclusive education system designed to look at the whole person and develop lifelong learning systems;

| 22. | stresses the importance of specifically seeing vocational training as an element of lifelong learning. Concepts such as knowledge and education are important aspects of this, and the world of work is now more demanding, e.g. as regards language skills. It is important to bear in mind that vocational training is very broad in scope and plays a key role in terms both of integrating people in vulnerable situations and of excellence within different professional fields; |
| --- | --- |

22.

stresses the importance of specifically seeing vocational training as an element of lifelong learning. Concepts such as knowledge and education are important aspects of this, and the world of work is now more demanding, e.g. as regards language skills. It is important to bear in mind that vocational training is very broad in scope and plays a key role in terms both of integrating people in vulnerable situations and of excellence within different professional fields;

| 23. | notes that a crucial task for local and regional stakeholders is promoting young people's creativity and innovation potential, and providing opportunities for their intellectual and social development. This is of decisive importance for young people's personal development and social integration. It also requires measures that enable young people to combine education and career with family life; |
| --- | --- |

23.

notes that a crucial task for local and regional stakeholders is promoting young people's creativity and innovation potential, and providing opportunities for their intellectual and social development. This is of decisive importance for young people's personal development and social integration. It also requires measures that enable young people to combine education and career with family life;

| 24. | points out that higher education institutions are not just learning organisations but also important players in regional development and a key motor of future innovation. Higher education needs to be modernised. The Committee's views on what changes are required in higher education were transmitted to the Commission in February 2012 (3). It is important that the three parts of the knowledge triangle - education, research and innovation – should be explicitly linked. This both reinforces the regional level and is reinforced by it. Cooperation is called for here between the local, regional, national and EU levels, not least through local and regional partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

24.

points out that higher education institutions are not just learning organisations but also important players in regional development and a key motor of future innovation. Higher education needs to be modernised. The Committee's views on what changes are required in higher education were transmitted to the Commission in February 2012 (3). It is important that the three parts of the knowledge triangle - education, research and innovation – should be explicitly linked. This both reinforces the regional level and is reinforced by it. Cooperation is called for here between the local, regional, national and EU levels, not least through local and regional partnerships;

| 25. | believes that adult education gives people opportunities to develop their abilities over their lifetime, supporting the changes of career path required in an ever more flexible and volatile labour market, while also providing significant added value in participants' social, professional, civic, cultural and economic life. Adult learning programmes based on partnership are a major source of individual and community influence, and it is therefore particularly important that a European education programme should support the development of adult education in the Member States and the regions; |
| --- | --- |

25.

believes that adult education gives people opportunities to develop their abilities over their lifetime, supporting the changes of career path required in an ever more flexible and volatile labour market, while also providing significant added value in participants' social, professional, civic, cultural and economic life. Adult learning programmes based on partnership are a major source of individual and community influence, and it is therefore particularly important that a European education programme should support the development of adult education in the Member States and the regions;

Specific comments on the proposal

Basis in the treaty and subsidiarity

| 26. | agrees with the Commission that the proposed programme is based on the objectives laid down in Articles 165 and 166 of the TFEU and should be implemented in line with the principle of subsidiarity. It is therefore of utmost importance that local and regional authorities and decision-makers be active in designing, implementing and steering the presented measures; emphasises, in line with Article 174 on Territorial Cohesion, the need to fully consider the regional differences across the Union, as well as the fact that regions are differently placed to meet the objectives of Europe 2020; |
| --- | --- |

26.

agrees with the Commission that the proposed programme is based on the objectives laid down in Articles 165 and 166 of the TFEU and should be implemented in line with the principle of subsidiarity. It is therefore of utmost importance that local and regional authorities and decision-makers be active in designing, implementing and steering the presented measures; emphasises, in line with Article 174 on Territorial Cohesion, the need to fully consider the regional differences across the Union, as well as the fact that regions are differently placed to meet the objectives of Europe 2020;

Structure of the Programme

| 27. | stresses that the individual activities within the three main initiatives (mobility, institutional cooperation and policy development) should be organised in such a way that all target groups are in a good position to participate, enabling the programme's targets to be achieved. The proposed structure should aim at facilitating cross-sectoral cooperation and increasing the dissemination of good examples and results. The Committee notes, however, that the particularities of extracurricular and informal learning for youth need to be better accounted for, and consequently proposes the addition of a separate chapter on Youth, as is the case for Sports; |
| --- | --- |

27.

stresses that the individual activities within the three main initiatives (mobility, institutional cooperation and policy development) should be organised in such a way that all target groups are in a good position to participate, enabling the programme's targets to be achieved. The proposed structure should aim at facilitating cross-sectoral cooperation and increasing the dissemination of good examples and results. The Committee notes, however, that the particularities of extracurricular and informal learning for youth need to be better accounted for, and consequently proposes the addition of a separate chapter on Youth, as is the case for Sports;

| 28. | notes that, in the new programme, it is extremely important to meet the various target groups' need for support so that they can take part. A coherent programme provides greater clarity and transparency for applicants. It is, however, important to organise activities such that they can be implemented in a way that is relevant to each target group. Conditions for participating in mobility and cooperation projects vary depending on what type of education or youth activity the participants are involved in. Account must be taken of the various target groups' need for information, application procedures and budgetary rules, as well as criteria for the various initiatives, for example by allocating a certain proportion of funding to participants from various target groups, establishing separate structures for different target groups, introducing initiatives that are particularly relevant to specific target groups, etc. It is also important to ensure that small institutions – which are primarily found in the school, youth work and adult education areas – have opportunities to participate. The Committee is particularly in favour of measures to promote participation by people who are disadvantaged in some way; |
| --- | --- |

28.

notes that, in the new programme, it is extremely important to meet the various target groups' need for support so that they can take part. A coherent programme provides greater clarity and transparency for applicants. It is, however, important to organise activities such that they can be implemented in a way that is relevant to each target group. Conditions for participating in mobility and cooperation projects vary depending on what type of education or youth activity the participants are involved in. Account must be taken of the various target groups' need for information, application procedures and budgetary rules, as well as criteria for the various initiatives, for example by allocating a certain proportion of funding to participants from various target groups, establishing separate structures for different target groups, introducing initiatives that are particularly relevant to specific target groups, etc. It is also important to ensure that small institutions – which are primarily found in the school, youth work and adult education areas – have opportunities to participate. The Committee is particularly in favour of measures to promote participation by people who are disadvantaged in some way;

| 29. | welcomes the expressed objective of making the programme more effective and simpler for users, in particular. It is of utmost importance that administrative simplifications benefit users; |
| --- | --- |

29.

welcomes the expressed objective of making the programme more effective and simpler for users, in particular. It is of utmost importance that administrative simplifications benefit users;

| 30. | can see advantages in institutional cooperation, including for mobility projects. When mobility occurs within an institutional framework, it may provide a more solid foundation for higher quality and more sustained, strategic impact. This may also help individuals – by simplifying accreditation, for example. It is, however, important for the design of this institutional framework to take account of the different types of organisation involved in the project; |
| --- | --- |

30.

can see advantages in institutional cooperation, including for mobility projects. When mobility occurs within an institutional framework, it may provide a more solid foundation for higher quality and more sustained, strategic impact. This may also help individuals – by simplifying accreditation, for example. It is, however, important for the design of this institutional framework to take account of the different types of organisation involved in the project;

| 31. | considers it a necessary part of work with mobility projects to create greater preparedness at national, regional and local level to sustain support for mobility after a project has ended, so that the structures and contacts forged therein can be maintained. Projects should help to eliminate barriers and stimulate ongoing exchange so that mobility remains part of regular activity after a project has run its course; |
| --- | --- |

31.

considers it a necessary part of work with mobility projects to create greater preparedness at national, regional and local level to sustain support for mobility after a project has ended, so that the structures and contacts forged therein can be maintained. Projects should help to eliminate barriers and stimulate ongoing exchange so that mobility remains part of regular activity after a project has run its course;

| 32. | considers it important that the forms of student finance used in different countries allow the possibility of completing part of one's education in another Member State; |
| --- | --- |

32.

considers it important that the forms of student finance used in different countries allow the possibility of completing part of one's education in another Member State;

| 33. | notes the Commission's proposal to create a European loan system for students together with the European Investment Bank, which would complement the systems in individual Member States; stresses that these loans must not contribute to a commercialisation of student mobility, and has reservations about basing the programme mainly on the EIB group, given that guarantee costs are considerable and need varies greatly from one country to the next; |
| --- | --- |

33.

notes the Commission's proposal to create a European loan system for students together with the European Investment Bank, which would complement the systems in individual Member States; stresses that these loans must not contribute to a commercialisation of student mobility, and has reservations about basing the programme mainly on the EIB group, given that guarantee costs are considerable and need varies greatly from one country to the next;

| 34. | highlights, with regard to cooperation on policy development, the need for platforms for dialogue with key stakeholders within both education and business, and the key role of local and regional authorities in both the Open Methods of Coordination and implementing the programme; |
| --- | --- |

34.

highlights, with regard to cooperation on policy development, the need for platforms for dialogue with key stakeholders within both education and business, and the key role of local and regional authorities in both the Open Methods of Coordination and implementing the programme;

Informal and non-formal learning – Youth and Sport

| 35. | considers it important that there be opportunities for mobility in all learning situations. One way of applying this approach is to highlight the importance of all forms of learning, including formal, informal and non-formal learning.; The Committee takes note of the Commission's ambition of including all forms of learning within the same programme. Underlines, however, that, given that the organisation of informal and non-formal learning outside educational establishments has altogether different requirements, this should be properly reflected in the structure of the programme. As part of this, it is important to take measures that harness and promote young people's own initiative; |
| --- | --- |

35.

considers it important that there be opportunities for mobility in all learning situations. One way of applying this approach is to highlight the importance of all forms of learning, including formal, informal and non-formal learning.; The Committee takes note of the Commission's ambition of including all forms of learning within the same programme. Underlines, however, that, given that the organisation of informal and non-formal learning outside educational establishments has altogether different requirements, this should be properly reflected in the structure of the programme. As part of this, it is important to take measures that harness and promote young people's own initiative;

| 36. | is especially in favour of measures that promote participation by people who are disadvantaged in some way; to promote social inclusion, grassroots sports, volunteerism, equal opportunities and health-enhancing physical activity through increased participation in sport, with a focus on disadvantaged groups such as people with intellectual or physical disabilities; |
| --- | --- |

36.

is especially in favour of measures that promote participation by people who are disadvantaged in some way; to promote social inclusion, grassroots sports, volunteerism, equal opportunities and health-enhancing physical activity through increased participation in sport, with a focus on disadvantaged groups such as people with intellectual or physical disabilities;

| 37. | believes that the structure of the programme could be useful to all types of learning. Emphasises the importance of enabling local and regional authorities to take part in shaping the implementation and monitoring of the project so that parts that prove problematic locally can be adjusted to best possible effect; |
| --- | --- |

37.

believes that the structure of the programme could be useful to all types of learning. Emphasises the importance of enabling local and regional authorities to take part in shaping the implementation and monitoring of the project so that parts that prove problematic locally can be adjusted to best possible effect;

| 38. | sees the possibility of participation through smaller organisations and cooperation on a smaller scale as one example of an area in need of change and clarification, and one which is relevant above all for youth associations and adult education providers, but also in many regards for schools and pre-schools; |
| --- | --- |

38.

sees the possibility of participation through smaller organisations and cooperation on a smaller scale as one example of an area in need of change and clarification, and one which is relevant above all for youth associations and adult education providers, but also in many regards for schools and pre-schools;

| 39. | points to the large amount of informal and non-formal learning that occurs within sport. There are also issues specific to sport, and which are particularly salient in policy cooperation, such as efforts to stamp out doping, violence and racism, as well as support for well functioning sport organisations; |
| --- | --- |

39.

points to the large amount of informal and non-formal learning that occurs within sport. There are also issues specific to sport, and which are particularly salient in policy cooperation, such as efforts to stamp out doping, violence and racism, as well as support for well functioning sport organisations;

| 40. | recognises the very positive results of measures to support political participation of young people in the current Youth in Action programme, especially the structured dialogue and the youth seminars on social, cultural and political issues of interest to young people; emphasises their importance and calls for them to be continued and further developed under the new-generation programme; |
| --- | --- |

40.

recognises the very positive results of measures to support political participation of young people in the current Youth in Action programme, especially the structured dialogue and the youth seminars on social, cultural and political issues of interest to young people; emphasises their importance and calls for them to be continued and further developed under the new-generation programme;

| 41. | therefore considers that as part of informal and non-formal learning, the programme should strongly promote mobility for leaders and educators based on commonly agreed standards and mutual recognition between regions and Member States; |
| --- | --- |

41.

therefore considers that as part of informal and non-formal learning, the programme should strongly promote mobility for leaders and educators based on commonly agreed standards and mutual recognition between regions and Member States;

| 42. | also welcomes the programme's support to transnational collaborative projects in terms of sport and considers the opportunity to carry out cross-border projects in all the fields covered by the programme a vital element of its European added value; |
| --- | --- |

42.

also welcomes the programme's support to transnational collaborative projects in terms of sport and considers the opportunity to carry out cross-border projects in all the fields covered by the programme a vital element of its European added value;

| 43. | welcomes the simplification that was introduced also with regard to the international dimension; agrees with the Commission on the need for support to capacity building in third countries, including enlargement countries, with a particular focus on neighbouring countries; underlines, however, that EU financial instruments earmarked for external cooperation must be fully used; |
| --- | --- |

43.

welcomes the simplification that was introduced also with regard to the international dimension; agrees with the Commission on the need for support to capacity building in third countries, including enlargement countries, with a particular focus on neighbouring countries; underlines, however, that EU financial instruments earmarked for external cooperation must be fully used;

Budgetary issues

| 44. | strongly supports the increased budget proposed for the programme; the size of the budget will show the importance that the Commission attaches to improving the quality of education, which is a decisive factor in how well the EU meets its horizontal targets. Funding should be distributed between the various educational and youth sectors such that all areas benefit from budget increases; |
| --- | --- |

44.

strongly supports the increased budget proposed for the programme; the size of the budget will show the importance that the Commission attaches to improving the quality of education, which is a decisive factor in how well the EU meets its horizontal targets. Funding should be distributed between the various educational and youth sectors such that all areas benefit from budget increases;

| 45. | believes that EU funding should be spent efficiently to achieve the goals established for the programme, and feels that there should be opportunities to channel funds to areas where they have the most benefit and are used most efficiently, on the basis of transparent quantitative and qualitative criteria. Stresses therefore that regular monitoring of the programme at all levels is necessary to determine the extent to which funds should be redistributed. Moreover, it is important to take a local and regional view of redistribution, so as to take account of the distribution within a country. There need to be opportunities for redistribution of funds within a Member State, so they can be used most effectively according to local and regional conditions; |
| --- | --- |

45.

believes that EU funding should be spent efficiently to achieve the goals established for the programme, and feels that there should be opportunities to channel funds to areas where they have the most benefit and are used most efficiently, on the basis of transparent quantitative and qualitative criteria. Stresses therefore that regular monitoring of the programme at all levels is necessary to determine the extent to which funds should be redistributed. Moreover, it is important to take a local and regional view of redistribution, so as to take account of the distribution within a country. There need to be opportunities for redistribution of funds within a Member State, so they can be used most effectively according to local and regional conditions;

| 46. | feels that the structure of national agencies should be left up to the Member States as it is they who are responsible for the implementation and administration of devolved programme measures at national level; |
| --- | --- |

46.

feels that the structure of national agencies should be left up to the Member States as it is they who are responsible for the implementation and administration of devolved programme measures at national level;

| 47. | takes the view that, as part of this, the Commission should explain in good time prior to the programme's introduction how it intends to measure its efficacy and which indicators will be used for this purpose. Indicators and corresponding criteria must be clarified in advance so that Member States, local and regional authorities and participants know where they stand. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, these indicators should contain both quantitative and qualitative elements; |
| --- | --- |

47.

takes the view that, as part of this, the Commission should explain in good time prior to the programme's introduction how it intends to measure its efficacy and which indicators will be used for this purpose. Indicators and corresponding criteria must be clarified in advance so that Member States, local and regional authorities and participants know where they stand. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, these indicators should contain both quantitative and qualitative elements;

| 48. | notes the Commission's view that some of the activities that previously formed part of the Lifelong Learning Programme should in future be provided for by the European Social Fund. In order for this to work it must be allowed by the ESF's rules, and Member States and local and regional representatives must be aware of and endorse this change; |
| --- | --- |

48.

notes the Commission's view that some of the activities that previously formed part of the Lifelong Learning Programme should in future be provided for by the European Social Fund. In order for this to work it must be allowed by the ESF's rules, and Member States and local and regional representatives must be aware of and endorse this change;

| 49. | is of the opinion that the administrative and accounting requirements should be proportional to the size of the grant. Smaller projects should not be subject to as extensive and labour-intensive checks as larger ones; |
| --- | --- |

49.

is of the opinion that the administrative and accounting requirements should be proportional to the size of the grant. Smaller projects should not be subject to as extensive and labour-intensive checks as larger ones;

| 50. | notes at the same time that the conditions and capacity for taking part in programmes vary, which can affect costs. This may be bound up with, for example, unfamiliarity with study, disability, ability to cover travel costs and living expenses, or various regional conditions; |
| --- | --- |

50.

notes at the same time that the conditions and capacity for taking part in programmes vary, which can affect costs. This may be bound up with, for example, unfamiliarity with study, disability, ability to cover travel costs and living expenses, or various regional conditions;

Key competences as the cornerstone

| 51. | considers it essential for further work that lifelong learning for all lie at the heart of the Commission's proposal, and stresses the importance of giving everyone a chance to acquire the basic skills and knowledge described in the recommendation on key competences (4); |
| --- | --- |

51.

considers it essential for further work that lifelong learning for all lie at the heart of the Commission's proposal, and stresses the importance of giving everyone a chance to acquire the basic skills and knowledge described in the recommendation on key competences (4);

| 52. | takes the view that the fundamental aim of the programme should be to support everyone's efforts to acquire these key competences. This means that children and teachers in schools, young people not in formal education, and adults who require further training and education are all key target groups; |
| --- | --- |

52.

takes the view that the fundamental aim of the programme should be to support everyone's efforts to acquire these key competences. This means that children and teachers in schools, young people not in formal education, and adults who require further training and education are all key target groups;

Conclusions

Increase emphasis on early intervention and multipliers

| 53. | refers to an earlier CoR opinion (5) in which it stresses that willingness to go abroad for educational purposes must be encouraged at an early stage. Children and young people must be motivated early to take an interest in other cultures, and be given a chance to see the advantages of learning from one another. Early contact with European programmes supports both the willingness and the ability to study and work abroad, which in turn reinforces a common labour market, growth and Union citizenship; notes that younger children learn foreign languages more easily and effectively; |
| --- | --- |

53.

refers to an earlier CoR opinion (5) in which it stresses that willingness to go abroad for educational purposes must be encouraged at an early stage. Children and young people must be motivated early to take an interest in other cultures, and be given a chance to see the advantages of learning from one another. Early contact with European programmes supports both the willingness and the ability to study and work abroad, which in turn reinforces a common labour market, growth and Union citizenship; notes that younger children learn foreign languages more easily and effectively;

| 54. | stresses that a very high-priority issue for the CoR is social integration, through which the programme can have far-reaching impact. This concerns large, heterogeneous groups of students needing different types of support as a result of learning difficulties, social vulnerability and marginalisation, or of growing up in a country or culture that is foreign to them. At the moment, a large number of young people interrupt or leave school with inadequate basic skills. There should be opportunities to support development of methods and exchange of skills in order to support local, regional and national decision makers in this area; |
| --- | --- |

54.

stresses that a very high-priority issue for the CoR is social integration, through which the programme can have far-reaching impact. This concerns large, heterogeneous groups of students needing different types of support as a result of learning difficulties, social vulnerability and marginalisation, or of growing up in a country or culture that is foreign to them. At the moment, a large number of young people interrupt or leave school with inadequate basic skills. There should be opportunities to support development of methods and exchange of skills in order to support local, regional and national decision makers in this area;

| 55. | emphasises that, in this light, reaching parts of the population that are unfamiliar with study or financially disadvantaged is a major challenge that underscores the importance of intervening early with European projects at school and pre-school. These would reach all students and allow the programme to act as a compensatory force and strengthen the European dimension; |
| --- | --- |

55.

emphasises that, in this light, reaching parts of the population that are unfamiliar with study or financially disadvantaged is a major challenge that underscores the importance of intervening early with European projects at school and pre-school. These would reach all students and allow the programme to act as a compensatory force and strengthen the European dimension;

| 56. | agrees with the Commission on the importance of involving strategic stakeholders and people who are well placed to spread information and good examples. These may include teachers, trainers, youth leaders, tutors, former participants in mobility measures, school heads or decision makers; would like to see clear emphasis placed on these groups because they play a decisive role in promoting mobility; |
| --- | --- |

56.

agrees with the Commission on the importance of involving strategic stakeholders and people who are well placed to spread information and good examples. These may include teachers, trainers, youth leaders, tutors, former participants in mobility measures, school heads or decision makers; would like to see clear emphasis placed on these groups because they play a decisive role in promoting mobility;

| 57. | notes its positive experience with parts of previous programmes, such as Comenius Regio, that provide opportunities to involve institutions other than educational ones, and which are aimed at promoting European cooperation in education at local and regional level. Participants can cooperate on issues of common interest, exchange experiences and build a framework to sustain cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

57.

notes its positive experience with parts of previous programmes, such as Comenius Regio, that provide opportunities to involve institutions other than educational ones, and which are aimed at promoting European cooperation in education at local and regional level. Participants can cooperate on issues of common interest, exchange experiences and build a framework to sustain cooperation;

Primary target groups and focus

| 58. | feels that there should be regular monitoring of the programme at all levels to ensure it is helping achieve the horizontal targets. At the same time, it must remain possible in the new generation of programmes to promote initiatives whose impact is either difficult to gauge or can only be quantified over the long term – longer than the duration of the programme – and whose value is shown by other evidence. For example, the importance of early initiatives is known from other studies, and the CoR believes that this also holds true for promotion of the European dimension; |
| --- | --- |

58.

feels that there should be regular monitoring of the programme at all levels to ensure it is helping achieve the horizontal targets. At the same time, it must remain possible in the new generation of programmes to promote initiatives whose impact is either difficult to gauge or can only be quantified over the long term – longer than the duration of the programme – and whose value is shown by other evidence. For example, the importance of early initiatives is known from other studies, and the CoR believes that this also holds true for promotion of the European dimension;

| 59. | has reservations about the current budget's excessive focus on mobility projects, which is also reflected in the programme's name; takes the view that quality gains in education and most added European value result from cooperative projects and institutional cooperation first and foremost, and that the budget should reflect this more clearly. This also makes it possible to support smaller cooperative projects that are better tailored to certain target groups, or which may be a first step towards cooperation on a larger scale; |
| --- | --- |

59.

has reservations about the current budget's excessive focus on mobility projects, which is also reflected in the programme's name; takes the view that quality gains in education and most added European value result from cooperative projects and institutional cooperation first and foremost, and that the budget should reflect this more clearly. This also makes it possible to support smaller cooperative projects that are better tailored to certain target groups, or which may be a first step towards cooperation on a larger scale;

| 60. | feels that the challenges described by the Commission in its introduction are adequately reflected in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal. They are not as clearly reflected in the proposed budget allocation, however. Instead, there is a strong focus on generously funding projects and mobility within higher education. European programmes should encourage desirable development and better quality, which means that support should be most generous where the need and chances of impact are greatest. This should mean a clear reallocation of funds to projects aimed at people who currently have little contact with mobility programmes, such as schools, young people not in formal education, and adults in training and further education; |
| --- | --- |

60.

feels that the challenges described by the Commission in its introduction are adequately reflected in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal. They are not as clearly reflected in the proposed budget allocation, however. Instead, there is a strong focus on generously funding projects and mobility within higher education. European programmes should encourage desirable development and better quality, which means that support should be most generous where the need and chances of impact are greatest. This should mean a clear reallocation of funds to projects aimed at people who currently have little contact with mobility programmes, such as schools, young people not in formal education, and adults in training and further education;

| 61. | welcomes the Commission's plan to continue support for Jean Monnet teaching and research activities relating to European integration; considers, however, that this particular support should not be limited to the two institutions named in the Commission's proposal. Instead, the Committee emphasises that the six European universities supported by the Jean Monnet Programme 2007-2013 – the Academy of European Law, the College of Europe, the European University Institute, the International Centre for European Training, the European Institute of Public Administration, and the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education – should still be included so as to improve the geographic distribution and cultural diversity of these European centres of excellence; |
| --- | --- |

61.

welcomes the Commission's plan to continue support for Jean Monnet teaching and research activities relating to European integration; considers, however, that this particular support should not be limited to the two institutions named in the Commission's proposal. Instead, the Committee emphasises that the six European universities supported by the Jean Monnet Programme 2007-2013 – the Academy of European Law, the College of Europe, the European University Institute, the International Centre for European Training, the European Institute of Public Administration, and the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education – should still be included so as to improve the geographic distribution and cultural diversity of these European centres of excellence;

| 62. | highlights the close link between poor attainment at school and socio-economic disadvantage, which are key determinants for the number of young people neither employed nor in education or training. Breaking this cycle is a challenge for regional and local authorities across Europe and should be seen as one of the programme's priorities, partly corresponding to its educational objectives and partly to its employment target, and supported by a number of flagship initiatives; would prefer to see this perspective given greater emphasis in the budget allocation; |
| --- | --- |

62.

highlights the close link between poor attainment at school and socio-economic disadvantage, which are key determinants for the number of young people neither employed nor in education or training. Breaking this cycle is a challenge for regional and local authorities across Europe and should be seen as one of the programme's priorities, partly corresponding to its educational objectives and partly to its employment target, and supported by a number of flagship initiatives; would prefer to see this perspective given greater emphasis in the budget allocation;

| 63. | fully supports the ambition stated in the Commission's memorandum to the proposal for a new programme in the field of education and youth, and its desire to include many different groups of people who can develop as individuals at different stages of their lives and gain a high-quality education. It is therefore crucial that the programme's objective be clearly communicated, so that all target groups feel involved. The name of the programme, Erasmus for All, instead suggests that the chief focus is on higher education. Given that this contradicts the stated ambition, and in order to most comprehensively meet the objectives of the 2020 strategy, the CoR recommends that the budget and name of the programme be adjusted. |
| --- | --- |

63.

fully supports the ambition stated in the Commission's memorandum to the proposal for a new programme in the field of education and youth, and its desire to include many different groups of people who can develop as individuals at different stages of their lives and gain a high-quality education. It is therefore crucial that the programme's objective be clearly communicated, so that all target groups feel involved. The name of the programme, Erasmus for All, instead suggests that the chief focus is on higher education. Given that this contradicts the stated ambition, and in order to most comprehensively meet the objectives of the 2020 strategy, the CoR recommends that the budget and name of the programme be adjusted.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Title

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

  establishing ‘ERASMUS FOR ALL’
  The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport | REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

  establishing ‘’
  The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport |

Commission text

Amendment

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing ‘ERASMUS FOR ALL’

The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

establishing ‘’

The Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport

Reason

The connotations of the existing Erasmus programme link it very strongly to higher education and to mobility. The new EU Programme has a much broader scope and the title ‘Erasmus for All’ could be misleading.

Amendment 2

Preamble

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (3) | The widespread recognition among the general public in Member States and participating third countries of the ‘Erasmus’ brand name as a synonym of Union learner mobility pleads for a more extensive use of this brand by the main education sectors covered by the Programme. |

Commission text

Amendment

(3)

The widespread recognition among the general public in Member States and participating third countries of the ‘Erasmus’ brand name as a synonym of Union learner mobility pleads for a more extensive use of this brand by the main education sectors covered by the Programme.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

Consistent with the request to change the Programme's name.

Amendment 3

Preamble

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (27) | The need of establishing criteria of performance on which the allocation of budget between Member States for the actions managed by the National Agencies should be based. |

Commission text

Amendment

(27)

The need of establishing criteria of performance on which the allocation of budget between Member States for the actions managed by the National Agencies should be based.

| (27) | The need of establishing criteria of performance on which the allocation of budget between Member States for the actions managed by the National Agencies should be based. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The need of establishing criteria of performance on which the allocation of budget between Member States for the actions managed by the National Agencies should be based.

Reason

Regional disparities may have a considerable impact upon performance and hence, determine budget allocation.

Amendment 4

Preamble

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (30) | The European Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, in their joint Communication on a new response to a changing Neighbourhood (6) outlined, inter alia, the aim to further facilitate Neighbourhood countries' participation in Union mobility and capacity building actions in higher education and the opening of the future education programme to Neighbouring countries. |

Commission text

Amendment

(30)

The European Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, in their joint Communication on a new response to a changing Neighbourhood (6) outlined, inter alia, the aim to further facilitate Neighbourhood countries' participation in Union mobility and capacity building actions in higher education and the opening of the future education programme to Neighbouring countries.

| (30) | The European Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, in their joint Communication on a new response to a changing Neighbourhood (6) outlined, inter alia, the aim to further facilitate Neighbourhood countries' participation in Union mobility and capacity building actions in higher education and the opening of the future education programme to Neighbouring countries. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

The European Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security policy, in their joint Communication on a new response to a changing Neighbourhood (6) outlined, inter alia, the aim to further facilitate Neighbourhood countries' participation in Union mobility and capacity building actions in higher education and the opening of the future education programme to Neighbouring countries.

Reason

The joint Communication explicitly provides for school cooperation through the eTwinning programme.

Amendment 5

Preamble

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (33) | In order to ensure quick response to changed needs during the whole duration of the Programme, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of provisions relating to the performance criteria and on the actions managed by the National Agencies. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council. |

Commission text

Amendment

(33)

In order to ensure quick response to changed needs during the whole duration of the Programme, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of provisions relating to the performance criteria and on the actions managed by the National Agencies. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.

| (33) | In order to ensure quick response to changed needs during the whole duration of the Programme, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of provisions relating to the performance criteria and on the actions managed by the National Agencies. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

In order to ensure quick response to changed needs during the whole duration of the Programme, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of provisions relating to the performance criteria and on the actions managed by the National Agencies. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.

Reason

The Committee of the Regions should also be included in the consultation process, in accordance with Article 307 of the TFEU.

Amendment 6

Article 1.1

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| This Regulation establishes a Programme for Union action in the field of Education, Training, Youth and Sport called ‘Erasmus for All’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Programme’). | This Regulation establishes a Programme for Union action in the field of Education, Training, Youth and Sport called ‘’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Programme’). |

Commission text

Amendment

This Regulation establishes a Programme for Union action in the field of Education, Training, Youth and Sport called ‘Erasmus for All’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Programme’).

This Regulation establishes a Programme for Union action in the field of Education, Training, Youth and Sport called ‘’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Programme’).

Reason

Consistent with the request to change the Programme's name.

Amendment 7

Article 5c

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| To promote the emergence of a European lifelong learning area, trigger policy reforms at national level, support the modernisation of education and training systems, including non-formal learning, and support European cooperation in the youth field, notably through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of recognition and transparency tools and the dissemination of good practices;
  Related indicator: Number of Member States making use of the results of the Open Methods of Coordination in their national policy developments | To promote the emergence of a European lifelong learning area, trigger policy reforms at national level, support the modernisation of education and training systems, including non-formal learning, and support European cooperation in the youth field, notably through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of recognition and transparency tools and the dissemination of good practices;
  Related indicator: Number of Member States making use of the results of the Open Methods of Coordination in their national policy developments |

Commission text

Amendment

To promote the emergence of a European lifelong learning area, trigger policy reforms at national level, support the modernisation of education and training systems, including non-formal learning, and support European cooperation in the youth field, notably through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of recognition and transparency tools and the dissemination of good practices;

Related indicator: Number of Member States making use of the results of the Open Methods of Coordination in their national policy developments

To promote the emergence of a European lifelong learning area, trigger policy reforms at national level, support the modernisation of education and training systems, including non-formal learning, and support European cooperation in the youth field, notably through enhanced policy cooperation, better use of recognition and transparency tools and the dissemination of good practices;

Related indicator: Number of Member States making use of the results of the Open Methods of Coordination in their national policy developments

Reason

This is consistent with the definition of lifelong learning (Article 2.1).

Amendment 8

Article 6

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In the field of education, training and youth, the Programme shall pursue its objectives through the three following types of actions:






  a) | Learning mobility of individuals, |

Commission text

Amendment

In the field of education, training and youth, the Programme shall pursue its objectives through the three following types of actions:

a)

Learning mobility of individuals,

| b) | Cooperation for innovation and good practices, |
| --- | --- |

b)

Cooperation for innovation and good practices,

| c) | Support for policy reform. |
| --- | --- |

c)

Support for policy reform.

In the field of education, training and youth, the Programme shall pursue its objectives through the three following types of actions:

| a) | Learning mobility of individuals , |
| --- | --- |

a)

Learning mobility of individuals ,

| b) | Cooperation for innovation and good practices, |
| --- | --- |

b)

Cooperation for innovation and good practices,

| c) | Support for policy reform. |
| --- | --- |

c)

Support for policy reform.

Reason

The EU should guarantee access to mobility actions for all citizens on equal terms, regardless of their place of origin. Their enormous distance from the mainland restricts the opportunities for mobility of students from the EU's outermost regions. It is therefore necessary to put measures in place on the basis of Article 349 TFEU to encourage mobility, so that all young people can have access to these actions, which will receive 63 % of funds, on equal terms regardless of where they live. In line with the report on Europe's outermost regions and the single market: the EU's influence in the world, produced at the request of Commissioner Barnier by Mr Solbes, former Spanish Minister of Agriculture and of Economic Affairs and Finance and former Commissioner, we call for the reinforcement of ‘policies for the mobility of young people and university students by supplementing the funding of the Erasmus programme so as to cover the additional travel costs incurred by students between the OR they come from and the capital of their Member State and, for students from other Member States wishing to go on an Erasmus scholarship in one of the higher education establishments of the ORs, between the capital of the Member State concerned and the OR. To create favourable conditions for mobility projects for students from the ORs at more advanced stages of training, encourage and support, at national level, the teaching of languages and exchanges at younger ages’.

Amendment 9

Article 10c

| Commission proposal | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (c) | support the following European academic institutions pursuing an aim of European interest;






  (i) | the European University Institute of Florence; |

Commission proposal

Amendment

(c)

support the following European academic institutions pursuing an aim of European interest;

(i)

the European University Institute of Florence;

| (ii) | the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses);

| (c) | support the following European academic institutions pursuing an aim of European interest;






  (i) | the European University Institute of Florence; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

support the following European academic institutions pursuing an aim of European interest;

(i)

the European University Institute of Florence;

| (ii) | the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the College of Europe (Bruges and Natolin campuses);

| | |
| --- | --- |

Reason

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

The six European higher education institutions supported by the Jean Monnet Programme 2007-2013 should continue to be included in order to improve the geographic distribution and cultural diversity of these European centres of excellence.

Amendment 10

Article 16.4

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The public and private bodies within the main education sectors covered by the Programme shall use the brand name ‘Erasmus’ for the purpose of communication and dissemination of information relating to the programme; the brand name shall be associated with the main education sectors as follows:






  — | ‘Erasmus Higher Education’, associated with all types of higher education, in Europe and internationally |

Commission text

Amendment

The public and private bodies within the main education sectors covered by the Programme shall use the brand name ‘Erasmus’ for the purpose of communication and dissemination of information relating to the programme; the brand name shall be associated with the main education sectors as follows:

—

‘Erasmus Higher Education’, associated with all types of higher education, in Europe and internationally

| — | ‘Erasmus Training’, associated with vocational education and training and adult learning |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Erasmus Training’, associated with vocational education and training and adult learning

| — | ‘Erasmus Schools’, associated with school education |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Erasmus Schools’, associated with school education

| — | ‘Erasmus Youth Participation’, associated with youth non formal learning. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘Erasmus Youth Participation’, associated with youth non formal learning.

The public and private bodies within the main education sectors covered by the Programme shall use the brand name ‘Erasmus’ for the purpose of communication and dissemination of information relating to the programme; the brand name shall be associated with the main education sectors as follows:

| — | ‘ Higher Education’, associated with all types of higher education, in Europe and internationally |
| --- | --- |

—

‘ Higher Education’, associated with all types of higher education, in Europe and internationally

| — | ‘ Training’, associated with vocational education and training and adult learning |
| --- | --- |

—

‘ Training’, associated with vocational education and training and adult learning

| — | ‘ Schools’, associated with school education |
| --- | --- |

—

‘ Schools’, associated with school education

| — | ‘ Youth Participation’, associated with youth non formal learning. |
| --- | --- |

—

‘ Youth Participation’, associated with youth non formal learning.

Reason

This is consistent with the request to change the Programme's name.

Amendment 11

Article 18.3

| Commission text | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Programme shall support the cooperation with partners from third countries, notably partners from neighbourhood countries, in actions and activities as referred to in Articles 6 and 10. | The Programme shall support the cooperation with partners from third countries, notably partners from neighbourhood countries, in actions and activities as referred to in Articles 6 10 . |

Commission text

Amendment

The Programme shall support the cooperation with partners from third countries, notably partners from neighbourhood countries, in actions and activities as referred to in Articles 6 and 10.

The Programme shall support the cooperation with partners from third countries, notably partners from neighbourhood countries, in actions and activities as referred to in Articles 6 10 .

Reason

To allow for the participation of partners from neighbourhood countries in sport activities.

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  The Europe 2020 flagship initiatives that are most relevant here are Youth on the move, Agenda for new skills and jobs, Innovation Union and A digital agenda for Europe.

1

Youth on the move, Agenda for new skills and jobs, Innovation Union

A digital agenda for Europe

(2)  CdR 290/2011 fin.

2

(3)  CoR 290/2011 fin.

3

(4)  Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC).

4

(5)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Green Paper on promoting the learning mobility of young people; CdR 246/2009 fin.

5

(6)  COM(2011) 303 final, 25.5.2011.

6

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/211 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/211

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘trans-European telecommunication networks’

2012/C 225/16

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the European Commission's (Commission) initiative to set up the Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the European Commission's (Commission) initiative to set up the Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks;

| — | stresses the priorities set out in this document - high-speed networks, cross-border public services, access to PSI and multilingual services, safety and security and smart energy services - are all domains in which cities and regions are simultaneously actors, providers and beneficiaries; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses the priorities set out in this document - high-speed networks, cross-border public services, access to PSI and multilingual services, safety and security and smart energy services - are all domains in which cities and regions are simultaneously actors, providers and beneficiaries;

| — | acknowledges the importance of trans-European telecommunications networks for the EU's international competitiveness and sustainable development, and stresses that the exchange of experiences and best practices between Member States (MS) and other regions should be intensified; |
| --- | --- |

—

acknowledges the importance of trans-European telecommunications networks for the EU's international competitiveness and sustainable development, and stresses that the exchange of experiences and best practices between Member States (MS) and other regions should be intensified;

| — | notes the potential of the new financing framework to make a major contribution to bridging the digital divide and achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, while meeting some of the key social, cultural and economic needs of the people of Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

notes the potential of the new financing framework to make a major contribution to bridging the digital divide and achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, while meeting some of the key social, cultural and economic needs of the people of Europe;

| — | stresses that fast and operationally reliable communication links, complemented by efficient wireless mobile services, play a key role in promoting regional competitiveness, accessibility and equality between people and recalls that effective information society infrastructure must be guaranteed to all members of the population regardless of where they live. |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses that fast and operationally reliable communication links, complemented by efficient wireless mobile services, play a key role in promoting regional competitiveness, accessibility and equality between people and recalls that effective information society infrastructure must be guaranteed to all members of the population regardless of where they live.

| Rapporteur | Alin-Adrian NICA (RO/ALDE), Mayor of Dudeștii Noi |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks and repealing Decision No 1336/97/EC
  COM(2011) 657 final |

Rapporteur

Alin-Adrian NICA (RO/ALDE), Mayor of Dudeștii Noi

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks and repealing Decision No 1336/97/EC

COM(2011) 657 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

The Committee of the Regions' views

| 1. | welcomes the European Commission's (Commission) initiative to set up the Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the European Commission's (Commission) initiative to set up the Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks;

| 2. | stresses the priorities set out in this document - high-speed networks, cross-border public services, access to PSI and multilingual services, safety and security and smart energy services - are all domains in which cities and regions are simultaneously actors, providers and beneficiaries; |
| --- | --- |

2.

stresses the priorities set out in this document - high-speed networks, cross-border public services, access to PSI and multilingual services, safety and security and smart energy services - are all domains in which cities and regions are simultaneously actors, providers and beneficiaries;

| 3. | notes the key role of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in promoting informed dialogue with the general public, and in addressing public concerns close to the citizens and in facilitating cooperation between users and producers of ICT innovations in different corners of governments and administrations; |
| --- | --- |

3.

notes the key role of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in promoting informed dialogue with the general public, and in addressing public concerns close to the citizens and in facilitating cooperation between users and producers of ICT innovations in different corners of governments and administrations;

| 4. | stresses the importance of trans-European telecommunications networks for both commercial and non-commercial purposes and of investment in research to support specific activities and the development of future applications in order to enhance the value of the telecommunications sector; |
| --- | --- |

4.

stresses the importance of trans-European telecommunications networks for both commercial and non-commercial purposes and of investment in research to support specific activities and the development of future applications in order to enhance the value of the telecommunications sector;

| 5. | acknowledges the importance of trans-European telecommunications networks for the EU's international competitiveness and sustainable development, and stresses that the exchange of experiences and best practices between Member States (MS) and other regions should be intensified; |
| --- | --- |

5.

acknowledges the importance of trans-European telecommunications networks for the EU's international competitiveness and sustainable development, and stresses that the exchange of experiences and best practices between Member States (MS) and other regions should be intensified;

| 6. | points out the role of infrastructure needed to handle the large amount of data that are going to be used by the telecommunications networks and calls upon stimulating public and private investments for rural and low-density areas and in the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

6.

points out the role of infrastructure needed to handle the large amount of data that are going to be used by the telecommunications networks and calls upon stimulating public and private investments for rural and low-density areas and in the outermost regions;

| 7. | considers that security requirements should be established at every level in order to ensure optimum levels of privacy and protection of personal data and to prevent any kind of unauthorised tracking of personal information and profiling, including shopping preferences, medical status, health records, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

7.

considers that security requirements should be established at every level in order to ensure optimum levels of privacy and protection of personal data and to prevent any kind of unauthorised tracking of personal information and profiling, including shopping preferences, medical status, health records, etc.;

| 8. | welcomes the European Commission's idea of exploring a new pricing model, which would lower access prices to copper in order to facilitate the transition from copper to fibre networks, while noting that it is important for networks to be open to various operators; |
| --- | --- |

8.

welcomes the European Commission's idea of exploring a new pricing model, which would lower access prices to copper in order to facilitate the transition from copper to fibre networks, while noting that it is important for networks to be open to various operators;

| 9. | notes the potential of the new financing framework to make a major contribution to bridging the digital divide and achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, while meeting some of the key social, cultural and economic needs of the people of Europe; |
| --- | --- |

9.

notes the potential of the new financing framework to make a major contribution to bridging the digital divide and achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, while meeting some of the key social, cultural and economic needs of the people of Europe;

| 10. | reaffirms the importance of synergies between framework programme (FP), the Structural Funds (SF) and national policies in relation to the broader EU objectives of competitiveness and cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

10.

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

| 11. | considers it is imperative to identify regulatory and procedural solutions to the financial and economic measures in order to stimulate the greater use of existing infrastructure that can integrate broadband networks to reduce social, economic and environmental costs; |
| --- | --- |

11.

considers it is imperative to identify regulatory and procedural solutions to the financial and economic measures in order to stimulate the greater use of existing infrastructure that can integrate broadband networks to reduce social, economic and environmental costs;

| 12. | endorses the Commission's proposal to set up a high-level expert group tasked with developing a strategy for trans-European telecommunications networks, and requests the Commission to be kept informed from an early stage about developments regarding this group, including their analyses and policy recommendations; |
| --- | --- |

12.

endorses the Commission's proposal to set up a high-level expert group tasked with developing a strategy for trans-European telecommunications networks, and requests the Commission to be kept informed from an early stage about developments regarding this group, including their analyses and policy recommendations;

The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

| 13. | acknowledges that ICT, underpinning an information society which is open to all, should include the needs of all members of society, including those risking social exclusion; |
| --- | --- |

13.

acknowledges that ICT, underpinning an information society which is open to all, should include the needs of all members of society, including those risking social exclusion;

| 14. | reaffirms that the Commission and the Member States should take the measures necessary to ensure that LRAs are fully and effectively involved in the governance of ICT-related initiatives (1); |
| --- | --- |

14.

reaffirms that the Commission and the Member States should take the measures necessary to ensure that LRAs are fully and effectively involved in the governance of ICT-related initiatives (1);

| 15. | proposes the exploitation of Europe's full potential for developing ICT services in the public and private sectors, and usage of ICT as a means of improving LRA services in fields such as healthcare, education, public procurement, security and social services; |
| --- | --- |

15.

proposes the exploitation of Europe's full potential for developing ICT services in the public and private sectors, and usage of ICT as a means of improving LRA services in fields such as healthcare, education, public procurement, security and social services;

| 16. | proposes that an observatory be set up on the implementation and dissemination of next generation networks in Europe, tasked with recording and collecting information and statistics on public works that could be partially or fully used to implement NGNs; managing a database for monitoring these public works and setting up a European register of telecommunications networks; encouraging technical and regulation activities; carrying out studies and research, and acquiring and disseminating technical documentation and data; |
| --- | --- |

16.

proposes that an observatory be set up on the implementation and dissemination of next generation networks in Europe, tasked with recording and collecting information and statistics on public works that could be partially or fully used to implement NGNs; managing a database for monitoring these public works and setting up a European register of telecommunications networks; encouraging technical and regulation activities; carrying out studies and research, and acquiring and disseminating technical documentation and data;

| 17. | recalls that EU-backed public-private partnerships among LRAs 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 (2); |
| --- | --- |

17.

recalls that EU-backed public-private partnerships among LRAs 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 (2);

| 18. | proposes the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) to provide broadband services, especially in rural areas and avoid crowding out of private investments; |
| --- | --- |

18.

proposes the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) to provide broadband services, especially in rural areas and avoid crowding out of private investments;

| 19. | recalls that it is crucial that public institutions at regional and local level have adequate in-house capacity and sustainable financial resources for digitisation. PPPs and the development of e-learning markets do provide alternatives to finance content digitisation. Public-sector information can develop self-sustaining revenue streams to help data creation and digitisation efforts. In addition, networks and interactive communities are also important because they allow cost reductions along the lines of open software development (3); |
| --- | --- |

19.

recalls that it is crucial that public institutions at regional and local level have adequate in-house capacity and sustainable financial resources for digitisation. PPPs and the development of e-learning markets do provide alternatives to finance content digitisation. Public-sector information can develop self-sustaining revenue streams to help data creation and digitisation efforts. In addition, networks and interactive communities are also important because they allow cost reductions along the lines of open software development (3);

| 20. | asks the Commission to pay special attention to developing a policy of non-discrimination and evening out the gap between incumbents and their newer rivals, especially when trying to improve the business case for high-speed broadband in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

20.

asks the Commission to pay special attention to developing a policy of non-discrimination and evening out the gap between incumbents and their newer rivals, especially when trying to improve the business case for high-speed broadband in Europe;

| 21. | points out that implementation of the CEF should not be detrimental to the cohesion policy objectives, that putting into practice the proposed measures should not entail any increase in red tape and administrative burden and that further information and clarification should be provided on the use of the new financial instruments and their leverage effect. Their effectiveness should also be assessed. The requirement for budget discipline, the prohibition of borrowing and budgetary clarity must not be circumvented. The EU's liability must be limited to the original contribution. Contingent liabilities must not arise; |
| --- | --- |

21.

points out that implementation of the CEF should not be detrimental to the cohesion policy objectives, that putting into practice the proposed measures should not entail any increase in red tape and administrative burden and that further information and clarification should be provided on the use of the new financial instruments and their leverage effect. Their effectiveness should also be assessed. The requirement for budget discipline, the prohibition of borrowing and budgetary clarity must not be circumvented. The EU's liability must be limited to the original contribution. Contingent liabilities must not arise;

| 22. | 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 (4); |
| --- | --- |

22.

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 (4);

| 23. | recalls that LRAs have a key role to play 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 (5); |
| --- | --- |

23.

recalls that LRAs have a key role to play 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 (5);

| 24. | reaffirms that funding and other support measures should favour the implementation of open-access broadband networks that are based on horizontally layered network architecture and highlights the need for a business model that separates physical access to the network from service provision (6); |
| --- | --- |

24.

reaffirms that funding and other support measures should favour the implementation of open-access broadband networks that are based on horizontally layered network architecture and highlights the need for a business model that separates physical access to the network from service provision (6);

| 25. | stresses that fast and operationally reliable communication links, complemented by efficient wireless mobile services, play a key role in promoting regional competitiveness, accessibility and equality between people and recalls that effective information society infrastructure must be guaranteed to all members of the population regardless of where they live (7); |
| --- | --- |

25.

stresses that fast and operationally reliable communication links, complemented by efficient wireless mobile services, play a key role in promoting regional competitiveness, accessibility and equality between people and recalls that effective information society infrastructure must be guaranteed to all members of the population regardless of where they live (7);

| 26. | asks for more focus on awareness-raising at regional and local level and on stimulating the infrastructure upgrade as necessary elements for the development and implementation of trans-European telecommunications networks; |
| --- | --- |

26.

asks for more focus on awareness-raising at regional and local level and on stimulating the infrastructure upgrade as necessary elements for the development and implementation of trans-European telecommunications networks;

| 27. | highlights the need for public investments in backhaul infrastructures, which provide links between network nodes at middle-sized cities and small towns or rural municipalities and are a catalyst for investment to upgrade the access network; |
| --- | --- |

27.

highlights the need for public investments in backhaul infrastructures, which provide links between network nodes at middle-sized cities and small towns or rural municipalities and are a catalyst for investment to upgrade the access network;

| 28. | notes that access to high-quality broadband services at reasonable prices can increase the availability and quality of services provided by LRAs and facilitate product marketing (8); |
| --- | --- |

28.

notes that access to high-quality broadband services at reasonable prices can increase the availability and quality of services provided by LRAs and facilitate product marketing (8);

| 29. | recalls the significance of and the need for common rules and practices governing the re-use and exploitation of public-sector information to ensure that the same basic conditions are applied to all players in the European information market, that conditions for re-using such information are more transparent, and that distortions of the internal market are eliminated (9); |
| --- | --- |

29.

recalls the significance of and the need for common rules and practices governing the re-use and exploitation of public-sector information to ensure that the same basic conditions are applied to all players in the European information market, that conditions for re-using such information are more transparent, and that distortions of the internal market are eliminated (9);

| 30. | stresses that the full potential of public sector information re-use could be reached with closer involvement of LRAs, which could significantly contribute to promoting public sector information re-use in order to increase competitiveness and create jobs (10); |
| --- | --- |

30.

stresses that the full potential of public sector information re-use could be reached with closer involvement of LRAs, which could significantly contribute to promoting public sector information re-use in order to increase competitiveness and create jobs (10);

| 31. | encourages LRAs to participate in wide-ranging cooperation to improve the interoperability of public administration and the effectiveness of public service delivery (11); |
| --- | --- |

31.

encourages LRAs to participate in wide-ranging cooperation to improve the interoperability of public administration and the effectiveness of public service delivery (11);

| 32. | points out that, within the international cooperation, the significance of the regions stands out through supportive programming, structural and legislative framework conditions in the context of their research policies; |
| --- | --- |

32.

points out that, within the international cooperation, the significance of the regions stands out through supportive programming, structural and legislative framework conditions in the context of their research policies;

| 33. | considers that the actions planned in the proposal for a regulation, as they stand, do not appear to raise any issue regarding their compliance with both the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

33.

considers that the actions planned in the proposal for a regulation, as they stand, do not appear to raise any issue regarding their compliance with both the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Preamble

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (21) | In order to take into account the developments in the areas of information and communication technologies, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the Annex to this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The objective of this delegation is to address new technological and market developments, emerging political priorities or opportunities for exploiting synergies between different infrastructures, including those in the fields of Transport and Energy. The scope of delegation is limited to modifying the description of projects of common interest, adding a project of common interest or removing an obsolete project of common interest according to pre-established, clear and transparent criteria. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(21)

In order to take into account the developments in the areas of information and communication technologies, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the Annex to this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The objective of this delegation is to address new technological and market developments, emerging political priorities or opportunities for exploiting synergies between different infrastructures, including those in the fields of Transport and Energy. The scope of delegation is limited to modifying the description of projects of common interest, adding a project of common interest or removing an obsolete project of common interest according to pre-established, clear and transparent criteria.

| (21) | In order to take into account the developments in the areas of information and communication technologies, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the Annex to this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The objective of this delegation is to address new technological and market developments, emerging political priorities or opportunities for exploiting synergies between different infrastructures, including those in the fields of Transport and Energy. The scope of delegation is limited to modifying the description of projects of common interest, adding a project of common interest or removing an obsolete project of common interest according to pre-established, clear and transparent criteria. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

In order to take into account the developments in the areas of information and communication technologies, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the Annex to this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The objective of this delegation is to address new technological and market developments, emerging political priorities or opportunities for exploiting synergies between different infrastructures, including those in the fields of Transport and Energy. The scope of delegation is limited to modifying the description of projects of common interest, adding a project of common interest or removing an obsolete project of common interest according to pre-established, clear and transparent criteria.

Reason

It would be particularly useful involving LRAs in consultation process as they are contributors to the governance process and are a link between central public administration, citizens and private companies.

Amendment 2

Article 4(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | the deployment of ultra fast broadband networks ensuring the speed of data transmission of 100 Mbps and above; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

the deployment of ultra fast broadband networks ensuring the speed of data transmission of 100 Mbps and above;

| (a) | the deployment of ultra fast broadband networks ensuring the speed of data transmission of 100 Mbps and above, ; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the deployment of ultra fast broadband networks ensuring the speed of data transmission of 100 Mbps and above, ;

Reason

Investing in ultra-fast broadband networks is a high-risk area. Statistical data show that high-speed Internet usage substantially lags behind actual broadband coverage. The choice of technology and projects to be financed should therefore take into account the actual demand for broadband access.

Amendment 3

Article 4(b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | the deployment of broadband networks to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union ensuring in those regions that speeds of data transmission are sufficient to permit broadband connectivity of 30 Mbps and above; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b)

the deployment of broadband networks to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union ensuring in those regions that speeds of data transmission are sufficient to permit broadband connectivity of 30 Mbps and above;

| (b) | the deployment of broadband networks to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union ensuring in those regions that speeds of data transmission are sufficient to permit broadband connectivity of 30 Mbps and above, ; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the deployment of broadband networks to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union ensuring in those regions that speeds of data transmission are sufficient to permit broadband connectivity of 30 Mbps and above, ;

Reason

Same reason as above.

Amendment 4

Article 5(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (3)   Member States and/or other entities in charge of the implementation of projects of common interest or contributing to their implementation shall take the necessary legal, administrative, technical and financial measures in compliance with the corresponding specifications of this Regulation. | (3)   Member States and/or other entities, , in charge of the implementation of projects of common interest or contributing to their implementation shall take the necessary legal, administrative, technical and financial measures in compliance with the corresponding specifications of this Regulation. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(3)   Member States and/or other entities in charge of the implementation of projects of common interest or contributing to their implementation shall take the necessary legal, administrative, technical and financial measures in compliance with the corresponding specifications of this Regulation.

(3)   Member States and/or other entities, , in charge of the implementation of projects of common interest or contributing to their implementation shall take the necessary legal, administrative, technical and financial measures in compliance with the corresponding specifications of this Regulation.

Reason

Mentioning LRAs would be useful from same reason as stated above.

Amendment 5

Article 5(8c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (8c) | demonstrates European added value; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(8c)

demonstrates European added value;

| (8c) | demonstrates European added value, ; |
| --- | --- |

(8c)

demonstrates European added value, ;

Reason

A feasibility assessment would be the best instrument to demonstrate the added value.

Amendment 6

Article 7(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In these reports the Commission shall also evaluate whether the scope of the projects of common interest continues to reflect political priorities, technological developments or the situation in the relevant markets. For major projects, these reports shall include an analysis of the environmental impact, taking into account climate change adaptation and mitigation needs, and disaster resilience. Such a review may also be carried out at any other time when it is deemed appropriate. | In these reports the Commission shall also evaluate whether the scope of the projects of common interest continues to reflect political priorities, technological developments the situation in the relevant markets. For major projects, these reports shall include an analysis of the environmental impact, taking into account climate change adaptation and mitigation needs, and disaster resilience. Such a review may also be carried out at any other time when it is deemed appropriate. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In these reports the Commission shall also evaluate whether the scope of the projects of common interest continues to reflect political priorities, technological developments or the situation in the relevant markets. For major projects, these reports shall include an analysis of the environmental impact, taking into account climate change adaptation and mitigation needs, and disaster resilience. Such a review may also be carried out at any other time when it is deemed appropriate.

In these reports the Commission shall also evaluate whether the scope of the projects of common interest continues to reflect political priorities, technological developments the situation in the relevant markets. For major projects, these reports shall include an analysis of the environmental impact, taking into account climate change adaptation and mitigation needs, and disaster resilience. Such a review may also be carried out at any other time when it is deemed appropriate.

Reason

Same reason as above.

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 283/2008 fin.

1

(2)  CdR 156/2009 fin.

2

(3)  CdR 247/2009 fin.

3

(4)  CdR 263/2007 fin.

4

(5)  CdR 5/2008 fin.

5

(6)  CdR 104/2010 fin.

6

(7)  CdR 104/2010 fin.

7

(8)  CdR 252/2005 fin.

8

(9)  CdR 247/2009 fin.

9

(10)  CdR 247/2009 fin.

10

(11)  CdR 10/2009 fin.

11

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/217 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/217

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘2014-2020 consumer programme’

2012/C 225/17

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | supports the objective of stronger, more fully developed consumer protection within the EU as a necessary condition for the functioning of the single market; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the objective of stronger, more fully developed consumer protection within the EU as a necessary condition for the functioning of the single market;

| — | feels that given the risks associated with globalisation of production chains, authorities need to cooperate more effectively to deny dangerous products access to the internal market, and take the requisite measures should any such products appear on the market; |
| --- | --- |

—

feels that given the risks associated with globalisation of production chains, authorities need to cooperate more effectively to deny dangerous products access to the internal market, and take the requisite measures should any such products appear on the market;

| — | feels that the Commission's proposed budget of EUR 197 million for the 2014-2020 Consumer Programme, which does not even amount to five cents per EU consumer, is insufficient; |
| --- | --- |

—

feels that the Commission's proposed budget of EUR 197 million for the 2014-2020 Consumer Programme, which does not even amount to five cents per EU consumer, is insufficient;

| — | emphasises that local authorities should have a key role to play here, as they are closest to citizens. Given the low current budget and therefore the limited options available, closer attention has to be paid to regional cooperation. The Commission should also be more actively involved so that it can participate in the development of a network facilitating the exchange of experience between local organisations; |
| --- | --- |

—

emphasises that local authorities should have a key role to play here, as they are closest to citizens. Given the low current budget and therefore the limited options available, closer attention has to be paid to regional cooperation. The Commission should also be more actively involved so that it can participate in the development of a network facilitating the exchange of experience between local organisations;

| — | agrees that it is also important to highlight the logistical aspects of the role of education in raising consumer awareness, taking into consideration the division of powers at EU level. Curricula in different school systems are very diverse, both in terms of content and method. Harmonised educational materials on consumer protection can be prepared and recommended, with content tailored to the educational level; |
| --- | --- |

—

agrees that it is also important to highlight the logistical aspects of the role of education in raising consumer awareness, taking into consideration the division of powers at EU level. Curricula in different school systems are very diverse, both in terms of content and method. Harmonised educational materials on consumer protection can be prepared and recommended, with content tailored to the educational level;

| — | feels it is vital to emphasise support for consumer organisations; |
| --- | --- |

—

feels it is vital to emphasise support for consumer organisations;

| — | is concerned that despite the European Commission's announcement in the 2007-2013 programme of its intention to work on a collective redress mechanism to be used by consumers in the event of an infringement of consumer protection legislation, no legislative proposals are as yet forthcoming. |
| --- | --- |

—

is concerned that despite the European Commission's announcement in the 2007-2013 programme of its intention to work on a collective redress mechanism to be used by consumers in the event of an infringement of consumer protection legislation, no legislative proposals are as yet forthcoming.

| Rapporteur | Mr István SÉRTŐ-RADICS (HU/ALDE), Mayor of Uszka |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a consumer programme 2014-2020
  COM(2011) 707 final |

Rapporteur

Mr István SÉRTŐ-RADICS (HU/ALDE), Mayor of Uszka

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a consumer programme 2014-2020

COM(2011) 707 final

I.   GENERAL COMMENTS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | supports the political objective of completing the internal market and ensuring that the internal market operates more effectively for consumers and businesses, particularly SMEs, which constitute the overwhelming majority of European businesses (over 90 %); also upholds the objective of stronger, more fully developed consumer protection within the EU as a necessary condition for the functioning of the single market; |
| --- | --- |

1.

supports the political objective of completing the internal market and ensuring that the internal market operates more effectively for consumers and businesses, particularly SMEs, which constitute the overwhelming majority of European businesses (over 90 %); also upholds the objective of stronger, more fully developed consumer protection within the EU as a necessary condition for the functioning of the single market;

| 2. | therefore welcomes this proposal putting EU citizens, as well-informed consumers, at the heart of the internal market. The Committee feels this will enable EU citizens to take full advantage of the potential offered by the internal market. The main objective of the programme is to safeguard ordinary Europeans and their economic interests. EU consumer policy supports and complements national policies. Leveraging the vast economic force of consumer expenditure (which represents 56 % of EU GDP) will make an important contribution to meeting the EU objective of reigniting growth; |
| --- | --- |

2.

therefore welcomes this proposal putting EU citizens, as well-informed consumers, at the heart of the internal market. The Committee feels this will enable EU citizens to take full advantage of the potential offered by the internal market. The main objective of the programme is to safeguard ordinary Europeans and their economic interests. EU consumer policy supports and complements national policies. Leveraging the vast economic force of consumer expenditure (which represents 56 % of EU GDP) will make an important contribution to meeting the EU objective of reigniting growth;

| 3. | emphasises the need for continuity between the current and future programmes, in line with the mid-term evaluation of the 2007-2013 Strategy and Programme, which emphasises that the policy is relatively new at EU level, and that in order for it to work continuity is vital; |
| --- | --- |

3.

emphasises the need for continuity between the current and future programmes, in line with the mid-term evaluation of the 2007-2013 Strategy and Programme, which emphasises that the policy is relatively new at EU level, and that in order for it to work continuity is vital;

| 4. | feels that the Commission's proposed budget of EUR 197 million for the 2014-2020 Consumer Programme, which does not even amount to five cents per EU consumer, is insufficient; |
| --- | --- |

4.

feels that the Commission's proposed budget of EUR 197 million for the 2014-2020 Consumer Programme, which does not even amount to five cents per EU consumer, is insufficient;

| 5. | notes that all Member States must be guaranteed sufficient flexibility to protect their specific national characteristics in publicly operated and funded activities in fields such as healthcare, medicine and education; |
| --- | --- |

5.

notes that all Member States must be guaranteed sufficient flexibility to protect their specific national characteristics in publicly operated and funded activities in fields such as healthcare, medicine and education;

II.   SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Safety

| 6. | feels that in view of differences between Member States in terms of implementing product safety legislation, the presence of dangerous products on the internal market, and risks associated with globalisation of production chains, authorities need to cooperate more effectively to deny dangerous products access to the internal market, and take the requisite measures should any such products appear on the market; |
| --- | --- |

6.

feels that in view of differences between Member States in terms of implementing product safety legislation, the presence of dangerous products on the internal market, and risks associated with globalisation of production chains, authorities need to cooperate more effectively to deny dangerous products access to the internal market, and take the requisite measures should any such products appear on the market;

| 7. | feels that market monitoring mechanisms such as RAPEX are effective in drawing attention to the list of dangerous products, but that the effectiveness of Member State action to withdraw such products from the market varies. Operation and maintenance of the RAPEX network, the CPC network of enforcement authorities, and the cosmetics database should be supported financially. At the same time, different surveillance systems must be harmonised at EU level, as progress in this area is still lacking; |
| --- | --- |

7.

feels that market monitoring mechanisms such as RAPEX are effective in drawing attention to the list of dangerous products, but that the effectiveness of Member State action to withdraw such products from the market varies. Operation and maintenance of the RAPEX network, the CPC network of enforcement authorities, and the cosmetics database should be supported financially. At the same time, different surveillance systems must be harmonised at EU level, as progress in this area is still lacking;

| 8. | is disappointed that due to safety issues, cross-border trade is still less than it should be. In 2010 trust in cross-border transactions - i.e. the percentage of consumers who trust online purchases from vendors in other Member States - was 37 %. In the current economic situation it is particularly important to tap into the full potential of the single market. For this to happen, we need to increase this figure to 50 % over the next seven years; |
| --- | --- |

8.

is disappointed that due to safety issues, cross-border trade is still less than it should be. In 2010 trust in cross-border transactions - i.e. the percentage of consumers who trust online purchases from vendors in other Member States - was 37 %. In the current economic situation it is particularly important to tap into the full potential of the single market. For this to happen, we need to increase this figure to 50 % over the next seven years;

| 9. | feels that EU measures and cooperation within the General Product Safety Directive network could be more effective than a series of separate of national measures, given that they can provide access to information from third countries such as China, as well as preventing disparities in the internal market; in view of this, would like to emphasise the importance of involving third countries in European market monitoring mechanisms. Given that most dangerous and poor-quality products originate from third countries, cooperation with the relevant authorities in these countries is vital in order to ensure prevention; |
| --- | --- |

9.

feels that EU measures and cooperation within the General Product Safety Directive network could be more effective than a series of separate of national measures, given that they can provide access to information from third countries such as China, as well as preventing disparities in the internal market; in view of this, would like to emphasise the importance of involving third countries in European market monitoring mechanisms. Given that most dangerous and poor-quality products originate from third countries, cooperation with the relevant authorities in these countries is vital in order to ensure prevention;

Information and education

| 10. | also points out that comparable data can only be collected and analysed at EU level; such data could be used to enable a comprehensive analysis of how the internal market works, and to establish benchmarks. Data must be sufficiently reliable and representative to ensure that they can be used not only at EU level but also at national level. Policy-linked behavioural research and relevant tests could be used as practical tools to develop smarter regulation; |
| --- | --- |

10.

also points out that comparable data can only be collected and analysed at EU level; such data could be used to enable a comprehensive analysis of how the internal market works, and to establish benchmarks. Data must be sufficiently reliable and representative to ensure that they can be used not only at EU level but also at national level. Policy-linked behavioural research and relevant tests could be used as practical tools to develop smarter regulation;

| 11. | feels it is vital to emphasise support for consumer organisations given that only these organisations are capable of ensuring strong and uniform representation of consumers at EU level and providing harmonised consumer data to be used in EU decision-making, by the EU institutions and in EU-level dialogue; |
| --- | --- |

11.

feels it is vital to emphasise support for consumer organisations given that only these organisations are capable of ensuring strong and uniform representation of consumers at EU level and providing harmonised consumer data to be used in EU decision-making, by the EU institutions and in EU-level dialogue;

| 12. | agrees that it is also important to highlight the logistical aspects of the role of education in raising consumer awareness, taking into consideration the division of powers at EU level. Curricula in different school systems are very diverse, both in terms of content and method. Harmonised educational materials on consumer protection can be prepared and recommended, with content tailored to the educational level. Stepping up consumer education at European level would help to overcome the above-mentioned inconsistency; also considers it important that consumer education be incorporated into the curricula of all school systems and adapted to the relevant educational levels. According to the EU's division of powers, the Member States are responsible for this domain. EU-wide recognition of the importance of consumer education would also help ensure that adequate time was devoted to this matter in the classroom; |
| --- | --- |

12.

agrees that it is also important to highlight the logistical aspects of the role of education in raising consumer awareness, taking into consideration the division of powers at EU level. Curricula in different school systems are very diverse, both in terms of content and method. Harmonised educational materials on consumer protection can be prepared and recommended, with content tailored to the educational level. Stepping up consumer education at European level would help to overcome the above-mentioned inconsistency; also considers it important that consumer education be incorporated into the curricula of all school systems and adapted to the relevant educational levels. According to the EU's division of powers, the Member States are responsible for this domain. EU-wide recognition of the importance of consumer education would also help ensure that adequate time was devoted to this matter in the classroom;

| 13. | at the same time, feels it is very important to ensure continuous training for the staff of consumer organisations, given that such organisations are best placed to act most effectively in terms of informing consumers, especially in the case of complex contracts signed with service providers. It would be very difficult to centralise such tasks at European level; they could however be allocated at EU level to local and regional organisations, which would then be responsible for implementation, taking into account local legislation; |
| --- | --- |

13.

at the same time, feels it is very important to ensure continuous training for the staff of consumer organisations, given that such organisations are best placed to act most effectively in terms of informing consumers, especially in the case of complex contracts signed with service providers. It would be very difficult to centralise such tasks at European level; they could however be allocated at EU level to local and regional organisations, which would then be responsible for implementation, taking into account local legislation;

| 14. | also feels that the importance of training employees responsible for applying consumer protection legislation both in local authorities and government departments must be kept in mind. To this end, it would make sense to put in place a framework for cooperation between national authorities on the application of standards and risk assessment, by supporting training at EU level; |
| --- | --- |

14.

also feels that the importance of training employees responsible for applying consumer protection legislation both in local authorities and government departments must be kept in mind. To this end, it would make sense to put in place a framework for cooperation between national authorities on the application of standards and risk assessment, by supporting training at EU level;

Rights and redress

| 15. | is disappointed that, although the tasks arising from this objective are practically identical for all authorities involved in consumer protection, these tasks are often performed separately and in parallel by different types of organisation (civil society organisations, state and municipal bodies, clearing houses) at both EU and national level, with limited effectiveness; |
| --- | --- |

15.

is disappointed that, although the tasks arising from this objective are practically identical for all authorities involved in consumer protection, these tasks are often performed separately and in parallel by different types of organisation (civil society organisations, state and municipal bodies, clearing houses) at both EU and national level, with limited effectiveness;

| 16. | feels that problems here are closely linked to the processing of consumer complaints, given that most cases referred to consumer protection organisations are in the form of complaints. Given that it has not been possible to improve efficiency in this area, consumer dissatisfaction is continuing to grow; |
| --- | --- |

16.

feels that problems here are closely linked to the processing of consumer complaints, given that most cases referred to consumer protection organisations are in the form of complaints. Given that it has not been possible to improve efficiency in this area, consumer dissatisfaction is continuing to grow;

| 17. | points out that only 8 % of the programme's budget is to be used to develop new legislation; |
| --- | --- |

17.

points out that only 8 % of the programme's budget is to be used to develop new legislation;

| 18. | feels it is important to look at constraints which are inherent to legislation. Paradoxically, inclusion of consumer contracts in national legislation has made it much less easy for the authorities to handle complaints regarding deficient quality. Consumer protection authorities do not have a remit to act here, and it is therefore the relevant court which becomes the first review body; |
| --- | --- |

18.

feels it is important to look at constraints which are inherent to legislation. Paradoxically, inclusion of consumer contracts in national legislation has made it much less easy for the authorities to handle complaints regarding deficient quality. Consumer protection authorities do not have a remit to act here, and it is therefore the relevant court which becomes the first review body;

| 19. | is concerned that despite the European Commission's announcement in the 2007-2013 programme of its intention to work on a collective redress mechanism to be used by consumers in the event of an infringement of consumer protection legislation, no legislative proposals are as yet forthcoming; |
| --- | --- |

19.

is concerned that despite the European Commission's announcement in the 2007-2013 programme of its intention to work on a collective redress mechanism to be used by consumers in the event of an infringement of consumer protection legislation, no legislative proposals are as yet forthcoming;

| 20. | in view of this would like to point out that there are national collective redress mechanisms in 14 Member States making it simple for plaintiffs to obtain collective damages, for example in the case of cancelled flights, products with manufacturing faults, and irresponsible financial advice. We feel it is essential to extend this effective mechanism to other EU countries and to cross-border legal disputes. The unclaimed damages arising from anti-competitive behaviour in violation of EU law alone are estimated at around EUR 20 billion a year. Opt-out class actions along the lines of those in the USA are to be rejected. Consumers should have to actively decide whether or not to have their individual rights enforced by going to court (‘opt-in’); |
| --- | --- |

20.

in view of this would like to point out that there are national collective redress mechanisms in 14 Member States making it simple for plaintiffs to obtain collective damages, for example in the case of cancelled flights, products with manufacturing faults, and irresponsible financial advice. We feel it is essential to extend this effective mechanism to other EU countries and to cross-border legal disputes. The unclaimed damages arising from anti-competitive behaviour in violation of EU law alone are estimated at around EUR 20 billion a year. Opt-out class actions along the lines of those in the USA are to be rejected. Consumers should have to actively decide whether or not to have their individual rights enforced by going to court (‘opt-in’);

| 21. | stresses that the Commission's proposals are to be confined to framework legislation. Like Directive 98/27/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, these should at most contain requirements regarding national minimum standards to be complied with and, apart from that, leave it up to the Member States to decide on the details of how collective redress mechanisms can be transposed, with due regard for respective national legal traditions. Insofar as the EU is claiming competence for further collective redress mechanisms, these should be adapted to the respective Member States' laws and legal redress systems; |
| --- | --- |

21.

stresses that the Commission's proposals are to be confined to framework legislation. Like Directive 98/27/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, these should at most contain requirements regarding national minimum standards to be complied with and, apart from that, leave it up to the Member States to decide on the details of how collective redress mechanisms can be transposed, with due regard for respective national legal traditions. Insofar as the EU is claiming competence for further collective redress mechanisms, these should be adapted to the respective Member States' laws and legal redress systems;

| 22. | at the same time, feels it is essential to set up an online dispute resolution interface. Of course, such a system can only effectively serve consumers if it is user-friendly and accessible in all EU languages. The advantage of such an online system would be that it could be used irrespective of legislative and enforcement differences between Member States; |
| --- | --- |

22.

at the same time, feels it is essential to set up an online dispute resolution interface. Of course, such a system can only effectively serve consumers if it is user-friendly and accessible in all EU languages. The advantage of such an online system would be that it could be used irrespective of legislative and enforcement differences between Member States;

| 23. | emphasises that international accessibility of alternative forums and the implementation of online solutions are unavoidable necessities; however, it is also important to look at ways of making the decisions of such forums more acceptable to the parties. With different organisations responsible for individual countries, it would also make sense to allow consumers to choose the organisation giving them the most rights; |
| --- | --- |

23.

emphasises that international accessibility of alternative forums and the implementation of online solutions are unavoidable necessities; however, it is also important to look at ways of making the decisions of such forums more acceptable to the parties. With different organisations responsible for individual countries, it would also make sense to allow consumers to choose the organisation giving them the most rights;

| 24. | feels that non-governmental consumer protection organisations should be given special support for their role in providing legal representation and consumer advice. If consumers could join EU-supported non-governmental consumer organisations with EU responsibilities, this would considerably boost the numbers and confidence of consumers belonging to them. Companies would be more inclined to comply with rulings if legal representation was provided at this early stage, thus anticipating the likely outcome of possible legal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

24.

feels that non-governmental consumer protection organisations should be given special support for their role in providing legal representation and consumer advice. If consumers could join EU-supported non-governmental consumer organisations with EU responsibilities, this would considerably boost the numbers and confidence of consumers belonging to them. Companies would be more inclined to comply with rulings if legal representation was provided at this early stage, thus anticipating the likely outcome of possible legal proceedings;

Implementation

| 25. | emphasises that the regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation must provide for joint projects, joint enforcement actions, and the exchange of enforcement officials. In this respect, a useful approach could be joint action involving several Member States (co-financed by the programme and Member States), such as ‘sweeps’; |
| --- | --- |

25.

emphasises that the regulation on Consumer Protection Cooperation must provide for joint projects, joint enforcement actions, and the exchange of enforcement officials. In this respect, a useful approach could be joint action involving several Member States (co-financed by the programme and Member States), such as ‘sweeps’;

| 26. | in view of this, feels it is important to point out that cross-border complaints can only be dealt with effectively through cooperation. Initiatives on the processing of complaints, for example establishing a joint database at EU level, are of great importance; however, as in the case of other major EU systems (RAPEX), practical usability must be enhanced to enable better use of such cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

26.

in view of this, feels it is important to point out that cross-border complaints can only be dealt with effectively through cooperation. Initiatives on the processing of complaints, for example establishing a joint database at EU level, are of great importance; however, as in the case of other major EU systems (RAPEX), practical usability must be enhanced to enable better use of such cooperation;

| 27. | feels that the European Consumer Centres' network, funded by the European Commission and the Member States, is particularly necessary and useful. This is a European network to support and educate consumers, used by them to obtain redress in the case of problems with a cross-border purchase from an operator in another EU country; |
| --- | --- |

27.

feels that the European Consumer Centres' network, funded by the European Commission and the Member States, is particularly necessary and useful. This is a European network to support and educate consumers, used by them to obtain redress in the case of problems with a cross-border purchase from an operator in another EU country;

| 28. | regrets that European Consumer Centres are often still insufficiently integrated with the authorities dealing with the resolution of complaints and disputes, given that they do not have specific powers to award compensation. As the authorities lack legal instruments to act effectively, and in view of the consequent failure to comply with EU legislative principles, we are likely to see growing dissatisfaction; |
| --- | --- |

28.

regrets that European Consumer Centres are often still insufficiently integrated with the authorities dealing with the resolution of complaints and disputes, given that they do not have specific powers to award compensation. As the authorities lack legal instruments to act effectively, and in view of the consequent failure to comply with EU legislative principles, we are likely to see growing dissatisfaction;

III.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

| 29. | emphasises that local authorities should have a key role to play here, as they are closest to citizens. Given the low current budget and therefore the limited options available, closer attention has to be paid to regional cooperation. The Commission should also be more actively involved so that it can participate in the development of a network facilitating the exchange of experience between local organisations; |
| --- | --- |

29.

emphasises that local authorities should have a key role to play here, as they are closest to citizens. Given the low current budget and therefore the limited options available, closer attention has to be paid to regional cooperation. The Commission should also be more actively involved so that it can participate in the development of a network facilitating the exchange of experience between local organisations;

| 30. | points out that consumer interests must be protected at both local and national level. In the interests of cost efficiency, it would be worth organising consumer protection courses at local and regional level. However, the processing of consumer complaints should be based on a gradual approach. At a time of economic crisis, consumer activism is more important than ever; |
| --- | --- |

30.

points out that consumer interests must be protected at both local and national level. In the interests of cost efficiency, it would be worth organising consumer protection courses at local and regional level. However, the processing of consumer complaints should be based on a gradual approach. At a time of economic crisis, consumer activism is more important than ever;

| 31. | feels that regional organisations should join European networks to ensure eligibility for Commission funding. This would enable consumers to choose the geographically closest organisation to take their problems to. Activity planning through local organisations would be much more efficient; |
| --- | --- |

31.

feels that regional organisations should join European networks to ensure eligibility for Commission funding. This would enable consumers to choose the geographically closest organisation to take their problems to. Activity planning through local organisations would be much more efficient;

| 32. | feels that support for university centres engaged in consumer protection research could strengthen regional competences in this field. Such centres could establish a scientific basis for local and regional authority action, enabling them to effectively implement regional consumer protection policy. |
| --- | --- |

32.

feels that support for university centres engaged in consumer protection research could strengthen regional competences in this field. Such centres could establish a scientific basis for local and regional authority action, enabling them to effectively implement regional consumer protection policy.

IV.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 5(1) a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of industry, commercial and business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers in the Union; | they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of industry, commercial and business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers in the Union; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of industry, commercial and business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers in the Union;

they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of industry, commercial and business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers in the Union;

Amendment 2

Article 5(2) a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers; | they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers;

they are non-governmental, non-profit-making, independent of business or other conflicting interests, and have as their primary objectives and activities the promotion and protection of the health, safety, economic and legal interests of consumers;

Amendment 3

Article 5(2) b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| they carry out all of the following activities: provide for a formal mechanism for consumer representatives from the Union and third countries to contribute to political discussions and policies, organise meetings with policy officials and regulators to promote and advocate consumer interests with public authorities, identify common consumers issues and challenges, promote consumer views in the context of bilateral relations between the Union and third countries, contribute to the exchange and dissemination of expertise and knowledge on consumer issues in the Union and third countries, and produce policy recommendations. | they carry out all of the following activities: provide for a formal mechanism for consumer representatives from the Union and third countries to contribute to political discussions and policies, organise meetings with policy officials and regulators to promote and advocate consumer interests with public authorities , identify common consumers issues and challenges, promote consumer views in the context of bilateral relations between the Union and third countries, contribute to the exchange and dissemination of expertise and knowledge on consumer issues in the Union and third countries, and produce policy recommendations. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

they carry out all of the following activities: provide for a formal mechanism for consumer representatives from the Union and third countries to contribute to political discussions and policies, organise meetings with policy officials and regulators to promote and advocate consumer interests with public authorities, identify common consumers issues and challenges, promote consumer views in the context of bilateral relations between the Union and third countries, contribute to the exchange and dissemination of expertise and knowledge on consumer issues in the Union and third countries, and produce policy recommendations.

they carry out all of the following activities: provide for a formal mechanism for consumer representatives from the Union and third countries to contribute to political discussions and policies, organise meetings with policy officials and regulators to promote and advocate consumer interests with public authorities , identify common consumers issues and challenges, promote consumer views in the context of bilateral relations between the Union and third countries, contribute to the exchange and dissemination of expertise and knowledge on consumer issues in the Union and third countries, and produce policy recommendations.

Reason

Eligibility should be extended to activities at local and regional authority level so they can organise meetings with consumer protection officials.

Amendment 4

Article 5(7)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Grants for action may be awarded to a public body or a non-profit-making body selected through a transparent procedure and designated by a Member State or a third country referred to in Article 7 of this Regulation. The designated body shall be part of a Union network which provides information and assistance to consumers to help them exercise their rights and obtain access to appropriate dispute resolution (the European Consumer Centres Network). | Grants for action may be awarded to a public body or a non-profit-making body selected through a transparent procedure and designated by a Member State or a third country referred to in Article 7 of this Regulation. The designated body shall be part of a Union network which provides information and assistance to consumers to help them exercise their rights and obtain access to appropriate dispute resolution (the European Consumer Centres Network). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Grants for action may be awarded to a public body or a non-profit-making body selected through a transparent procedure and designated by a Member State or a third country referred to in Article 7 of this Regulation. The designated body shall be part of a Union network which provides information and assistance to consumers to help them exercise their rights and obtain access to appropriate dispute resolution (the European Consumer Centres Network).

Grants for action may be awarded to a public body or a non-profit-making body selected through a transparent procedure and designated by a Member State or a third country referred to in Article 7 of this Regulation. The designated body shall be part of a Union network which provides information and assistance to consumers to help them exercise their rights and obtain access to appropriate dispute resolution (the European Consumer Centres Network).

Reason

Public bodies at local and regional authority level should also be eligible for support.

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/223

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Health for growth: the third multi-annual programme of EU action for the period 2014-2020’

2012/C 225/18

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | is concerned that the title chosen for the programme, Health for Growth, reduces health to a question of economic utility without focusing on people first and foremost; |
| --- | --- |

—

is concerned that the title chosen for the programme, Health for Growth, reduces health to a question of economic utility without focusing on people first and foremost;

| — | welcomes the general objectives of the programme; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the general objectives of the programme;

| — | questions whether the allocated amount of EUR 446 million for the period 2014-2020 will be enough despite the increase in comparison to the preceding programmes. It regrets that the Commission was not able to agree on a much higher allocation, given the economic benefits of avoiding sickness-related costs and absences from work; |
| --- | --- |

—

questions whether the allocated amount of EUR 446 million for the period 2014-2020 will be enough despite the increase in comparison to the preceding programmes. It regrets that the Commission was not able to agree on a much higher allocation, given the economic benefits of avoiding sickness-related costs and absences from work;

| — | approves of the provision according to which grants will only be released when there is clearly established added value for the EU; points out that this innovative added value should serve patients, and not just commercial ends with a view to cutting healthcare costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

approves of the provision according to which grants will only be released when there is clearly established added value for the EU; points out that this innovative added value should serve patients, and not just commercial ends with a view to cutting healthcare costs;

| — | takes the view that the cofinancing of measures should be regulated along the lines of the Structural Funds, so as to allow appropriate support for structurally weak regions; |
| --- | --- |

—

takes the view that the cofinancing of measures should be regulated along the lines of the Structural Funds, so as to allow appropriate support for structurally weak regions;

| — | expects that regional and local authorities and NGOs also be included in the preparation, implementation, assessment and analysis of the programme, and of individual projects and studies. |
| --- | --- |

—

expects that regional and local authorities and NGOs also be included in the preparation, implementation, assessment and analysis of the programme, and of individual projects and studies.

| Rapporteur | Mr Tilman TÖGEL (DE/PSE), Member of the Saxony-Anhalt Landtag |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Health for Growth, the third multi-annual programme of EU action in the field of health for the period 2014-2020
  COM(2011) 709 final |

Rapporteur

Mr Tilman TÖGEL (DE/PSE), Member of the Saxony-Anhalt Landtag

Reference document

Health for Growth, the third multi-annual programme of EU action in the field of health for the period 2014-2020

COM(2011) 709 final

| 1. | The Committee of the Regions supports efforts and initiatives to ensure that people in Europe have access to public healthcare that reflects the latest insights of medical science. This should be the objective of all healthcare policy makers and stakeholders at European, state, regional and local level; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Committee of the Regions supports efforts and initiatives to ensure that people in Europe have access to public healthcare that reflects the latest insights of medical science. This should be the objective of all healthcare policy makers and stakeholders at European, state, regional and local level;

| 2. | The Committee of the Regions emphasises that a sustainable healthcare policy must take into account health-promotion and disease-prevention factors, such as socio-economic conditions, lifestyle, culture, education, environmental factors and social circumstances. Linked up innovations are needed in all socially relevant fields in order to identify risk factors and mitigate their negative effects at as early a stage as possible; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Committee of the Regions emphasises that a sustainable healthcare policy must take into account health-promotion and disease-prevention factors, such as socio-economic conditions, lifestyle, culture, education, environmental factors and social circumstances. Linked up innovations are needed in all socially relevant fields in order to identify risk factors and mitigate their negative effects at as early a stage as possible;

| 3. | The Committee of the Regions sees a risk that the thrust of the programme puts too much emphasis on reducing inequities in healthcare to unequal access to certain forms of treatment. Doing so could overshadow efforts to tackle the social divisions that underlie these inequalities; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Committee of the Regions sees a risk that the thrust of the programme puts too much emphasis on reducing inequities in healthcare to unequal access to certain forms of treatment. Doing so could overshadow efforts to tackle the social divisions that underlie these inequalities;

| 4. | The programme makes reference to a concept of growth in its title without ever defining it. So long as there is no reflection on what this concept actually means, making it the goal of the programme is problematic. Even if promotion of communication structures between the most diverse health sector stakeholders is the priority of the programme, people and their health must be at the forefront. Whilst it is certainly important to stress the link between economic growth and investment in the health sector, the great lengths to which the proposal goes in doing this risks reducing health investment to an economic concern and, as such, implies a lack of ambition and confidence in advocating the promotion of physical and mental wellbeing at EU level; |
| --- | --- |

4.

The programme makes reference to a concept of growth in its title without ever defining it. So long as there is no reflection on what this concept actually means, making it the goal of the programme is problematic. Even if promotion of communication structures between the most diverse health sector stakeholders is the priority of the programme, people and their health must be at the forefront. Whilst it is certainly important to stress the link between economic growth and investment in the health sector, the great lengths to which the proposal goes in doing this risks reducing health investment to an economic concern and, as such, implies a lack of ambition and confidence in advocating the promotion of physical and mental wellbeing at EU level;

| 5. | Here the Committee of the Regions reiterates its concern that government fiscal consolidation comes mostly at the expense of public sector investment, and thus also affects the quality and stability of healthcare systems. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, guaranteeing healthcare services is a priority. It proceeds on the assumption that synergies like those achieved through public-private partnerships can also be achieved in this programme, so that the healthcare system can cope with future challenges; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Here the Committee of the Regions reiterates its concern that government fiscal consolidation comes mostly at the expense of public sector investment, and thus also affects the quality and stability of healthcare systems. In the view of the Committee of the Regions, guaranteeing healthcare services is a priority. It proceeds on the assumption that synergies like those achieved through public-private partnerships can also be achieved in this programme, so that the healthcare system can cope with future challenges;

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Preliminary remarks

| 6. | acknowledges and supports the European Commission's efforts to keep health programmes going in line with the strategic objectives of the Europe 2020 agenda and its current programme of EU action, Health for Growth. The focus on innovative and sustainable healthcare systems, better deployment of resources, health-promotion measures, sickness prevention and cross-border networks to prevent and tackle health threats is particularly welcome; |
| --- | --- |

6.

acknowledges and supports the European Commission's efforts to keep health programmes going in line with the strategic objectives of the Europe 2020 agenda and its current programme of EU action, Health for Growth. The focus on innovative and sustainable healthcare systems, better deployment of resources, health-promotion measures, sickness prevention and cross-border networks to prevent and tackle health threats is particularly welcome;

| 7. | is concerned that the title chosen for the programme, Health for Growth, reduces health to a question of economic utility without focusing on people first and foremost. In doing so, it fails to do justice to the objectives stated in Article 4, such as ‘increasing access to better and safer healthcare for citizens’ (paragraph 2), or ‘protecting citizens from cross-border health threats’ (paragraph 4); |
| --- | --- |

7.

is concerned that the title chosen for the programme, Health for Growth, reduces health to a question of economic utility without focusing on people first and foremost. In doing so, it fails to do justice to the objectives stated in Article 4, such as ‘increasing access to better and safer healthcare for citizens’ (paragraph 2), or ‘protecting citizens from cross-border health threats’ (paragraph 4);

| 8. | invites the Commission to consider that the title chosen for the programme may seem discriminatory to sick and disabled people, as it suggests that only healthy people can contribute to economic growth and are therefore economically desirable. It fails to account for the fact that these people can also take part in working life on an equal footing and make a valuable economic contribution, provided they receive the necessary support; |
| --- | --- |

8.

invites the Commission to consider that the title chosen for the programme may seem discriminatory to sick and disabled people, as it suggests that only healthy people can contribute to economic growth and are therefore economically desirable. It fails to account for the fact that these people can also take part in working life on an equal footing and make a valuable economic contribution, provided they receive the necessary support;

| 9. | observes that it is hard to see any crossover in terms of content or objectives between the programme and the WHO's Health 21 – Health for all in the 21st Century strategy. The WHO points to the pressing need to reduce inequality of social and economic opportunity in order to improve the health of the entire population as one objective of a health strategy. It also calls for measures for those most in need or burdened by ill-health to be combined, bottlenecks in care provision to be eliminated, and social and health inequities to be tackled (Point II of the World Health Declaration, Health21, of the 51st WHO Assembly). These aspects are missing from the programme, which gives one-sided emphasis to opportunities for economic development. The CoR expects the Commission to work closely with the WHO Regional Committee on drawing up the future health strategy for Europe, ‘Health 2020’; |
| --- | --- |

9.

observes that it is hard to see any crossover in terms of content or objectives between the programme and the WHO's Health 21 – Health for all in the 21st Century strategy. The WHO points to the pressing need to reduce inequality of social and economic opportunity in order to improve the health of the entire population as one objective of a health strategy. It also calls for measures for those most in need or burdened by ill-health to be combined, bottlenecks in care provision to be eliminated, and social and health inequities to be tackled (Point II of the World Health Declaration, Health21, of the 51st WHO Assembly). These aspects are missing from the programme, which gives one-sided emphasis to opportunities for economic development. The CoR expects the Commission to work closely with the WHO Regional Committee on drawing up the future health strategy for Europe, ‘Health 2020’;

Chapter I: General Provisions

| 10. | welcomes the fact that the proposed programme is meant as a continuation of the second programme of EU action that runs until 2013, and the first programme of EU action (2003-2007); |
| --- | --- |

10.

welcomes the fact that the proposed programme is meant as a continuation of the second programme of EU action that runs until 2013, and the first programme of EU action (2003-2007);

| 11. | criticises, however, the lack of assessment of these programmes and notes that the ‘summary of the ex-post evaluation of the Public Health Programme for 2003-2007 and the mid-term evaluation of the Health Programme for 2008-2013’ provided for in point 6.5.3 of the Financial Statement will not be enough to evaluate the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the implementation of those recommendations in this programme; |
| --- | --- |

11.

criticises, however, the lack of assessment of these programmes and notes that the ‘summary of the ex-post evaluation of the Public Health Programme for 2003-2007 and the mid-term evaluation of the Health Programme for 2008-2013’ provided for in point 6.5.3 of the Financial Statement will not be enough to evaluate the recommendations of the Court of Auditors and the implementation of those recommendations in this programme;

| 12. | welcomes the general objectives of the programme outlined in Article 2:






  — | cooperation between Member States to create an effective system of exchange of healthcare sector innovations, |
| --- | --- | --- |

12.

welcomes the general objectives of the programme outlined in Article 2:

—

cooperation between Member States to create an effective system of exchange of healthcare sector innovations,

| — | strengthening the viability of healthcare systems within the Member States in the face of demographic and funding pressures, and |
| --- | --- |

—

strengthening the viability of healthcare systems within the Member States in the face of demographic and funding pressures, and

| — | enhancing protection against cross-border health threats |
| --- | --- |

—

enhancing protection against cross-border health threats

| — | and thereby continually improving the health of citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

and thereby continually improving the health of citizens;

| 13. | notes with concern the lack of much-needed involvement of regional and local authorities who, as a rule, are responsible for ensuring the prerequisites for good health, guaranteeing adequate healthcare and organising healthcare services, and the lack of preliminary consultation with stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

13.

notes with concern the lack of much-needed involvement of regional and local authorities who, as a rule, are responsible for ensuring the prerequisites for good health, guaranteeing adequate healthcare and organising healthcare services, and the lack of preliminary consultation with stakeholders;

| 14. | therefore expects that regional and local authorities and NGOs also be included in the preparation, implementation, assessment and analysis of the programme, and of individual projects and studies; |
| --- | --- |

14.

therefore expects that regional and local authorities and NGOs also be included in the preparation, implementation, assessment and analysis of the programme, and of individual projects and studies;

| 15. | notes with concern that the draft regulation introduces new concepts and instruments, the content and scope of which are not fully apparent. Thus, it is not sufficiently clear which of the ‘common tools and mechanisms at EU level to address shortages of [human] resources and to facilitate up-take of innovation in healthcare’ referred to in the first objective should be developed. New instruments must not lead to duplicate structures or an additional administrative or cost burden; |
| --- | --- |

15.

notes with concern that the draft regulation introduces new concepts and instruments, the content and scope of which are not fully apparent. Thus, it is not sufficiently clear which of the ‘common tools and mechanisms at EU level to address shortages of [human] resources and to facilitate up-take of innovation in healthcare’ referred to in the first objective should be developed. New instruments must not lead to duplicate structures or an additional administrative or cost burden;

Chapter II: Objectives and measures to be implemented

| 16. | supports the intention of the programme to encourage up-take by political decision-makers and healthcare professionals of innovative and high-quality products and services resulting from tools, mechanisms and guidelines developed in the healthcare sector. This should achieve long-term savings and therefore boost the efficiency and viability of healthcare systems. It recommends consideration in the medium term of an incentive system that will support these effects; |
| --- | --- |

16.

supports the intention of the programme to encourage up-take by political decision-makers and healthcare professionals of innovative and high-quality products and services resulting from tools, mechanisms and guidelines developed in the healthcare sector. This should achieve long-term savings and therefore boost the efficiency and viability of healthcare systems. It recommends consideration in the medium term of an incentive system that will support these effects;

| 17. | welcomes the objective of increasing access to medical expertise and information for specific conditions beyond national borders, and of developing shared solutions and guidelines to improve healthcare quality and patient safety. Healthcare policy stakeholders and decision-makers and healthcare sector professionals should be encouraged to use the expertise gathered through the European Reference Networks and to implement the agreed guidelines. In addition, exchange programmes should be considered for various categories of healthcare professional, such as doctors, nurses, auxiliary nurses and public health experts; |
| --- | --- |

17.

welcomes the objective of increasing access to medical expertise and information for specific conditions beyond national borders, and of developing shared solutions and guidelines to improve healthcare quality and patient safety. Healthcare policy stakeholders and decision-makers and healthcare sector professionals should be encouraged to use the expertise gathered through the European Reference Networks and to implement the agreed guidelines. In addition, exchange programmes should be considered for various categories of healthcare professional, such as doctors, nurses, auxiliary nurses and public health experts;

| 18. | therefore approves of the call to promote cooperation on the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and to determine the potential of e-Health, and requires the intended cooperation on electronic patient registries to respect the standards and requirements of data security, doctor-patient confidentiality and patient autonomy; |
| --- | --- |

18.

therefore approves of the call to promote cooperation on the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and to determine the potential of e-Health, and requires the intended cooperation on electronic patient registries to respect the standards and requirements of data security, doctor-patient confidentiality and patient autonomy;

| 19. | considers the focus on identifying, disseminating and promoting up-take of proven measures and projects aimed at improving health and preventing diseases caused by, for example, smoking, bad diet, lack of exercise, alcohol abuse and unprotected sex, to be the right approach. In addition, it expects increasing resistance to antibiotics and the link to the use of antibiotics in livestock farming, especially factory farming, and the need to prevent disease through vaccination to also be addressed. Health inequalities, mental health, social determinants of health and well-being, an aspect currently ignored, should also be addressed in the programme, including the link to the ongoing financial and economic crisis; |
| --- | --- |

19.

considers the focus on identifying, disseminating and promoting up-take of proven measures and projects aimed at improving health and preventing diseases caused by, for example, smoking, bad diet, lack of exercise, alcohol abuse and unprotected sex, to be the right approach. In addition, it expects increasing resistance to antibiotics and the link to the use of antibiotics in livestock farming, especially factory farming, and the need to prevent disease through vaccination to also be addressed. Health inequalities, mental health, social determinants of health and well-being, an aspect currently ignored, should also be addressed in the programme, including the link to the ongoing financial and economic crisis;

| 20. | supports the eligible measures outlined in Article 4(1), particularly those aimed at boosting cooperation on the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and enhancing the interoperability of e-Health applications in order to strengthen patients' rights; |
| --- | --- |

20.

supports the eligible measures outlined in Article 4(1), particularly those aimed at boosting cooperation on the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and enhancing the interoperability of e-Health applications in order to strengthen patients' rights;

| 21. | calls for Health Impact Assessments to be carried out as a complement to cooperation on the Health Technology Assessment, particularly with regard to current or new strategies, plans and programmes within and beyond the health sector; |
| --- | --- |

21.

calls for Health Impact Assessments to be carried out as a complement to cooperation on the Health Technology Assessment, particularly with regard to current or new strategies, plans and programmes within and beyond the health sector;

| 22. | invites the Commission to consider whether self-help groups could be integrated alongside stakeholders, patient organisations and Member States in efforts to develop coordinated EU-level measures aimed at creating opportunities for cross-border healthcare; |
| --- | --- |

22.

invites the Commission to consider whether self-help groups could be integrated alongside stakeholders, patient organisations and Member States in efforts to develop coordinated EU-level measures aimed at creating opportunities for cross-border healthcare;

| 23. | welcomes the programme's significant support for ‘provision of knowledge’ and notes that, alongside this, a key objective should be to impart sound methods to decision-makers and institutions responsible for preparing decisions with a view to developing targeted national and regional-level solutions that can be implemented within the country-specific structures and systems that have grown up over time; |
| --- | --- |

23.

welcomes the programme's significant support for ‘provision of knowledge’ and notes that, alongside this, a key objective should be to impart sound methods to decision-makers and institutions responsible for preparing decisions with a view to developing targeted national and regional-level solutions that can be implemented within the country-specific structures and systems that have grown up over time;

| 24. | welcomes the focus on measures to counter the shortage of health and care professionals, and assumes that measures to support the sustainability of the health and care workforce will not be cancelled out by attempts to attract labour from other Member States; |
| --- | --- |

24.

welcomes the focus on measures to counter the shortage of health and care professionals, and assumes that measures to support the sustainability of the health and care workforce will not be cancelled out by attempts to attract labour from other Member States;

| 25. | points out in this connection that the education of health professionals must in future be based on the requirements of the 21st century, as noted in the Lancet report on Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world; also calls for dialogue on the new direction for the education of health professionals to continue in the competent EU bodies; |
| --- | --- |

25.

points out in this connection that the education of health professionals must in future be based on the requirements of the 21st century, as noted in the Lancet report on Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world; also calls for dialogue on the new direction for the education of health professionals to continue in the competent EU bodies;

| 26. | welcomes all the measures adopted in Article 4(2) and (3) to increase citizens' access to better and safer healthcare and improve sickness prevention, and, in addition to the creation of reference networks and/or centres, in particular for study and research, diagnosis and treatment in the area of low prevalence and incidence diseases in Europe, transfer of know-how and a system of health knowledge, expects guidelines to be developed on the prudent use of antibiotics as well as concomitant measures to generally promote prudent use of medication among the population, especially over-the-counter medication; |
| --- | --- |

26.

welcomes all the measures adopted in Article 4(2) and (3) to increase citizens' access to better and safer healthcare and improve sickness prevention, and, in addition to the creation of reference networks and/or centres, in particular for study and research, diagnosis and treatment in the area of low prevalence and incidence diseases in Europe, transfer of know-how and a system of health knowledge, expects guidelines to be developed on the prudent use of antibiotics as well as concomitant measures to generally promote prudent use of medication among the population, especially over-the-counter medication;

| 27. | acknowledges the objective of protecting citizens from cross-border health threats by developing common approaches to strengthening preparedness and coordination in health crisis situations, on the understanding that the development of these approaches must respect national and regional competences and that mechanisms for cross-border cooperation must be established in line with these competences; |
| --- | --- |

27.

acknowledges the objective of protecting citizens from cross-border health threats by developing common approaches to strengthening preparedness and coordination in health crisis situations, on the understanding that the development of these approaches must respect national and regional competences and that mechanisms for cross-border cooperation must be established in line with these competences;

| 28. | in this context, stresses its view that regionally and locally distributed responsibility for protecting health and managing major disasters in the Member States necessitates participation by these levels in the preparation, implementation, assessment and analysis of such measures; |
| --- | --- |

28.

in this context, stresses its view that regionally and locally distributed responsibility for protecting health and managing major disasters in the Member States necessitates participation by these levels in the preparation, implementation, assessment and analysis of such measures;

| 29. | also highlights the importance of corporate health promotion. Member States should therefore make health promotion in the world of business and work an integral element of their health policy; |
| --- | --- |

29.

also highlights the importance of corporate health promotion. Member States should therefore make health promotion in the world of business and work an integral element of their health policy;

Chapter III: Financial requirements

Chapter IV: Implementation

| 30. | questions whether the allocated amount of EUR 446 million for the period 2014-2020 will be enough, despite the increase in comparison to the preceding programmes. It regrets that the Commission was not able to agree on a much higher allocation, given the economic benefits of avoiding sickness-related costs and absences from work; |
| --- | --- |

30.

questions whether the allocated amount of EUR 446 million for the period 2014-2020 will be enough, despite the increase in comparison to the preceding programmes. It regrets that the Commission was not able to agree on a much higher allocation, given the economic benefits of avoiding sickness-related costs and absences from work;

| 31. | expects the funds, which are in fact inadequate, to be distributed in a transparent and balanced manner, and that the Committee be involved at an early stage in the formulation of distribution criteria, as well as in the annual work programme referred to in Article 11(1); |
| --- | --- |

31.

expects the funds, which are in fact inadequate, to be distributed in a transparent and balanced manner, and that the Committee be involved at an early stage in the formulation of distribution criteria, as well as in the annual work programme referred to in Article 11(1);

| 32. | calls for a clear limit to be placed on the share of the total budget that goes towards public service contracts, and insists that Member States, regions and other interested parties be given access to the results of public service contracts; |
| --- | --- |

32.

calls for a clear limit to be placed on the share of the total budget that goes towards public service contracts, and insists that Member States, regions and other interested parties be given access to the results of public service contracts;

| 33. | welcomes the opening up of the programme to third countries, because cross-border healthcare, reducing skills shortages and management of major disasters are issues that particularly require thinking without frontiers; |
| --- | --- |

33.

welcomes the opening up of the programme to third countries, because cross-border healthcare, reducing skills shortages and management of major disasters are issues that particularly require thinking without frontiers;

| 34. | notes the linking up and use of the positive effects and opportunities offered by the European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC), especially in border regions of the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

34.

notes the linking up and use of the positive effects and opportunities offered by the European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC), especially in border regions of the Member States;

| 35. | approves of the provision stated in Article 7(2), according to which grants will only be released when there is clearly established added value for the EU; points out that this innovative added value should serve patients, and not just commercial ends with a view to cutting healthcare costs; |
| --- | --- |

35.

approves of the provision stated in Article 7(2), according to which grants will only be released when there is clearly established added value for the EU; points out that this innovative added value should serve patients, and not just commercial ends with a view to cutting healthcare costs;

| 36. | regrets, however, that only the remarks in point 6.5.2 of the financial statement provide the framework for such added value, providing for the European-level coordination, governance and financial support needed to achieve the programme's objectives. However, they are already enough to justify European – i.e. supranational – action in accordance with the subsidiarity principle based on Article 168; |
| --- | --- |

36.

regrets, however, that only the remarks in point 6.5.2 of the financial statement provide the framework for such added value, providing for the European-level coordination, governance and financial support needed to achieve the programme's objectives. However, they are already enough to justify European – i.e. supranational – action in accordance with the subsidiarity principle based on Article 168;

| 37. | notes that the aspects of added value for the EU described under point 6.5.2 of the financial statement – ‘actions that could lead to a system for benchmarking; improving economies of scale by avoiding waste due to duplication and optimising use of financial resources’ – need a verifiable basis in order to establish this added value; |
| --- | --- |

37.

notes that the aspects of added value for the EU described under point 6.5.2 of the financial statement – ‘actions that could lead to a system for benchmarking; improving economies of scale by avoiding waste due to duplication and optimising use of financial resources’ – need a verifiable basis in order to establish this added value;

| 38. | takes the view that the cofinancing of measures provided for in Article 7(3) should be regulated along the lines of the Structural Funds, so as to allow appropriate support for structurally weak regions; |
| --- | --- |

38.

takes the view that the cofinancing of measures provided for in Article 7(3) should be regulated along the lines of the Structural Funds, so as to allow appropriate support for structurally weak regions;

| 39. | welcomes the planned simplification of application and administration procedures, and points out that the administrative burden currently imposed by the programme (2007-2013) has led to its low uptake. |
| --- | --- |

39.

welcomes the planned simplification of application and administration procedures, and points out that the administrative burden currently imposed by the programme (2007-2013) has led to its low uptake.

II.   AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital 14

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (14) | The Programme should focus mainly on cooperation with national health competent authorities and provide incentives for wide participation of all Member States. In particular, participation of Members States with Gross National Income (GNI) lower than 90 % of the Union average should be actively encouraged. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(14)

The Programme should focus mainly on cooperation with national health competent authorities and provide incentives for wide participation of all Member States. In particular, participation of Members States with Gross National Income (GNI) lower than 90 % of the Union average should be actively encouraged.

| (14) | The Programme should focus mainly on cooperation with health competent authorities and provide incentives for wide participation of all Member States. In particular, participation of Member States with lower than 90 % of the Union average should be actively encouraged. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The Programme should focus mainly on cooperation with health competent authorities and provide incentives for wide participation of all Member States. In particular, participation of Member States with lower than 90 % of the Union average should be actively encouraged.

Reason

In the Member States, responsibility for provision of healthcare often lies at regional or local level. It does not seem appropriate to focus solely on the Cohesion beneficiary states. The programme should be aimed at structurally weak regions; this special regard to structurally weak regions is addressed in more detail in the amendment to Article 7(3).

Amendment 2

Recital 16

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (16) | The programme should promote synergies while avoiding duplication with related Union programmes and actions. Appropriate use should be made of other Union funds and programmes, in particular the current and future Union framework programmes for research and innovation and their outcomes, the Structural Funds, the Programme for social change and innovation, the European Solidarity Fund, the European strategy for health at work, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, the Framework Programme for Environment and Climate action (LIFE), the programme of Union action in the field of consumer policy (2014-2020), the Justice programme (2014-2020), the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme, (the Education Europe Programme) and the Union Statistical Programme within their respective activities. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(16)

The programme should promote synergies while avoiding duplication with related Union programmes and actions. Appropriate use should be made of other Union funds and programmes, in particular the current and future Union framework programmes for research and innovation and their outcomes, the Structural Funds, the Programme for social change and innovation, the European Solidarity Fund, the European strategy for health at work, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, the Framework Programme for Environment and Climate action (LIFE), the programme of Union action in the field of consumer policy (2014-2020), the Justice programme (2014-2020), the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme, (the Education Europe Programme) and the Union Statistical Programme within their respective activities.

| (16) | The programme should promote synergies while avoiding duplication with related Union programmes and actions. Appropriate use should be made of other Union funds and programmes, in particular the current and future Union framework programmes for research and innovation and their outcomes, the Structural Funds , the Programme for social change and innovation, the European Solidarity Fund, the European strategy for health at work, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, the Framework Programme for Environment and Climate action (LIFE), the programme of Union action in the field of consumer policy (2014-2020), the Justice programme (2014-2020), the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme, (the Education Europe Programme) and the Union Statistical Programme within their respective activities. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The programme should promote synergies while avoiding duplication with related Union programmes and actions. Appropriate use should be made of other Union funds and programmes, in particular the current and future Union framework programmes for research and innovation and their outcomes, the Structural Funds , the Programme for social change and innovation, the European Solidarity Fund, the European strategy for health at work, the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, the Framework Programme for Environment and Climate action (LIFE), the programme of Union action in the field of consumer policy (2014-2020), the Justice programme (2014-2020), the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme, (the Education Europe Programme) and the Union Statistical Programme within their respective activities.

Reason

See point 34 of the Opinion.

Amendment 3

Title

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Health for Growth | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Health for Growth

Amendment 4

Article 7(3)(c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 60 % of eligible costs for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 except for Member States whose gross national income per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the Union average, which shall benefit from a financial contribution up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs. In cases of exceptional utility, the financial contribution for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 may be up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs for competent authorities of all Member States or third countries participating in the Programme. | 60 % of eligible costs for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 except for Member States whose per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the Union average, which shall benefit from a financial contribution up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs. In cases of exceptional utility, the financial contribution for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 may be up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs for competent authorities of all Member States or third countries participating in the Programme. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

60 % of eligible costs for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 except for Member States whose gross national income per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the Union average, which shall benefit from a financial contribution up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs. In cases of exceptional utility, the financial contribution for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 may be up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs for competent authorities of all Member States or third countries participating in the Programme.

60 % of eligible costs for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 except for Member States whose per inhabitant is less than 90 % of the Union average, which shall benefit from a financial contribution up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs. In cases of exceptional utility, the financial contribution for actions referred to in point (a) of paragraph 2 may be up to a maximum of 80 % of eligible costs for competent authorities of all Member States or third countries participating in the Programme.

Brussels, 4 May 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---