# Official Journal C 39/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 39 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 635 February 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 39

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 635 February 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| 2020/C 39/01 | Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions — Developments in the interinstitutional negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027 | 1 |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| 2020/C 39/02 | Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions — The 2019 European Semester and in view of the 2020 Annual Growth Survey | 7 |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| 2020/C 39/03 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Recommendations for the successful design of regional development strategies beyond 2020 | 11 |
| | OPINIONS |
| 2020/C 39/04 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better communication for cohesion policy | 16 |
| 2020/C 39/05 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — The CoR’s contribution to the renewed Territorial Agenda, with special emphasis on community-led local development | 21 |
| 2020/C 39/06 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — A Sustainable Europe by 2030: Follow-up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ecological transition and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change | 27 |
| 2020/C 39/07 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementing the Clean Energy Package: the NECPs as a tool for local and territorial governance approach to climate, active and passive energy | 33 |
| 2020/C 39/08 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Contribution from cities and regions towards a new EU policy framework for SMEs | 38 |
| 2020/C 39/09 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementation report on public procurement | 43 |
| 2020/C 39/10 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment | 48 |
| 2020/C 39/11 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Active and healthy ageing | 53 |
| 2020/C 39/12 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Socioeconomic structural change in Europe’s coal regions | 58 |
| 2020/C 39/13 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — African swine fever and the European pork market | 62 |
| 2020/C 39/14 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Pastoralism | 65 |
| 2020/C 39/15 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Research infrastructures: The Future of the European Research Area (ERA) from a Regional and Cross-border Perspective | 68 |
| 2020/C 39/16 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementing the Paris Agreement through innovative and sustainable energy transition at regional and local level | 72 |
| 2020/C 39/17 | Opinion of the European Committee of the regions — Smart cities: new challenges for a just transition toward climate neutrality — how to implement the SDGs in real life? | 78 |
| 2020/C 39/18 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Digital Europe for all: delivering smart and inclusive solutions on the ground | 83 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Committee of the Regions

2020/C 39/01

Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions — Developments in the interinstitutional negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027

1

RESOLUTIONS

2020/C 39/02

Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions — The 2019 European Semester and in view of the 2020 Annual Growth Survey

7

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

2020/C 39/03

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Recommendations for the successful design of regional development strategies beyond 2020

11

OPINIONS

2020/C 39/04

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better communication for cohesion policy

16

2020/C 39/05

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — The CoR’s contribution to the renewed Territorial Agenda, with special emphasis on community-led local development

21

2020/C 39/06

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — A Sustainable Europe by 2030: Follow-up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ecological transition and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change

27

2020/C 39/07

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementing the Clean Energy Package: the NECPs as a tool for local and territorial governance approach to climate, active and passive energy

33

2020/C 39/08

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Contribution from cities and regions towards a new EU policy framework for SMEs

38

2020/C 39/09

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementation report on public procurement

43

2020/C 39/10

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment

48

2020/C 39/11

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Active and healthy ageing

53

2020/C 39/12

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Socioeconomic structural change in Europe’s coal regions

58

2020/C 39/13

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — African swine fever and the European pork market

62

2020/C 39/14

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Pastoralism

65

2020/C 39/15

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Research infrastructures: The Future of the European Research Area (ERA) from a Regional and Cross-border Perspective

68

2020/C 39/16

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementing the Paris Agreement through innovative and sustainable energy transition at regional and local level

72

2020/C 39/17

Opinion of the European Committee of the regions — Smart cities: new challenges for a just transition toward climate neutrality — how to implement the SDGs in real life?

78

2020/C 39/18

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Digital Europe for all: delivering smart and inclusive solutions on the ground

83

---

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Committee of the Regions

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/1

---

Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions — Developments in the interinstitutional negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027

(2020/C 39/01)

I.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

COM(2018) 375 final

Recommendation for Amendment 1

Article 32

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In addition to Article 31, the Member State may propose to undertake additional technical assistance actions to reinforce the capacity of Member State authorities, beneficiaries and relevant partners necessary for the effective administration and use of the Funds. (...) | In addition to Article 31, the Member State may propose to undertake additional technical assistance actions to reinforce the capacity of Member State authorities, beneficiaries and relevant partners necessary for the effective administration and use of the Funds,
  as well as for enhancing the institutional and administrative capacity of local and regional authorities, including complementary investment in equipment
  . (...) |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

In addition to Article 31, the Member State may propose to undertake additional technical assistance actions to reinforce the capacity of Member State authorities, beneficiaries and relevant partners necessary for the effective administration and use of the Funds. (...)

In addition to Article 31, the Member State may propose to undertake additional technical assistance actions to reinforce the capacity of Member State authorities, beneficiaries and relevant partners necessary for the effective administration and use of the Funds,
  as well as for enhancing the institutional and administrative capacity of local and regional authorities, including complementary investment in equipment
  . (...)

Reason

In light of the discontinuation of thematic objective 11, the CoR considers it important to ensure support for capacity building of local and regional authorities through TO11-type actions in all programmes.

COM(2018) 383 final/2

Recommendation for Amendment 2

Article 2(1)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The general objective of the Programme is to protect and promote rights and values as enshrined in the EU Treaties, including by supporting civil society organisations, in order to sustain open, democratic and inclusive societies. | 1.   The general objective of the Programme is to protect and promote rights and values as enshrined in the EU Treaties, including by supporting civil society organisations,
  local and regional authorities and their representatives
  , in order to sustain open, democratic and inclusive societies
  based on gender equality
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The general objective of the Programme is to protect and promote rights and values as enshrined in the EU Treaties, including by supporting civil society organisations, in order to sustain open, democratic and inclusive societies.

1.   The general objective of the Programme is to protect and promote rights and values as enshrined in the EU Treaties, including by supporting civil society organisations,
  local and regional authorities and their representatives
  , in order to sustain open, democratic and inclusive societies
  based on gender equality
  .

Reason

Reason

Local and regional authorities are beneficiaries of the programme’s funds and have an important role to play, in particular in promoting citizens’ participation and defending the rights of EU citizens.

COM(2018) 383 final/2

COM(2018) 383 final/2

Recommendation for Amendment 3

Recommendation for Amendment 3

Article 18(2)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   The Commission shall implement information and communication actions relating to the Programme, and its actions and results. Financial resources allocated to the Programme shall also contribute to the corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union, as far as they are related to the objectives referred to in Article 2. | 2.   The Commission shall implement information and communication actions relating to the Programme, and its actions and results,
  in particular through the Europe Direct Information Centres network
  . Financial resources allocated to the Programme shall also contribute to the corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union, as far as they are related to the objectives referred to in Article 2.




  3.
     
  The EU will do its utmost to provide information on financing arrangements to all potential beneficiaries in order to ensure the involvement of diverse organisations from different Member States and partner states. Candidates shall have access to a contact point, which will provide them with support, answer their questions on the application procedure and check that their file is complete before it is submitted. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

2.   The Commission shall implement information and communication actions relating to the Programme, and its actions and results. Financial resources allocated to the Programme shall also contribute to the corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union, as far as they are related to the objectives referred to in Article 2.

2.   The Commission shall implement information and communication actions relating to the Programme, and its actions and results,
  in particular through the Europe Direct Information Centres network
  . Financial resources allocated to the Programme shall also contribute to the corporate communication of the political priorities of the Union, as far as they are related to the objectives referred to in Article 2.

3.
     
  The EU will do its utmost to provide information on financing arrangements to all potential beneficiaries in order to ensure the involvement of diverse organisations from different Member States and partner states. Candidates shall have access to a contact point, which will provide them with support, answer their questions on the application procedure and check that their file is complete before it is submitted.

Reason

Reason

It is important to provide as much information as possible on opportunities to all local and regional authorities and all other potentially interested participants so as to ensure that it is not only the EU’s privileged partners or the best-informed organisations that benefit.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| 1. | reiterates its regret over the proposed size of the next MFF, which could undermine the final desired impact in individual EU policy fields. The CoR strongly opposes the proposed budgetary cuts to Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policies, which would have a detrimental effect on the development of the EU’s regions and cities. Therefore, the CoR reconfirms its strong call that the future MFF should be set at least at 1,3 % of GNI of EU-27 to secure a budget that is commensurate to the needs, expectations and concerns of EU citizens; |
| --- | --- |

1.

reiterates its regret over the proposed size of the next MFF, which could undermine the final desired impact in individual EU policy fields. The CoR strongly opposes the proposed budgetary cuts to Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policies, which would have a detrimental effect on the development of the EU’s regions and cities. Therefore, the CoR reconfirms its strong call that the future MFF should be set at least at 1,3 % of GNI of EU-27 to secure a budget that is commensurate to the needs, expectations and concerns of EU citizens;

| 2. | is extremely worried about the slow progress in the discussions on the MFF 2021-2027 in the Council and questions whether the timetable, set by the leaders in June — concluding the MFF negotiations by the end of 2019 — can still be respected; calls on the European Commission to urgently put forward a contingency plan, which avoids a possible interruption of programmes in the case of late adoption of the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

2.

is extremely worried about the slow progress in the discussions on the MFF 2021-2027 in the Council and questions whether the timetable, set by the leaders in June — concluding the MFF negotiations by the end of 2019 — can still be respected; calls on the European Commission to urgently put forward a contingency plan, which avoids a possible interruption of programmes in the case of late adoption of the MFF;

| 3. | underscores that a strong MFF needs reliable and stable own resources. The CoR is in favour of simplifying the revenue side of the EU budget, in particular the proposal to phase out all rebates linked to Member States and to streamline VAT-based revenue. The CoR recalls that no agreement can be reached on the expenditure side of the MFF unless corresponding progress is made on its revenue side; |
| --- | --- |

3.

underscores that a strong MFF needs reliable and stable own resources. The CoR is in favour of simplifying the revenue side of the EU budget, in particular the proposal to phase out all rebates linked to Member States and to streamline VAT-based revenue. The CoR recalls that no agreement can be reached on the expenditure side of the MFF unless corresponding progress is made on its revenue side;

| 4. | welcomes the Commission’s efforts to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure respect for the rule of law, including the most recent blueprint for action based on three pillars (1. Building knowledge and a common rule of law culture; 2. Prevention: Cooperation and support to strengthen the rule of law at national level; 3. Response: Enforcement at EU level when national mechanisms falter); stresses, in this light, that local and regional authorities — as locally elected bodies — can play a key role in promoting the rule of law and in identifying risks to it; by engaging citizens in participatory democracy, building a culture of rule of law and supporting organisations essential to this purpose, including a free and independent media. The role of local and regional authorities in the three pillars’ structure should be, therefore, reinforced. However, while welcoming the Commission’s assurances that it wants to ensure seamless financing for EU final beneficiaries in case an action against a Member State is initiated, the CoR is still opposed to a conditionality which would limit regional and local authorities’ access to funding under the cohesion policy for failures to uphold the rule of law or democratic principles at national level. The CoR therefore expects the Commission to develop further actions to protect final beneficiaries’ interests and reiterates its previous call to set clear criteria to determine what constitutes a generalised deficiency as regards the rule of law; |
| --- | --- |

4.

welcomes the Commission’s efforts to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure respect for the rule of law, including the most recent blueprint for action based on three pillars (1. Building knowledge and a common rule of law culture; 2. Prevention: Cooperation and support to strengthen the rule of law at national level; 3. Response: Enforcement at EU level when national mechanisms falter); stresses, in this light, that local and regional authorities — as locally elected bodies — can play a key role in promoting the rule of law and in identifying risks to it; by engaging citizens in participatory democracy, building a culture of rule of law and supporting organisations essential to this purpose, including a free and independent media. The role of local and regional authorities in the three pillars’ structure should be, therefore, reinforced. However, while welcoming the Commission’s assurances that it wants to ensure seamless financing for EU final beneficiaries in case an action against a Member State is initiated, the CoR is still opposed to a conditionality which would limit regional and local authorities’ access to funding under the cohesion policy for failures to uphold the rule of law or democratic principles at national level. The CoR therefore expects the Commission to develop further actions to protect final beneficiaries’ interests and reiterates its previous call to set clear criteria to determine what constitutes a generalised deficiency as regards the rule of law;

| 5. | welcomes the Commission’s proposals to make the MFF more flexible, addressing new and unforeseen challenges in a timely fashion, but opposes the idea of a merged Single Margin Instrument as suggested by the Council in the Negotiating Box; underscores the need for a balance between greater flexibility and long-term planning certainty of programmes, especially those under shared management; |
| --- | --- |

5.

welcomes the Commission’s proposals to make the MFF more flexible, addressing new and unforeseen challenges in a timely fashion, but opposes the idea of a merged Single Margin Instrument as suggested by the Council in the Negotiating Box; underscores the need for a balance between greater flexibility and long-term planning certainty of programmes, especially those under shared management;

| 6. | agrees with the European Parliament’s call for a full-fledged mid-term revision of the MFF, allowing for a thorough analysis of the achievement of main objectives, in particular on climate change and mainstreaming of Sustainable Development Goals, use of all flexibility instruments and their potential rearrangement and, eventually, a meaningful adjustment of the MFF headings, including the possible creation of new headings or ceilings; |
| --- | --- |

6.

agrees with the European Parliament’s call for a full-fledged mid-term revision of the MFF, allowing for a thorough analysis of the achievement of main objectives, in particular on climate change and mainstreaming of Sustainable Development Goals, use of all flexibility instruments and their potential rearrangement and, eventually, a meaningful adjustment of the MFF headings, including the possible creation of new headings or ceilings;

| 7. | welcomes the fact that the Negotiating Box now includes text requiring gender mainstreaming for all actions financed from the EU’s long-term budget. Gender budgeting should also be more deeply embedded, more widespread and more systematic, and a new long-term gender equality strategy should be adopted as soon as possible; |
| --- | --- |

7.

welcomes the fact that the Negotiating Box now includes text requiring gender mainstreaming for all actions financed from the EU’s long-term budget. Gender budgeting should also be more deeply embedded, more widespread and more systematic, and a new long-term gender equality strategy should be adopted as soon as possible;

| 8. | notes that due to their geography, nature and/or the extent of their trading links, some regions will be more exposed to the consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the Union than others. The CoR therefore considers it important to identify practical solutions for support in order to address the challenges for the regions concerned after the UK’s withdrawal. Calls on the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that restructuring events caused by a disorderly withdrawal of the UK would also justify the ad hoc mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), the European Solidarity Fund and the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and reiterates its request to the European Commission to assess the possible need for a more structured mid- and long-term response through a stabilisation fund for regions most adversely affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, which should be based on additional resources and not at the expense of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

8.

notes that due to their geography, nature and/or the extent of their trading links, some regions will be more exposed to the consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the Union than others. The CoR therefore considers it important to identify practical solutions for support in order to address the challenges for the regions concerned after the UK’s withdrawal. Calls on the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that restructuring events caused by a disorderly withdrawal of the UK would also justify the ad hoc mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), the European Solidarity Fund and the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and reiterates its request to the European Commission to assess the possible need for a more structured mid- and long-term response through a stabilisation fund for regions most adversely affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, which should be based on additional resources and not at the expense of cohesion policy;

| 9. | reiterates its concerns about the removal of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) from the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), which risks undermining the integrated approach of the Structural and Investment Funds in rural areas. Therefore calls for the EAFRD to be reintroduced into the CPR; |
| --- | --- |

9.

reiterates its concerns about the removal of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) from the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), which risks undermining the integrated approach of the Structural and Investment Funds in rural areas. Therefore calls for the EAFRD to be reintroduced into the CPR;

| 10. | recalls that the ESF+, as a key tool for the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, must remain an essential pillar of cohesion policy; welcomes in this regard the Council’s proposal — expressed in the current draft Negotiating Box — to create a separate sub-heading for economic, social and territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

10.

recalls that the ESF+, as a key tool for the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, must remain an essential pillar of cohesion policy; welcomes in this regard the Council’s proposal — expressed in the current draft Negotiating Box — to create a separate sub-heading for economic, social and territorial cohesion;

| 11. | underlines the importance of the principles of partnership and multi-level governance and expresses its firm opposition to any attempt to water down the provisions of Article 6 of the proposed CPR. Also calls for the full implementation of the Code of Conduct in the preparation and implementation of the Partnership Agreements (PA) and plans to ensure that the involvement of local and regional authorities amounts to full partnership; |
| --- | --- |

11.

underlines the importance of the principles of partnership and multi-level governance and expresses its firm opposition to any attempt to water down the provisions of Article 6 of the proposed CPR. Also calls for the full implementation of the Code of Conduct in the preparation and implementation of the Partnership Agreements (PA) and plans to ensure that the involvement of local and regional authorities amounts to full partnership;

| 12. | stresses the importance of the PA for strategic coordination between the funds and for the involvement of local and regional authorities and other partners at an early stage of the process. Calls therefore for PA to remain mandatory, irrespective of the amount of resources from the Funds or the number of programmes; |
| --- | --- |

12.

stresses the importance of the PA for strategic coordination between the funds and for the involvement of local and regional authorities and other partners at an early stage of the process. Calls therefore for PA to remain mandatory, irrespective of the amount of resources from the Funds or the number of programmes;

| 13. | reiterates its firm opposition to the negative idea of macro-economic conditionality, which — as a result of the link between the ESIFs and economic governance — involves ‘taking cities and regions hostage’ because of the failings of national governments. In this respect, the CoR fully supports the proposal of the European Parliament to delete Article 15 of the CPR; |
| --- | --- |

13.

reiterates its firm opposition to the negative idea of macro-economic conditionality, which — as a result of the link between the ESIFs and economic governance — involves ‘taking cities and regions hostage’ because of the failings of national governments. In this respect, the CoR fully supports the proposal of the European Parliament to delete Article 15 of the CPR;

| 14. | insists, in relation to Article 21 of the CPR, that any transfers between the Funds or from the Funds to other Union instruments under direct or indirect management should be limited to max. 5 % of programme financial allocations and need to be taken in agreement with the relevant managing authorities, be of relevance for cohesion policy objectives, fully comply with the principles of subsidiarity and multilevel governance and must not weaken the place-based approach of the funds; |
| --- | --- |

14.

insists, in relation to Article 21 of the CPR, that any transfers between the Funds or from the Funds to other Union instruments under direct or indirect management should be limited to max. 5 % of programme financial allocations and need to be taken in agreement with the relevant managing authorities, be of relevance for cohesion policy objectives, fully comply with the principles of subsidiarity and multilevel governance and must not weaken the place-based approach of the funds;

| 15. | in line with the European Parliament’s position, funding for regions which are downgraded in category for the 2021-2027 period, shall be at least maintained at the level of 2014-2020 allocations; |
| --- | --- |

15.

in line with the European Parliament’s position, funding for regions which are downgraded in category for the 2021-2027 period, shall be at least maintained at the level of 2014-2020 allocations;

| 16. | rejects the Council’s proposal regarding Article 22 CPR, which would leave it at the discretion of the Member States to use integrated territorial instruments or not. Instead calls for a much higher uptake of territorial instruments in the Member States and mandatory earmarking across all funds in order to fulfil the renewed Territorial Agenda (TA) and cohesion goals; |
| --- | --- |

16.

rejects the Council’s proposal regarding Article 22 CPR, which would leave it at the discretion of the Member States to use integrated territorial instruments or not. Instead calls for a much higher uptake of territorial instruments in the Member States and mandatory earmarking across all funds in order to fulfil the renewed Territorial Agenda (TA) and cohesion goals;

| 17. | underlines the need to take into account the particular situation and specific needs of areas with natural or demographic handicaps, including island regions, in both the Partnership Agreements and programmes in line with Article 174 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

17.

underlines the need to take into account the particular situation and specific needs of areas with natural or demographic handicaps, including island regions, in both the Partnership Agreements and programmes in line with Article 174 TFEU;

| 18. | reconfirms its position on the provisions of the CPR that have been included in the Negotiating Box by the Council, in particular on the eligibility of regions, the regional safety net, the co-financing rates, the level of pre-financing, the decommitment rules and the budget for traditional territorial cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

18.

reconfirms its position on the provisions of the CPR that have been included in the Negotiating Box by the Council, in particular on the eligibility of regions, the regional safety net, the co-financing rates, the level of pre-financing, the decommitment rules and the budget for traditional territorial cooperation;

| 19. | stresses the need to improve the administrative and institutional capacity of the local and regional authorities, as underlined by the fact that, in 2019, 17 Member States received Country-specific Recommendations addressing administrative capacity issues at regional and local level. Considering the risk of a reduction in the amount of resources for capacity-building actions directly accessible to the local and regional authorities under shared management, proposes revising Article 32 of the proposed CPR, or Article 2 of the proposed ERDF/CF regulation so as to allow actions similar to those funded under cohesion policy’s TO 11 in the current MFF in all operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

19.

stresses the need to improve the administrative and institutional capacity of the local and regional authorities, as underlined by the fact that, in 2019, 17 Member States received Country-specific Recommendations addressing administrative capacity issues at regional and local level. Considering the risk of a reduction in the amount of resources for capacity-building actions directly accessible to the local and regional authorities under shared management, proposes revising Article 32 of the proposed CPR, or Article 2 of the proposed ERDF/CF regulation so as to allow actions similar to those funded under cohesion policy’s TO 11 in the current MFF in all operational programmes;

| 20. | insists in relation to the programmes implemented under the ERDF that the resources in each Member State be concentrated on categories of regions classified according to the parameters proposed by the Commission and agrees with the Parliament that in duly justified cases, as for instance for the Outermost Regions, Member States in consultation with the regions concerned may request for a reduction in the thematic concentration at the level of the category of the regions. The target for concentration on the policy objective ‘Greener and low carbon Europe’ (PO 2) should be at least 30 % for all categories of regions in order to fully implement the EU’s commitments under the Paris Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

20.

insists in relation to the programmes implemented under the ERDF that the resources in each Member State be concentrated on categories of regions classified according to the parameters proposed by the Commission and agrees with the Parliament that in duly justified cases, as for instance for the Outermost Regions, Member States in consultation with the regions concerned may request for a reduction in the thematic concentration at the level of the category of the regions. The target for concentration on the policy objective ‘Greener and low carbon Europe’ (PO 2) should be at least 30 % for all categories of regions in order to fully implement the EU’s commitments under the Paris Agreement;

| 21. | agrees with the European Parliament to allocate at least 5 % of the ERDF resources available at national level to integrated territorial development in non-urban areas with natural, geographic or demographic handicaps or challenges in accordance with the definitions proposed by the new Article 10a. These strategies may also benefit from a multi-fund approach, notably for integrated projects under the ‘Smart Villages Pact’; |
| --- | --- |

21.

agrees with the European Parliament to allocate at least 5 % of the ERDF resources available at national level to integrated territorial development in non-urban areas with natural, geographic or demographic handicaps or challenges in accordance with the definitions proposed by the new Article 10a. These strategies may also benefit from a multi-fund approach, notably for integrated projects under the ‘Smart Villages Pact’;

| 22. | reiterates that it regrets the Commission’s proposal to reduce the European Territorial Cooperation share of the cohesion budget from 2,75 % to 2,5 % and vehemently opposes the decision to move maritime cross-border cooperation from component 1 ‘cross-border’ to component 2 ‘transnational’. Therefore strongly endorses the proposal in the European Parliament to amend the commitments stipulated in Article 104(7) of the CPR so as to increase the budget for traditional territorial cooperation (components 1 and 4) to approximately 3 % of the cohesion budget; |
| --- | --- |

22.

reiterates that it regrets the Commission’s proposal to reduce the European Territorial Cooperation share of the cohesion budget from 2,75 % to 2,5 % and vehemently opposes the decision to move maritime cross-border cooperation from component 1 ‘cross-border’ to component 2 ‘transnational’. Therefore strongly endorses the proposal in the European Parliament to amend the commitments stipulated in Article 104(7) of the CPR so as to increase the budget for traditional territorial cooperation (components 1 and 4) to approximately 3 % of the cohesion budget;

| 23. | underlines the importance of the Interreg programme, which proved indispensable to many regional authorities both for exchanging expertise and best practice on key challenges, but also for building human links and promoting European identity; |
| --- | --- |

23.

underlines the importance of the Interreg programme, which proved indispensable to many regional authorities both for exchanging expertise and best practice on key challenges, but also for building human links and promoting European identity;

| 24. | stands by an additional budget of EUR 970 million for interregional innovation investments that prioritise excellence, but also boost territorial cohesion by helping less innovative regions to become involved in the drive to achieve European interregional innovation. Under no circumstances should Interreg’s already barely adequate funds be cut any further; |
| --- | --- |

24.

stands by an additional budget of EUR 970 million for interregional innovation investments that prioritise excellence, but also boost territorial cohesion by helping less innovative regions to become involved in the drive to achieve European interregional innovation. Under no circumstances should Interreg’s already barely adequate funds be cut any further;

| 25. | considers that, because of the need to finance an emerging blue economy, maritime surveillance and the protection of the marine environment in addition to fisheries, the overall budget of the EMFF should have been increased to the minimum threshold of 1 % of the MFF for 2021-2027; |
| --- | --- |

25.

considers that, because of the need to finance an emerging blue economy, maritime surveillance and the protection of the marine environment in addition to fisheries, the overall budget of the EMFF should have been increased to the minimum threshold of 1 % of the MFF for 2021-2027;

| 26. | reiterates the CoR’s position that the EMFF should support the integrated maritime policy and the growth of the blue economy through regional platforms for funding innovative projects and that national operational programmes under the EMFF include a regional operational programme for subnational authorities with competences in fisheries and maritime affairs; |
| --- | --- |

26.

reiterates the CoR’s position that the EMFF should support the integrated maritime policy and the growth of the blue economy through regional platforms for funding innovative projects and that national operational programmes under the EMFF include a regional operational programme for subnational authorities with competences in fisheries and maritime affairs;

| 27. | proposes strengthening the EU’s overall financial support for rural development, which has decreased significantly in comparison with the previous programming period and therefore rejects the proposed 28 % cut in the rural development budget within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and opposes the possibility of a transfer from the second to the first pillar of the CAP; |
| --- | --- |

27.

proposes strengthening the EU’s overall financial support for rural development, which has decreased significantly in comparison with the previous programming period and therefore rejects the proposed 28 % cut in the rural development budget within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and opposes the possibility of a transfer from the second to the first pillar of the CAP;

| 28. | considers that only a major increase in the Union budget could justify a reassessment of the Horizon Europe envelope, which should then be concentrated on Pillar III and the section on Strengthening the European Research Area by supporting wider participation; |
| --- | --- |

28.

considers that only a major increase in the Union budget could justify a reassessment of the Horizon Europe envelope, which should then be concentrated on Pillar III and the section on Strengthening the European Research Area by supporting wider participation;

| 29. | believes that the Erasmus+ programme needs to be expanded in order to bolster cohesion in the EU, to garner stronger support for European integration and to promote encounters with Europe’s young people; |
| --- | --- |

29.

believes that the Erasmus+ programme needs to be expanded in order to bolster cohesion in the EU, to garner stronger support for European integration and to promote encounters with Europe’s young people;

| 30. | considers it essential to provide a precise framework for the synergies between the different funds and the framework programme; emphasises the crucial importance of an effective co-construction-based approach, in particular to establish the Seal of Excellence; |
| --- | --- |

30.

considers it essential to provide a precise framework for the synergies between the different funds and the framework programme; emphasises the crucial importance of an effective co-construction-based approach, in particular to establish the Seal of Excellence;

| 31. | strongly opposes the fact that the option of transferring a share of cohesion policy funds to the Horizon Europe programme should be decided by the Member States instead of the relevant managing authority. Arrangements for harnessing these funds should be decided on by agreement between that authority and the Commission, ensuring that these funds are returned to the geographical area concerned; |
| --- | --- |

31.

strongly opposes the fact that the option of transferring a share of cohesion policy funds to the Horizon Europe programme should be decided by the Member States instead of the relevant managing authority. Arrangements for harnessing these funds should be decided on by agreement between that authority and the Commission, ensuring that these funds are returned to the geographical area concerned;

| 32. | highlights the role that good implementation of the EGF measures can play in mitigating the effects of unexpected incidents as a result of major restructuring; strongly supports the EP’s position that the planned evaluation of the EGF financial contributions should include subsequent impact assessment of its application at national, regional and local levels; |
| --- | --- |

32.

highlights the role that good implementation of the EGF measures can play in mitigating the effects of unexpected incidents as a result of major restructuring; strongly supports the EP’s position that the planned evaluation of the EGF financial contributions should include subsequent impact assessment of its application at national, regional and local levels;

| 33. | welcomes the proposed enlarged mission of the EGF and its broader scope, which will tackle any kind of unexpected major restructuring, but calls on the EP and the Council to agree on lower thresholds for job displacements and longer reference periods than those included in the Commission’s proposal; |
| --- | --- |

33.

welcomes the proposed enlarged mission of the EGF and its broader scope, which will tackle any kind of unexpected major restructuring, but calls on the EP and the Council to agree on lower thresholds for job displacements and longer reference periods than those included in the Commission’s proposal;

| 34. | welcomes the Eurogroup’s ‘Term sheet on the Budgetary Instrument for Convergence and Competitiveness’ (14 June 2019), as well as the Commission President-elect’s intention to set this instrument up for the euro area, in order ‘to support Member States’ growth reforms and investment’ in the euro area and for EU countries willing to join the euro area; expects however, with a view to compliance with the subsidiarity principle, a prior proposal by the Commission for a definition of ‘structural reforms’, which would be eligible for EU financial support. These reforms should be of European added value, relevant to the EU’s competences, contribute to the implementation of the Treaties’ cohesion objective and aimed at boosting long-term investment, including the improvement of the quality of public administration. Local and regional authorities should have direct access to this instrument to support their investment and reform projects and be involved as partners in the design and implementation of this instrument’s interventions; |
| --- | --- |

34.

welcomes the Eurogroup’s ‘Term sheet on the Budgetary Instrument for Convergence and Competitiveness’ (14 June 2019), as well as the Commission President-elect’s intention to set this instrument up for the euro area, in order ‘to support Member States’ growth reforms and investment’ in the euro area and for EU countries willing to join the euro area; expects however, with a view to compliance with the subsidiarity principle, a prior proposal by the Commission for a definition of ‘structural reforms’, which would be eligible for EU financial support. These reforms should be of European added value, relevant to the EU’s competences, contribute to the implementation of the Treaties’ cohesion objective and aimed at boosting long-term investment, including the improvement of the quality of public administration. Local and regional authorities should have direct access to this instrument to support their investment and reform projects and be involved as partners in the design and implementation of this instrument’s interventions;

| 35. | welcomes the Commission President-elect’s intention to refocus the European Semester as an instrument that integrates the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Building on its Reflection Paper, the Commission should put forward, in the first 100 days of its mandate, a long-term growth and employment strategy that includes the SDGs, in whose design and implementation local and regional authorities should be involved as partners; |
| --- | --- |

35.

welcomes the Commission President-elect’s intention to refocus the European Semester as an instrument that integrates the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Building on its Reflection Paper, the Commission should put forward, in the first 100 days of its mandate, a long-term growth and employment strategy that includes the SDGs, in whose design and implementation local and regional authorities should be involved as partners;

| 36. | reiterates its conviction that the commitment to use 25 % of the EU budget to tackle climate change appears insufficient to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Efforts should be made under the next financial framework to increase the share of expenditure that goes towards the decarbonisation of the energy sector, industry and transport and towards a circular economy to more than 30 %. At the same time, the EU budget’s carbon footprint should be improved i.a. by terminating State aid for fossil fuels; |
| --- | --- |

36.

reiterates its conviction that the commitment to use 25 % of the EU budget to tackle climate change appears insufficient to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Efforts should be made under the next financial framework to increase the share of expenditure that goes towards the decarbonisation of the energy sector, industry and transport and towards a circular economy to more than 30 %. At the same time, the EU budget’s carbon footprint should be improved i.a. by terminating State aid for fossil fuels;

| 37. | shares the Commission President-elect’s stress on promoting the EU transition towards climate neutrality by 2050 through appropriate industrial strategies, as well as supporting the people and regions most affected by the social, socio-economic and environmental impact of structural change in European coal regions through a new Just Transition Fund of EUR 4,8 billion. Advocates that such a fund should closely interact with cohesion policy programmes but is to be financed through additional resources and not at the expense of cohesion policy and should leave sufficient room for manoeuvre for the regions with regard to competition policy rules; |
| --- | --- |

37.

shares the Commission President-elect’s stress on promoting the EU transition towards climate neutrality by 2050 through appropriate industrial strategies, as well as supporting the people and regions most affected by the social, socio-economic and environmental impact of structural change in European coal regions through a new Just Transition Fund of EUR 4,8 billion. Advocates that such a fund should closely interact with cohesion policy programmes but is to be financed through additional resources and not at the expense of cohesion policy and should leave sufficient room for manoeuvre for the regions with regard to competition policy rules;

| 38. | notes that the European Parliament is proposing in the 2020 budget procedure two preparatory actions relating to Coal Regions in Transition; considers against this background that it is urgent to prepare the ground for a Just Transition Fund with a view to ensuring the most effective, decentralised financial and policy support post-2020; |
| --- | --- |

38.

notes that the European Parliament is proposing in the 2020 budget procedure two preparatory actions relating to Coal Regions in Transition; considers against this background that it is urgent to prepare the ground for a Just Transition Fund with a view to ensuring the most effective, decentralised financial and policy support post-2020;

| 39. | for the next Creative Europe programme, underlines the need to ensure the right balance between the allocation of resources for major, large-scale projects and financing measures and activities focused at local and regional level, including by SMEs. Also underlines the need to better incorporate culture and cultural heritage into the priorities of the next MFF both through mainstreaming and synergies with other programmes and policies; |
| --- | --- |

39.

for the next Creative Europe programme, underlines the need to ensure the right balance between the allocation of resources for major, large-scale projects and financing measures and activities focused at local and regional level, including by SMEs. Also underlines the need to better incorporate culture and cultural heritage into the priorities of the next MFF both through mainstreaming and synergies with other programmes and policies;

| 40. | stresses that, in the current programming period, EUR 14 billion is available from the ESI funds for creating broadband infrastructure. This does not rule out increases in financial instruments (such as loan financing) in cooperation with the European Investment Bank and other development banks; |
| --- | --- |

40.

stresses that, in the current programming period, EUR 14 billion is available from the ESI funds for creating broadband infrastructure. This does not rule out increases in financial instruments (such as loan financing) in cooperation with the European Investment Bank and other development banks;

| 41. | views the Commission proposal of EUR 9,2 billion for the Digital Europe Programme for the 2021-2027 period as an absolute baseline, considering that digital cohesion is an integral part of territorial cohesion defined in the EU Treaty and requires the digital skills and digital infrastructures gaps in the EU to be closed and pointing at the substantial financial resources to be provided for the development of Artificial Intelligence; |
| --- | --- |

41.

views the Commission proposal of EUR 9,2 billion for the Digital Europe Programme for the 2021-2027 period as an absolute baseline, considering that digital cohesion is an integral part of territorial cohesion defined in the EU Treaty and requires the digital skills and digital infrastructures gaps in the EU to be closed and pointing at the substantial financial resources to be provided for the development of Artificial Intelligence;

| 42. | in relation to the Rights and Values Programme, asks that a network of European Correspondents be promoted by the European institutions in cooperation with the Member States to inform local politicians of topical European issues and enable them to respond as well as possible to citizens’ expectations; this will help to combat people’s lack of engagement with European issues; |
| --- | --- |

42.

in relation to the Rights and Values Programme, asks that a network of European Correspondents be promoted by the European institutions in cooperation with the Member States to inform local politicians of topical European issues and enable them to respond as well as possible to citizens’ expectations; this will help to combat people’s lack of engagement with European issues;

| 43. | in line with the European Parliament’s position on the proposal for a regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund, reiterates its call for direct access for local and regional authorities and their representative bodies to the funding provided by the successor fund of the current AMIF and underlines once more the importance of the consistent application of the partnership principle. Stresses the urgency of increasing the overall envelope for this fund in order to ensure adequate funding for achieving its objectives and a balanced approach to all migration and integration-related actions and policies; |
| --- | --- |

43.

in line with the European Parliament’s position on the proposal for a regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund, reiterates its call for direct access for local and regional authorities and their representative bodies to the funding provided by the successor fund of the current AMIF and underlines once more the importance of the consistent application of the partnership principle. Stresses the urgency of increasing the overall envelope for this fund in order to ensure adequate funding for achieving its objectives and a balanced approach to all migration and integration-related actions and policies;

| 44. | in line with the European Parliament’s position on the proposal for a regulation establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument, calls for the inclusion of local and regional authorities — by granting them a prominent place on the same level with civil society — within the thematic pillar, with a specific earmarked budget of EUR 500 million; |
| --- | --- |

44.

in line with the European Parliament’s position on the proposal for a regulation establishing the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument, calls for the inclusion of local and regional authorities — by granting them a prominent place on the same level with civil society — within the thematic pillar, with a specific earmarked budget of EUR 500 million;

| 45. | instructs the president to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Finnish Presidency of the Council and the president of the European Council. |
| --- | --- |

45.

instructs the president to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Finnish Presidency of the Council and the president of the European Council.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

RESOLUTIONS

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/7

---

Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions — The 2019 European Semester and in view of the 2020 Annual Growth Survey

(2020/C 39/02)

Submitted by the EPP, PES, Renew Europe, EA and ECR political groups

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| — | having regard to the European Commission’s Communication on the Annual Growth Survey 2019 (AGS) (1) and to the 2019 European Semester, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the European Commission’s Communication on the Annual Growth Survey 2019 (AGS) (1) and to the 2019 European Semester,

| — | having regard to its resolution of 10 October 2018 on economic policies of the euro area and in view of the 2019 Annual Growth Survey (2) (AGS) and to its opinion of 10 April 2019 on ‘the European Semester and cohesion policy: aligning structural reforms with long-term investments’, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 October 2018 on economic policies of the euro area and in view of the 2019 Annual Growth Survey (2) (AGS) and to its opinion of 10 April 2019 on ‘the European Semester and cohesion policy: aligning structural reforms with long-term investments’,

| — | having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 13 March 2019 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2019 (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 13 March 2019 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2019 (3);

| 1. | welcomes the 2019 Annual Growth Survey’s focus on investment and reforms fostering sustainable and inclusive growth as a way to improve competitiveness and cohesion among and within Member States and regions and to coordinate all EU investment policies, including cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | insists that, to ensure ownership and effectiveness of structural reforms of the European Semester process, the local and regional authorities should be formally associated with it, based on the principles of partnership and multi-level governance (4) and using the CoR’s proposal for a ‘Code of Conduct for the involvement of the local and regional authorities in the European Semester’ (5); |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | notes that growth is slowing down and that trade tensions and the risk of a no-deal Brexit generate uncertainty which discourages investment. Calls, against this background, on the EU to consider frontloading measures to boost the EU’s investment programmes and to support those areas that could be mostly affected by a no-deal Brexit; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | stresses that public investment at country level has shrunk significantly and remains too low, especially in the countries that were most affected by the crisis; notes that, in times of severe budget constraints, current expenditure was not cut nearly as much as investment; underlines that subnational governments, responsible for more than half of public investment in the EU, had to cut their investment disproportionately (6); |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | asks the Commission to present, ahead of the reform process of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) envisaged in 2020, an assessment of the use of the flexibility clauses of the SGP since 2015. Considers that the SGP reform should lead to clearer rules that will help avoid procyclical fiscal policies, allow for reasonable and sustainable debt reduction for the most vulnerable economies in a context of low inflation, remove national co-financing of Cohesion Policy programmes from the accounting for the SGP ceilings and introduce a ‘golden rule’ of public accounting giving public authorities at all levels the fiscal space necessary to undertake long-term investments needed to ensure sustainable development; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | stresses that Member States with available fiscal room should engage in the public investment needed to boost long-term growth, which would reduce macroeconomic imbalances in the EU and the euro area; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | strongly supports the Commission President-elect’s commitment to refocusing the European Semester as an instrument that integrates the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | welcomes in principle the Commission President-elect’s intention to put forward a Sustainable Europe Investment Plan, to support EUR 1trillion of investment over the next decade in every corner of the EU, but expects further clarification on how this Plan relates in particular to the InvestEU programme and how it is expected to affect investment in the EU’s regions and cities. Also supports the Commission President-elect’s intention to put forward a strategy for green financing; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | shares the Commission President-elect’s stress on promoting the EU transition towards climate neutrality by 2050 by appropriate industrial strategies, as well as to support the people and regions most affected through a new Just Transition Fund. Advocates that such a fund should in particular help mitigate the social, socioeconomic and environmental impact of structural change in European coal regions; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | stresses that trade agreements negotiated and concluded by the European Union should contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | notes that the implementation rate of the Country-Specific Recommendations remains slow and uneven and considers that this is also the result of a lack of ownership and an insufficient administrative and institutional capacity; highlights that, in 2019, 137 of the individual recommendations packaged in the broader Country-Specific Recommendations (sub-recommendations) were either directly/indirect addressed to LRAs or had a territorial impact, up from 120 in 2018, currently representing 62 % of all 2019 sub-recommendations (7). 112 of these sub-recommendations addressed obstacles to investment, up from 79 in 2018, as a consequence of the European Semester’s stronger focus on investment this year, while 26 were about improving administrative capacity of local and regional authorities and were addressed to 17 Member States. Stresses that these findings underline the role of local and regional authorities in delivering on the European Semester’s goals, which is not sufficiently recognised in the Semester’s governance process; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | emphasises that 55 sub-recommendations included in the 2019 Country-Specific Recommendations addressed the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights. As social disparities are often rooted in regional disparities, they should be thoroughly analysed in the Country Reports and the National Reform Programmes. Recalls that the CoR, in cooperation with Eurostat, has contributed to a methodological study on how to build a European Regional Social Scoreboard which could be used, in the context of the European Semester, to monitor the progress of the European Pillar of Social Rights and asks the upcoming Commission to further support this process; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | acknowledges the European Commission’s multi-annual assessment of the implementation of Country-specific Recommendations, which shows that more than two-thirds of country-specific recommendations issued up to 2018 have been implemented with at least ‘some progress’ (8), but regrets once again the persistent lack of transparency on the criteria upon which such assessment is based; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | welcomes the guidelines for the 2021-2027 programming of the ESI Funds included in the Country Reports (Annex D); notes however that the underlying analysis of regional disparities is still insufficient, also because of the failure to involve the local and regional authorities in its preparation, as revealed by a survey carried out by the CoR right after the publication of the Country Reports; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | stresses that the European Semester should assess the state of implementation of investment policies on a yearly basis; stresses that local and regional authorities, through their representative organisations, should be involved in this assessment from the publication of the Country Reports, including in the dialogue between the Commission’s Vice-President in charge and the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | emphasises that the lack of structured and ongoing involvement of the local and regional authorities throughout the European Semester, in particular in the design and implementation of the National Reform Programmes, creates an asymmetry between the Semester, which is centralised and top-down, and Cohesion Policy, which is under shared management and decentralised. Proposes to address this issue as a matter of urgency by expanding the current Code of Conduct on Partnership to cover the European Semester policy process; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | points out that the National Reform Programme (NRP) is also the only document through which each Member State of the European Union sets out each year to the European Commission the specific policies that it intends to implement in pursuit of common goals, sustainable public finances and structural reforms, along with proposals to deliver the growth and employment objectives, in line with the recommendations made in the European Semester and the ten-yearly targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy. Therefore, complying fully with the principle of multilevel governance, the regions should be involved in shaping the NRP; several Member States are indeed already doing so, using the NRP as a mechanism for integrated planning of action on the ground, including in light of the innovative features of the EU regulations on the 2021-2027 programming period which are intended to align it with the European Semester; recalls against this background that the CoR has produced a European Regional Social Scoreboard (9), welcomes the European Commission’s proposal for adding a regional dimension to the Social Scoreboard in the European Semester process and looks forward to its swift implementation; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | reiterates its concern that the European Commission has still not provided a definition of ‘structural reforms’ in the context of the economic governance of the EU and possible support through EU programmes such as the proposed Reform Support Programme. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the scope of the structural reforms eligible for EU funding should only include the strategic policy areas relevant to the implementation of the Treaty objectives and which relate directly to EU competences; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | expects the European Semester to provide for a broad, coordinated and integrated EU response to the disruptive effects of demographic change, particularly by reinforcing the effectiveness of cohesion policy and by promoting regional strategies, especially those aimed at developing smart and competitive rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | notes that the CSRs identify the housing market as critical for financial stability and that the scarcity of adequate and affordable housing is a growing problem in several Member States. This analysis strengthens the case for evaluating the need for a European Agenda for Housing leaving a wide margin of discretion for the Member States in what is their area of responsibility (10); |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | highlights that multilateralism and a rules-based global order are in the EU’s interest and must be defended. Welcomes therefore initiatives intended to fight for a level playing field and to be tough against states that compete by dumping, deregulating or subsidising; warns, however, that EU internal competition policy rules are far stricter than is the case internationally and therefore risk putting European companies at disadvantage at the global level; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | considers that the negotiation of Free Trade Agreements should be informed, among other, by regional impact assessments, as they would facilitate the early identification and quantification of possible asymmetric impacts on European regions, so as to allow for swift public policy responses; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | supports the European Council’s call (11) for an integrated policy approach in deepening and strengthening the Single Market, designing an industrial policy fit for the future, addressing the digital revolution and ensuring fair and effective taxation; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | welcomes the report of the European Commission’s high-level group on the future of European industry (12), outlining a long-term vision for a European industrial strategy and emphasising the regional dimension of such a strategy; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | reiterates its call for strengthened EU support for pan-European and inter-regional collaboration that focuses on developing synergies and reaching critical mass in co-investment for innovation in industrial value chains across Europe, as well as on realising the potential of the circular and carbon neutral economy; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | recognises that the competitiveness of the European economy and industry is based on the entrepreneurial and innovative potential of SMEs; calls on the European Commission and the Council to take account of the specific needs of SMEs when developing the EU’s long-term economic strategies, including measures to break down existing barriers to the free movement of goods and services in the EU Single Market, which are particularly hampering the growth of European SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | highlights that improving local and regional public procurement would bring sizeable competitiveness and efficiency gains. This is corroborated by the CoR’s analytical work showing that the complexity of current public procurement rules, and goldplating tendencies in many Member States, increase the likelihood of errors and subsequent risk of legal action, which in turn leads to overly risk-averse procurement strategies among many local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | instructs the President to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Finnish Presidency of the Council and the President of the European Council. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  Commission communication of 21 November 2018 entitled Annual Growth Survey 2019: For a stronger Europe in the face of global uncertainty (COM(2018) 770).

1

Annual Growth Survey 2019: For a stronger Europe in the face of global uncertainty

(2)  https://webapi2016.cor.europa.eu/v1/documents/cor-2018-03900-00-00-res-tra-en.docx/content

2

(3)  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0201_EN.html

3

(4)  On the European Semester and cohesion policy: aligning structural reforms with long-term investments, adopted unanimously by the CoR Plenary of 10 April 2019 https://webapi2016.cor.europa.eu/v1/documents/cor-2018-05504-00-00-ac-tra-en.docx/content

4

(5)  https://webapi2016.cor.europa.eu/v1/documents/cor-2016-05386-00-00-ac-tra-en.docx/content

5

(6)  https://www.eib.org/attachments/efs/economic_investment_report_2018_key_findings_en.pdf

6

(7)  CoR, 2019 European Semester. Territorial Analysis of the Country-Specific Recommendations

7

2019 European Semester. Territorial Analysis of the Country-Specific Recommendations

(https://portal.cor.europa.eu/europe2020/Pages/welcome.aspx#).

(8)  Commission Communication on the 2019 CSRs, p. 3.

8

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1560257977630&uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0500

(9)  https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/European%20Regional%20Social%20Scoreboard/European-Regional-Social-Scoreboard.pdf?_cldee=bWF0dGhpZXUuaG9ybnVuZ0Bjb3IuZXVyb3BhLmV1&recipientid=contact-09d0f0455cf2e4118a29005056a05119-28d790990cbf4dcc890968d369dec000&esid=8685471a-6dd4-e911-8116-005056a043ea

9

(10)  Point 20 of the CoR Resolution on the Proposals for the new European Union legislative mandate, 27 June 2019 https://webapi2016.cor.europa.eu/v1/documents/cor-2019-02550-00-01-res-tra-en.docx/content

10

(11)  As expressed in its conclusions of 20 June 2019 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/39922/20-21-euco-final-conclusions-en.pdf

11

(12)  Published on 26 June 2019 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/industry-2030_en#vision2030

12

---

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/11

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Recommendations for the successful design of regional development strategies beyond 2020

(2020/C 39/03)

| Rapporteur | : | Adam Struzik (PL/EPP), President of Mazovia Region |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Adam Struzik (PL/EPP), President of Mazovia Region

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments

| 1. | makes recommendations for effective planning of a post-2020 regional development strategy, drawing on the analysis of the specific strategic circumstances of regions, taking into account the challenges regions face and building on the existing experience of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | stresses that the recommendations include only priority investment areas and framework conditions for effective regional development strategies; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | points out that in the light of actual needs, local and regional authorities must have clearly defined medium- and long-term development strategies based both on predicted trends and challenges and on the specific features of their territories; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | notes that the essence of strategic planning of an area (region, province, district and municipality) is optimising its operation and development processes on the basis of sustainable transformation of regional factors and resources towards goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | points out that development strategies are one of the core instruments for local and regional governance. They are documents outlining the direction of decisions and actions to define the goals and priorities in close connection with Europe’s vision for development; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | notes that in this respect regional development and smart specialisation strategies are an important tool ensuring that individual sectoral tools have synergies and complement each other and that stakeholders are adequately involved, in line with the place-based approach to economic, social and territorial development; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | draws attention to the European Semester’s mismatch with cohesion policy objectives. Cohesion policy is a standalone policy and the Treaty objective (economic, social and territorial cohesion) must be maintained at all times. This means paying attention to the degree of relevance between the country-specific recommendations and the cohesion programmes and the importance of cooperation between national, regional and local authorities in terms of both the national reform programmes (NRPs) and the cohesion programmes; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Recommendation 1: Strategic regional planning as a starting point for successful development

| 8. | points out that strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion of the European Union is one of the EU’s main goals, based on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | stresses that cohesion policy should combine the strategic objectives to address challenges at the European and global levels with long-term regional and local development strategies in Member States and implementation thereof on the ground; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | stresses that many challenges facing cities and regions have a strong territorial dimension, as their impact extends beyond administrative areas and borders. The Committee therefore points out that the administration responsible for an individual area cannot meet development challenges alone, but that each administration has full autonomous responsibility for setting out the direction and vision of the development policy for their own community, in line with the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | stresses the importance of territorial strategies in focusing investment in an integrated and coordinated manner — ‘integrated’ meaning that all levels of governance, from local to European, work together to achieve the objectives of a territory, and ‘coordinated’ meaning that different sources of funding contribute to the same agreed territorial objectives in a complementary way; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | underlines that it is very important to base financial and strategic decisions on current socioeconomic development indicators. The proposals for the 2021-2027 financial perspective are based on data for the 2014-2016 period, which significantly distorts the view of the current socioeconomic situation in the regions. The indicators to be analysed should be taken from a period no earlier than the last three years preceding the financing period, i.e. from 2017-2019; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | stresses the need to take into account the current statistical divisions when shaping future development policy, particularly with regard to the European Union’s multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the 2021-2027 financial perspective and beyond. It therefore calls on the European Commission to thoroughly rethink its approach in this area when creating the MFF; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | points out that the work on changing the approach and implementing recommendations should involve Eurostat, which should step up work on improving the system of collecting and processing data that help to adjust to new needs and improve cooperation, while also increasing the effectiveness of data collection; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | points out that GDP is a way of measuring production and does not measure environmental sustainability, resource efficiency, social inclusion and social progress in general. In this context, the Committee points out the need for additional indicators to be included which will measure quality of life in a fairer and clearer way and act as a complement to GDP; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | calls for the development of clear and measurable indicators that would take account of climate change, biodiversity, resource efficiency and social inclusion. It also calls for the development of indicators that would focus more closely on the situation of households and would reflect their income, level of consumption and wealth; |
| --- | --- |

16.

Recommendation 2: Sustainable development goals as a basis for long-term strategies of cities and regions

| 17. | points out that both the Europe 2020 strategy and the Common Strategic Framework provided a framework and guiding principles for preparing partnership agreements and programmes in the 2014-2020 cohesion policy period, in particular, coordination between the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and other instruments; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | points out the need to develop long-term policy frameworks at EU level that would replace the Europe 2020 strategy and allow for national and regional or local strategies to be developed that would contribute to achieving sustainable development goals, taking into account the benefits of also creating a cross-border partnership to address common challenges; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | welcomes the EU reflection paper Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030 and calls on the Commission and the European Council to acknowledge the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 sustainable development goals as a priority of the political agenda and an overarching objective of the next EU strategic plan for 2019-2024 and beyond; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | points out that the implementation of the SDGs and related political strategies should be determined in line with the principle of multi-level governance involving all levels of government and relevant stakeholders and generating a set of diverse goals at the national, regional and local levels; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | points out that the 17 sustainable development goals do not contain a specific regional goal that would be connected with the TFEU goals on ensuring sustainable regional development in the European Union and decreasing the differences in the levels of regions’ development so that no territory would be left behind; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | recommends that cities and regions take SDGs into account as a guiding principle when developing regional or local development strategies, particularly in view of the fact that a strategy for a sustainable Europe by 2030 still needs to be developed. It also requires cities and regions, as the decision-makers closest to their citizens, businesses and local communities, to adapt SDGs to the specific characteristics of the area; |
| --- | --- |

22.

Recommendation 3: Cities and regions should base their regional development strategies on a thorough prospective evaluation

| 23. | stresses that future trends should be taken into account in order to develop effective strategies for regional development. Long-term planning, forecasts and other strategic forecasting methods are therefore important tools for shaping regional policy in the future; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | emphasises that in order to succeed across the EU, it is necessary to link post-2020 regional development strategies with the new territorial agenda; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | notes that the key future development challenges to be addressed within the framework of regional strategies relate to mega-trends and environmental changes that will have significant consequences for economies and societies in all regions of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | stresses that technological changes will have a major impact on socioeconomic development, given that automation and machine learning technologies may have a significant effect on labour markets. Furthermore, many emerging technologies can be beneficial for rural areas, reducing the problems they have surrounding low population density and long distances; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | points out that, in order to use new technologies, the basic technical infrastructure must be created. However, many of the benefits of emerging technologies do not appear automatically, but require complementary policies to, for example, give people the relevant skills to use this technology; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | stresses the need to fully implement the European Pillar of Social Rights. While social progress can be seen in the EU, the principles of the Social Pillar must be implemented more effectively at all levels of governance. The Social Fund has an important role as a link between the ambitions of the Social Pillar and regional needs for actions and investment for the region’s development, for example to ensure the availability of necessary skills; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | notes new developments in the labour market in connection with digitalisation, and therefore calls for new business models that do not violate labour rights and for new forms of employment that guarantee decent wages, social security and protection against discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | points out the need to make spatial planning more coherent, taking into account factors of adapting to climate change. It also notes that spatial planning is key to limiting the risks resulting from an increase in extreme weather events and natural disasters; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | underlines the important role of green and blue infrastructure in mitigating and adapting to climate change and halting loss of biodiversity. The CoR also calls on Member States and regional and local authorities to take biodiversity into account in the decision-making process and strategic documents; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | regrets that the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) has been removed from the Common Provisions Regulation. Together with diverging provisions in the sector regulations, this will hamper the coordination of measures related to adapting to climate change and biodiversity, as well as overall cross-fund strategies and cooperation structures at regional level; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | highlights the need to consider the environmental impact from the initial stages of strategic planning of infrastructure and to apply appropriate environmental assessment strategies and environmental impact assessments properly, which will also lead to fewer problems later on in approving and implementing the project; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | points out that regional and local identities must be taken into account in the territorial approach and that individual communities have a direct responsibility and remit when it comes to policy-making, with due regard for their own specific local, social and cultural features. It is worth noting that each region has its own unique characteristics, which are an important factor in developing and coping with crises; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | criticises the fact that the Europe 2020 strategy concerning further development of the European Union did not take culture into account. The CoR therefore calls for culture — along with its institutions and locations — to be considered a strategic area in the next strategy and policy planning. In this context, it calls on regions that see their cultural heritage as a particularly strong asset to take it into account in smart specialisation strategies; |
| --- | --- |

35.

Recommendation 4: Investing in institutional and administrative capacity building as a condition for effective public spending

| 36. | stresses that successful integrated policy-making depends, to a significant extent, on the quality of national and regional administrations and that institutional and administrative capacity is a key factor in proper management of ESIF programmes, and an important factor contributing to economic prosperity as a whole; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | stresses that many studies show that effectiveness of public spending is more closely linked to good governance and the performance of institutions than to macroeconomic factors. Therefore, return on investments directly correlates with level of investment, but also with the quality of management; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | acknowledges that leadership (and management in general) is a key element for the successful implementation of regional and local development strategies. The CoR therefore notes that the European Union as well as cities and regions need leaders who are not afraid to set out visions for the development of their areas and to present them in development strategies. The activity of the regional authorities is a conditio sine qua non for the development of the region; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | calls for adequate support for the development of digital skills and competences of citizens at all levels of education. It recognises that developing the digital skills of EU workers is essential in order to face the transformation of the labour market and avoid gaps or discrepancies in skills. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Recommendation 5: Promoting synergies between funds and other actors

| 40. | points out that cohesion policy, like all EU policies, must contribute to achieving the key objectives outlined in the Treaties. Conversely, other EU policies must also contribute to the achievement of the Treaty goals on cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | notes that despite the specific missions of individual ESIF that were inscribed in the Treaty and are still ongoing, they can jointly achieve the objectives of cohesion policy and each of these funds contributes to the mission of other funds; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | emphasises that in order to create synergies and increase the impact and effectiveness of various instruments, it is essential to adapt strategies and types of measures, as well as cooperation between the different actors from the earliest stages of the programming process; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | points to the importance of transparency and strategic use of public procurement at all levels of government, particularly with regard to clear and unambiguous rules. In this case, disparities between Member States, different levels of government, or Member States and the European Commission should be avoided and administrative burdens should be minimised; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | believes that initiatives, strategies, action plans and private-public partnerships implemented in science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics (STEAM) at local and regional level can play an important role in reducing differences in development throughout Europe. Treating STEAM education as a local and regional priority and giving priority to cooperative initiatives and investments in developing them can have a significant impact in limiting the harmful effects of brain drain. |
| --- | --- |

44.

Recommendation 6: Territorial cooperation in functional areas

| 45. | notes that administrative boundaries often do not correspond to economic links throughout a territory. For example, there can be important links between cities and their surrounding commuter areas, between rural and urban areas or between neighbouring regions in different countries; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | stresses that the territorial impact goes beyond local areas and administrative boundaries in almost every issue of development and decisions must be made jointly at various levels. These decisions must be preceded by a joint dialogue from the very beginning when seeking answers to these questions; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | points out that special attention should also be paid to the situation of remote, peripheral, sparsely populated and isolated regions, as well as border regions, and those facing particular challenges — particularly mountain and island regions — and whose development is in some cases lagging behind, particularly when it comes to improving the connectivity of these places and developing links between them; |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | recommends developing joint strategies for functional areas and adapting relevant strategies and programmes where possible. |
| --- | --- |

48.

Recommendation 7: Cooperation projects with neighbouring national or regional ESIF programmes

| 49. | recommends that the managing authorities make full use of the opportunities provided by the regulation laying down common provisions for cohesion policy (Article 57(4) of the European Commission proposal) with a view to programming interregional or cross-border cooperation projects with regional ESIF programmes to address cross-border functional areas. Close coordination with the relevant Interreg programmes is necessary when developing such projects to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication; |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | reiterates its support for the proposed European cross-border mechanism, which would be hugely significant for removing obstacles and bottlenecks in cross-border cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

50.

| 51. | emphasises that it is important that the European Union launch a genuine strategy for cultural diplomacy. To this end, it is necessary to promote communication and artistic and cultural exchange between the EU’s regions — particularly with the outermost regions — and third countries, including through measures to make it easier for artists to travel to third countries and present their work there, and vice-versa. |
| --- | --- |

51.

Recommendation 8: Promoting a territorial approach by making full use of the potential of integrated tools such as community-led local development (CLLD) and integrated territorial investment (ITI)

| 52. | emphasises that strengthening cohesion, including across borders, at regional and local levels requires a bottom-up, place-based approach to develop appropriate solutions locally; |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | recommends developing territorial strategies within all programmes. In this context, the CoR underlines the added value of multi-fund programmes and encourages making greater use of territorial instruments in functional areas; |
| --- | --- |

53.

| 54. | underlines the role of community-led local development (CLLD) as a specific tool for use at the sub-regional level and to complement other types of support at local level; |
| --- | --- |

54.

| 55. | points out that participation, consultation and cooperation of local communities and all local public and private actors is a specific added value that CLLD brings, ensuring that local and specialised knowledge is used and the specific needs of areas are taken into account; |
| --- | --- |

55.

| 56. | notes the important role of smart specialisation in enhancing regional innovation systems, exchanging knowledge between regions and increasing synergies, particularly with European research funding; |
| --- | --- |

56.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

OPINIONS

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/16

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better communication for cohesion policy

(2020/C 39/04)

| Rapporteur | : | Adrian Ovidiu Teban (RO/EPP), Mayor of Cugir |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Adrian Ovidiu Teban (RO/EPP), Mayor of Cugir

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General considerations

| 1. | points out that cohesion policy represents about a third of the EU’s budget, at EUR 351 billion over the programming period 2014-2020. This provides a long-term investment framework for regions and Member States and offers more reliable planning, compared to national annual or biannual budgets; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | notes that an increase in the visibility of ESI funds can contribute to improving perceptions about the effectiveness of cohesion policy and to strengthening citizens’ confidence in the European project; however, a coherent communication channel is essential, not only from the top down with regard to the concrete results of ESI funds, but also from the bottom up in order to make local authorities and stakeholders aware of funding opportunities, with the bonus of increasing public participation in implementation processes; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | in principle, communication should be an integral part of policy-making and implementation. Awareness of local EU-funded projects amongst beneficiaries and civil society is crucial, despite different funding amounts in specific regions, and can only be the result of a common effort of all levels of government involved. The multi-level governance model and the partnership principle, both based on enhanced coordination among public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society, can contribute to a more efficient communication of EU policy objectives and results; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | highlights that managing authorities of operational programmes funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) must communicate the goals, funding opportunities and results of cohesion policy programmes and projects; this is therefore a key task for managing authorities and beneficiaries in the Member States — to address questions such as what investment opportunities exist, or how a beneficiary can go about tackling publicity issues, or who is being funded and for what purpose; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | notes that EU cohesion policy and the interventions by its funds are accompanied by information and publicity requirements, which mean that the national and regional authorities tasked with implementation, as well as the final beneficiaries, are legally required to carry out communication activities. These requirements have developed over the past three decades from simple information measures such as commemorative plaques to more sophisticated communication strategies including multi-annual strategies, annual plans, minimal requirements and evaluations to be carried out for each operational programme; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | stresses that informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities is a crucial part of programme management. In order to ensure that cohesion policy invests in the most relevant and innovative projects, the widest possible audience of potential beneficiaries needs to be informed; this can be achieved not only by highlighting the investment opportunities, but also by showcasing the results achieved and best practices; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | points out that EU cohesion policy has proved to have a positive impact both on the economy and on citizens’ lives, but regrets that the results have not always been well communicated and that awareness of its positive effects remains consistently low over the last decade, as according to a Flash Eurobarometer survey in 2017, only 35 % of EU citizens have heard about EU co-financed projects in the area in which they live. However, people who have heard about these projects say that the impact on the development of their regions has been positive (78 %); |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | observes that, according to the same Eurobarometer, European cohesion policies are still poorly communicated and information sources tend not to be very diverse. Generally, digital communication should be much more put forward over the next programming period beyond 2020; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | underlines the uneven progress recorded across Member States in streamlining administrative procedures in terms of broader mobilisation and involvement of regional and local partners, including economic and social partners as well as representatives of civil society, and highlights the importance of public participation and social dialogue. It is noteworthy that the highest perceived priority is to invest in regions with high unemployment. Most important areas for EU regional policy investments should be focused on education, health or social infrastructures, which are regarded as more important areas for investment. Furthermore, ‘cohesion policy is the main EU investment instrument for regions and cities to implement the Sustainable Development Goals’; such an approach would be a pre-requisite to extending the ‘localisation’ of SDGs and boost their implementation via cohesion policy (1), paving the way from linear to circular economy (2); |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | points out that both the perception of the cohesion policy and support for the EU may vary between population groups and between regions. However, more evidence is required to reach clear-cut conclusions in this regard. For this purpose, information on representative samples of individuals will be required for all EU regions. Therefore, when any Eurobarometer is planned to be representative in all EU regions (NUTS 2 or equivalent), proposes to include questions reporting on the perception of the cohesion policy and the citizens’ support to the European project; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | highlights the need to improve knowledge about the impact of citizens’ perception of the EU cohesion policy on their support for the European building process. This is crucial for the a priori evaluation of the effectiveness of specific communication policies aiming at fostering positive attitudes towards the cohesion policy and the EU overall. Consequently, suggests the inclusion of specific questions on support for the EU and perception of the EU cohesion policy within the same standard Eurobarometer surveys; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | stresses that it is not only economic factors that can generate awareness. Various strands of analysis have identified groups of citizens whose awareness of EU (cohesion) policies seems to be connected directly to their identification with the European Union as a political entity. There also seems to be a positive relationship between the levels of awareness of certain EU policies, including cohesion policy, and the level of participation in the European elections. Inversely, it also seems true that when identification with the European Union and with a common European history and culture is high, the public are more aware of European (cohesion) policies. For these reasons, it is important to improve and intensify the communication about the results of EU cohesion policy in order to strengthen the political legitimacy of the European Union and the feeling of belonging to a common project among its citizens; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | also stresses that communication of cohesion policy is not solely the European Commission’s responsibility, but is rather the responsibility of all actors that benefit from Cohesion policy, including Member States and local authorities; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | takes the view that cohesion policy needs to be communicated differently, which includes a need to target wider audiences and not only stakeholders. The general public should be the focus of targeted communication, and this communication needs to resonate with people: it has to tell stories about impacts on local citizens, and not just spread numbers or charts about faraway job markets or remote infrastructure issues and peoples, it should focus on the role played by the EU as level of government in people’s lives, not on informing the public on its variety of different funds and projects. Crucially, the importance of trust in the messenger is at least as important as the message. And public trust in local and regional authorities is higher than in national governments or the EU. Regional and local politicians therefore have a potentially decisive role to play, and CoR members in particular, as ‘ambassadors of Europe in the regions, cities and municipalities’ should set an example; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | underlines the need for targeted communication. The tone of the targeted communication must focus on the ‘neighbourhood’; it needs emotion, as statistical data does not move people. A multilevel governance approach should be followed in the interests of better communication. 55 % of the respondents in the last Eurobarometer think that decisions should be taken at subnational levels, with close to a third (30 %) opting for the regional level and a quarter (25 %) favouring the local level, whereas almost one in five think that these decisions should be taken at a European level; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | highlights the need to engage in a more permanent dialogue with citizens and involve them more often in decision-making, which can provide accountability and legitimacy to cohesion policy delivery. In this sense, the new overarching objective 5 for the period 2021-2027 — ‘A Europe closer to citizens’ — should make best use of existing experiences with community-led local development and participatory budgeting at local level, as well as other methods aimed at increasing citizen participation. The involvement of CoR members, mayors and other locally elected representatives in the European Commission’s communication campaigns on Cohesion policy could be a way to raise a positive awareness on the benefits of the European Union in citizens’ daily lives. |
| --- | --- |

16.

The Visibility Challenge

| 17. | notes that increasing the visibility of ESI funds can contribute to improving perceptions of the European Union and to restoring public confidence in European policies; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | consequently points out that the increase in Euroscepticism and political parties that oppose further EU integration is also linked to the perception of economic, social and territorial inequalities. Cohesion policy is a powerful tool to promote ‘territorial resilience’ as part of the solution in terms of policy responses, and actions to communicate the positive impact on the regions and people’s lives have become vital; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | suggests that the operational programmes should focus on people’s needs and on communicating not only ‘to the people’ but more particularly ‘with the people’. In this connection, the Committee stresses the importance of the Partnership Agreements which foresee dialogue mechanisms with citizens in designing interventions co-funded by EU cohesion policy at all stages of preparation, implementation and evaluation of operational programmes, including recommendations that Member States involve local authorities in all phases; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | encourages the uptake of democratic innovations such as participatory budgeting and deliberation (juries, panels and polls) in order to give local people a say and thus drastically change the way citizens engage in the communication mechanism; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | points out that the visibility of cohesion policy investments is a shared responsibility of the European Commission and the Member States and that the competent local and regional authorities should be involved in formulating effective communication strategies; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | calls on the European Commission to draw lessons from successful communication of small-scale and people-to-people EU-financed projects in bordering regions. Notes the high level of engagement of people participating in such projects and their contribution to effective communication of the projects’ results; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | welcomes the proposal put forward in the new cohesion policy legislative package to appoint national communication officers to manage, in an integrated manner, the visibility of activities relating to the regional ERDF, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, as well as the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund. In the same sense, best use should be made of other future EU programmes with local visibility such as Horizon Europe, InvestEU, etc. as well as the Europe Direct Information Centres; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | believes that the use of platforms based on the REFIT approach of applying simple ICT solutions to communicate with EU citizens will facilitate more effective policy-making in line with public expectations. Local authorities have considerable experience in this area and are already making use of applications to find immediate solutions to local problems. Only two-way communication needs to be further developed; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | asks the European Commission to extend the efforts already carried out with managing authorities to political representatives from regions and cities to test new ways of communication. Local and regional authorities, as well as beneficiaries, constitute the most effective and closer interlocutors of citizens; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | recommends that communication of Cohesion Policy focuses not only on the outcomes and results of EU-funded projects but primarily at the benefits that these projects have for everyday life of citizens. In this sense, the local and regional level seem to be most suitable for such communication (how EU helped my municipality, city or region) and the active role of Europe Direct Information Centres should be encouraged; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | however, demands that in line with the objective of territorial cohesion, the national communication initiatives developed under the Common Agricultural and Cohesion policies should be coordinated and target in particular areas (including rural) which are lagging behind in their development and where the feeling of abandonment has fed Euroscepticism in the recent years; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | consequently asks the Council and the European Parliament to include a specific financial envelope for communication within technical assistance and, where appropriate, to increase the number of binding publicity and information requirements for cohesion policy projects within the future Common Provisions Regulation beyond 2020; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | suggests implementing ‘smart communication planning’, which would involve developing integrated communication strategies, including outcome indicators with baselines, earmarked funding and specified costs; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | calls for wider and more intensive use of digital media, with less technical language and better targeted actions, and recommends monitoring the number of people reached by communication activities (e.g. webpage hits after an event); |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | proposes that ‘effectiveness of projects in exploiting results’ should be a selection criterion to finance projects by Cohesion policy (as in the EU programmes Horizon 2020 or COSME). However, mandatory publicity should be proportionate to the size of projects especially at the level of small projects which can constitute a large administrative burden for final beneficiaries; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | thinks that the project selection criteria in operational programmes should at least outline communication principles, in order to facilitate reviews and comparisons at EU level; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | suggests that the European Commission create an ‘evaluation accounting for communication results’, which would contain: communication plans and actions, improved methods (surveys, focus groups, media monitoring), EU evaluation guidance, a learning platform providing a repository for evaluations of communications, and, finally, a database of good communication practices; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to set up a single funding portal at EU level containing all the calls for proposals and a common list of operations, as well as individual national websites proving access to information on all EU programmes and funds.; Online place-based EU portals of the different Institutions and different DGs of the Commission should be brought together under one single ‘EU’ brand; |
| --- | --- |

34.

Media Strategy

| 35. | suggests that the design of (social) media strategies should include references to local contexts, such as enhancing positive framing, building longer-term narratives linked to individual stories, and actively challenging — rather than ignoring — negative framing; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | takes the view that a key aspect in increasing the impact of cohesion policy communication is further diversifying communication activities and boosting the presence in the media of all EU activities; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | in this connection, points out that, in order to increase the EU’s presence in regions and cities, communication activities should be compatible with the visibility of the European Structural and Investment Funds and programmes such as Interreg, Urbact and ESPON; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | is in favour of stepping up social media activities in order to boost support for cohesion policy, following the example of the #Cohesionalliance campaign, which brought together political actors with a strong political message in relation to an EU policy which brings benefits to all its territories; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | notes that the European Week of Regions and Cities is the key political event on the implementation of cohesion policy, allowing political representatives, practitioners, researchers and people to learn, exchange ideas, influence the EU and voice their particular views on regional and urban policies; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | suggests that the European Commission include a section on this subject in the new version of the Commission Delegated Regulation on the European code of conduct on partnership in the framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds; this would be a way of increasing respect for and consideration of the partnership and multilevel partnership principles when communication activities are designed; |
| --- | --- |

40.

Improving post-2020 communication on cohesion policy

| 41. | proposes that, within the future cohesion policy post-2020, investment in communication projects should be funded from a single well-defined cost category, given that a comparison of communication strategies shows that the budgets for these activities are difficult to aggregate and compare, as the strategies are defined at different levels with different funds, and also that cost categories and methods are not always clearly defined; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | calls for the definition of performance indicators to be improved, as there is currently considerable variability in indicators, which are not adapted to communication activities; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | recommends taking into account when drafting strategies for the period 2021-2027 of evidence from research carried out on the effectiveness of cohesion policy communication through EU-funded projects such as ‘Cohesify’ and ‘Perceive’ and to make a reference to the ‘geography of discontent’, which has emerged in the context of populist debates about then European project; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | underlines the need for flexible branding and visibility strategies: an EU flag should be ubiquitous in all mandatory or informal materials; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | welcomes the recent Communication of the European Commission (3) highlighting the need to address Europe’s unique communication challenge in times of fragmentation and disinformation and suggests that cohesion policy plays a pivotal role in making EU communication a joint effort across levels of government and EU institutions; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | supports the approach of simplifying communication for EU-funded projects: single branding (no reference to ESI fund or programme level); single national website providing access to information on all EU programmes and funds; special visibility for operations of strategic importance and operations above EUR 10 million; national communication coordinators to oversee all EU funds and an important role for programme communication officers; inclusion of communication strategy (in a lighter version) in the content of the programme; allowing managing authorities to apply financial corrections (up to 5 %) to beneficiaries that do not comply with the communication rules; and enabling the re-use of communication materials — managing authorities will need to retain the right to re-use the communication materials produced and made available to EU institutions (upon request). |
| --- | --- |

46.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  https://cor.europa.eu/en/events/Pages/ECON-sc-follow-up-UN-SDGs.aspx

1

(2)  Reflection paper towards a sustainable Europe by 2030, European Commission, COM(2019)22 of 30 January 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/rp_sustainable_europe_30-01_en_web.pdf

2

(3)  European Commission (2019): Europe in May 2019. Preparing for a stronger, more united and more democratic Union in an increasingly uncertain world, Brussels, 30 April 2019.

3

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/21

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — The CoR’s contribution to the renewed Territorial Agenda, with special emphasis on community-led local development

(2020/C 39/05)

| Rapporteur | : | Radim SRŠEŇ (CS/EPP), Regional Councillor of Olomouc |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Radim SRŠEŇ (CS/EPP), Regional Councillor of Olomouc

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | calls for a much higher uptake of territorial instruments (community-led local development (CLLD), integrated territorial investments (ITI), etc.) in the Member States and mandatory earmarking across all funds in order to fulfil the renewed Territorial Agenda (TA) and cohesion goals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | underscores that cohesion policy and territorial cohesion are bound together and that there will be no genuine Cohesion policy without properly taking territorial cohesion into account; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | recalls that CoR was the first EU institution to make a specific proposal on how to deliver CLLD (1). Then as now the CoR believes that integrated, multifunded local development is better defined as a holistic concept that focuses on the challenges and potential within regions of all types, be they urban, rural, rural-urban (rurban) or functional areas; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | asks that the TA post-2020 strengthen the territorial dimension in a wider range of policy fields and actively encourage more bottom-up territorial visions/strategies, which should be coherent with a wider framework; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | stresses that territorial instruments such as CLLD or ITI are well-proven measures to get ‘Europe closer to citizens’. The achievements of Leader/CLLD have shown that local action groups (LAGs) are able to defend the European values, if recognised as local drivers for change and development on the local, regional and national level. By actively involving all local stakeholders and citizens, it is able to respond to European needs using local means and, as a result, helps boost the legitimacy of the EU. Moreover, Leader/CLLD is also a powerful tool to implement the Sustainable Development Goals on a local level. Therefore, the CoR calls for bigger ambitions and the development of the territorial instruments at a local, regional, national and European level in the post-2020 period; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | stresses that integrated territorial instruments should in their interventions follow the specific characteristics and needs of the regions, as defined in their bottom-up integrated strategies, not merely duplicate the measures and thematic and territorial concentration of the OPs financing those instruments; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | calls for the TA post-2020 to strengthen both rural-urban linkages and the different types of territory generally, as regional and local development is just one aspect and requires a holistic and integrated approach; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | stresses that TA 2020 has indeed achieved results, mainly thanks to Cohesion policy available through its means and funding, which has introduced, at all level of governance, the place-based approach and the participation of local communities in setting up and implementing sustainable local strategies. However, there is still room for improvement: in particular, its visibility at sub-national level (to be addressed through CLLD, ITI, EGTC, ETC, etc.) needs to be improved, the territorial approach’s influence on overall EU policy-making has to be reinforced, and the Territorial Agenda as such needs to be better implemented by national policies; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | considers renewed TA as an opportunity to present a new and positive narrative for the future of the EU and the balanced development of all regions. Citizens and the general public should be given a comprehensive and intelligible document, setting visions for their future and reflecting their genuine needs and issues to be addressed. They should be given reassurance that no one will be left behind and that everyone will get an equal opportunity for a dignified life, no matter where they live; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | asks for stronger links between cohesion policy and TA in all stages of programming, implementation and monitoring of programmes, and points out the significant need to overcome the current geographical and sectoral separation of EU funds. The Member States should, nevertheless, ensure that the territorial dimension and local specificities are taken into consideration within the European semester process, with appropriate consultation of local actors when defining national priorities; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | underlines the capacity of CLLD to mobilise and involve local communities, including local and regional authorities, social and civil partners, and the private sector. Using a participatory approach, it is keeping local development strategies in line with – and adapting them to – changes in local conditions (social cohesion, migration, regional clusters, green economy, climate change, smart solutions, technology, etc.); |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | highlights the role of the CLLD in boosting the credibility of cohesion policy by showing that different EU funds can indeed be delivered jointly in an integrated and effective manner; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | remarks that the CoR still endorses the idea that the TA post-2020 should not be a brand new document, as the current TA 2020 still remains valid in major aspects; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | considers the TA post-2020 to be essential for addressing inequalities between places and the people who live in them, through tailored measures, e.g. through integrated territorial development; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | stresses the importance of better coordination and networking among all authorities and stakeholders implementing and financing the TA at the European, national, regional and local level. Better coordination and a strong partnership principle are essential for effective impacts of TA. The coordination of TA in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Austria and other Member States is an example of good practice in this area; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | underlines the need to take the integrated territorial development strategies into greater consideration in order to target investments in the region more closely following its priorities. The design of integrated territorial development strategies implementing a wide variety of operational programmes in the Member States should be focused on citizens’ needs and communicated not only to citizens but particularly ‘with citizens’; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | stresses the necessity to use flexible and simple implementation of integrated territorial instruments, which can be tailored to the territory and which uses a methodology that promotes a bottom-up approach focusing particularly on partnership and giving impetus, as well as on the role of local territorial development strategies. Possible solutions are simplified cost options, a simple implementation model for territorial instruments (one national operational programme and one managing authority), ‘one-stop shop’ solutions, a common set of simple rules defined at the EU level in order to prevent gold-plating (CLLD toolkit, clear guidance defining structure of strategies, approval processes, use of lead fund, evaluation, etc.) etc.; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | notes the potential of IT solutions for simplification and automating data collection at national and local level. IT systems must be developed with genuine inclusion of all stakeholders and geared to help with the overall strategy of ESIF simplification at all levels; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | calls for a smooth transition of TA implementation structures between EU programming periods in order to eliminate the risk of losing knowledge, human resources and partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | stresses the role of integrated territorial instruments as the right instrument to localise, implement, follow-up and review the Sustainable Development Goals; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | understands the excellent potential of CLLD as an effective tool within EU accession, neighbourhood and development policies. The Enpard programme in Georgia can be regarded as an example of good practice; |
| --- | --- |

21.

New Territorial Agenda

| 22. | notes that the existing challenges for territorial development, as endorsed by the TA 2020, remain in general the same, with two comments: (1) changes are rather linked to their intensification with new challenges emerging requiring more solidarity between the EU Member States; (2) today’s migratory movements will most likely be a minor crisis compared to the potential effects of climate change; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | suggests that a mechanism for a quick update of the TA post-2020 be introduced to quickly respond to new and emerging challenges that may shape the TA post-2020, without a need for a complete overhaul of the whole document; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | suggests to the future presidencies or to the contractor drafting the TA post-2020 to involve more stakeholders, in particular local and regional authorities and civil society when conducting research on priorities and content of the renewed TA post-2020; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | reiterates the CoR’s call for a successor to the Europe 2020 strategy; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | draws attention to the provision in primary law — paragraph 3 of Article 174 TFEU — which requires particular attention to be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps. Both the Territorial Agenda after 2020 and the ESIF should attend more to this priority than hitherto, with a view to achieving equivalent living conditions in all regions; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | notes that the Territorial Agenda 2020 should continue to support the role of regional capital cities in providing equal opportunities for development of their functional areas and work to resolve metropolitan issues across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | stresses that the TA post-2020 should support the role of small and medium-sized cities in achieving balanced, polycentric development across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | calls once again, in this connection, for the creation of an agenda for rural areas in which these are regarded as living and economic areas and not only as agricultural ones; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | underscores that the Territorial Agenda should not only support a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) that looks after cities (SDG 11) but advocate a broader perspective of territorial development, including rural development; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | suggests, in order to familiarise the general public with the main messages of the TA post-2020, that a list of 10-12 key messages are drawn up in user-friendly language and a well-defined format and that these are communicated by all the Member States and EU institutions; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | asks the European Commission to provide simple models and guidelines and introduce best practices of how to implement integrated territorial instruments through a multi-fund approach in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | believes that the Territorial Agenda can contribute effectively to attenuating urbanisation trends and the associated challenges for large cities in all Member States; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | highlights success stories of European Territorial Cooperation, where territorial cooperation in border regions or at the transnational level are an excellent example of the added value of European integration; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | underscores the need for clearly defining the role of a TA secretariat/back office that could be created. An annex to the TA post-2020 should define objectives, measurable indicators to monitor the achievement of objectives, tasks and a budget needed for such a unit/body; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | mentions the Bucharest Declaration adopted by the Ministers in charge of urban matters on 14 June 2019, in which ‘the need to develop a functional relationship between the New Leipzig Charter, the Urban Agenda for the EU, and the Territorial Agenda 2020+’ was recognised; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | believes that the intergovernmental, non-legislative nature of the European Territorial Agenda is ideally suited for cooperation with current and future non-EU Member States, as it would help to develop an pan-European approach to territorial development, potentially supported by a number of programmes such as Leader, Interreg or ESPON, which the current proposals for 2021-2027 precisely allow the voluntary participation and co-financing from non-EU Member States. Those programmes have also proven to be successful stabilisation and reconciliation instruments (e.g. Leader playing a role in the Good Friday Agreement or engaging civil society and building up local democracy in Turkey); |
| --- | --- |

37.

CLLD

| 38. | encourages the possibility of multi-fund CLLD uptake in all EU regions to be obligatory, assuring a CLLD approach is used for all types of territories: rural (including remote, mountain and island areas), urban, and coastal areas. All EU regions must have an option to use all possible funds to fulfil their needs formulated in their local development strategies; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | calls for mandatory earmarking of 8 % for CLLD from all ESI funds and EAFRD to fully utilise the potential of the tool and synergies of different funds for integrated local development; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | stresses the need to return to the roots of Leader/CLLD methodology strengthening, especially the principles of a bottom-up approach, partnership, animation and the role of integrated local development strategies; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | suggests that the management of CLLD in a Member State should be tailored to individual territories and respect local dynamics, structures and approaches; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | commends the work carried out by CoR (2) and the European Parliament (3) to ensure that multi-funded CLLD continues to include the EAFRD also for the 2021-2027 period and urges that these provisions advocated by both institutions are maintained in the final agreement with the Council, as the advantages of CLLD cannot be fully delivered unless there is the possibility integrating ESIF and EAFRD-funded interventions; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | calls for CLLD regulation at EU level based on a robust impact assessment and setting a unified set of rules for all ESI Funds in order to reduce the enormous bureaucratic burden and gold-plating done by Member States and, at the same time, prevent misuse of power by managing authorities or payment agencies; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | reiterates the CoR’s call to keep the CPR fully applicable to the EAFRD. Perfect compatibility between all the funds is vital for financing the territorial instruments, in particular CLLD/Leader and their local development strategies; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | calls for better dialogue and coordination between all CLLD actors (LAGs, managing authorities, European Commission’s Directorates-General, payment agencies, Leader networks such as ELARD, and national Leader and rural networks) to prevent growing bureaucracy and extensive delays in starting the programming period and in the delivery of funds to project applicants. The CoR therefore proposes that the Commission create a CLLD support unit at EU level to support communication, capacity building, networking and transnational cooperation of all LAGs in all funds; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | suggests that the multi-fund CLLD should be supported more, for example through a higher co-financing rate. The CoR expresses its regret that Article 120(5) of the current CPR on higher co-financing rates for operations supported through integrated territorial development tools has been omitted from the new CPR proposal; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | asks for increased use of simplified costs options according to Articles 48-51 of the new CPR, which could decrease the audit burden for the managing authorities and final beneficiaries. In addition, the scope of the use of the simplified cost options should be extended to the EAFRD, again in order to harmonise procedures in case of multi-fund operations; |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | notes that CLLD should be an excellent starting point for a widely used method of how local projects should be implemented: LAGs should not be fully dependent on EU funding but should also be used as a tool to implement national, regional and local funds as local development goes far beyond the European Structural and Investment Funds; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | invites the Council and the European Parliament to revert back to the Commission’s proposal of 12 months as of the date of the approval of the last programme concerned for managing authorities to complete the first round of selection of strategies and to ensure that the LAGs selected can fulfil their tasks; |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | calls for clarification of the role of LAGs in project selection, so as to avoid duplication of their tasks by MAs. The role of the LAG in the project selection should be dominant, not just formal, as it is one of the basic principles of Leader/CLLD; |
| --- | --- |

50.

| 51. | calls for clear and simple evaluation and monitoring models of CLLD local development strategies. Evaluation has to be a part of a community’s learning process and it is therefore very important to continuously collect information and evaluate the implementation of LAG strategies. Advanced IT solutions for data collection and analysis should be introduced, combined with participatory processes and qualitative analysis; |
| --- | --- |

51.

| 52. | stresses that ownership of the results is very likely to positively contribute to the stability of longer-term development strategies and long-lasting effects, developed by the same people that implement them and benefit from their outcomes; |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | notes that successful examples of existing local partnerships funded from the EARDF and/or EMFF should be a base for further CLLD funding from the ERDF and ESF. Networking and collaboration through existing networks or creation of new networks at regional, national and transnational/interregional level has a crucial role, as do coaching and mentoring; |
| --- | --- |

53.

| 54. | stresses the need for better communication of CLLD and the opportunities this tool brings: indeed, although the rural development has been using this instrument for a longer time, in particular, urban development needs a stronger boost when it comes to using it. A detailed evaluation and analysis need to be drafted of how a particular Member State has approached it, including recommendations for effective implementation; |
| --- | --- |

54.

| 55. | notes that CLLD/Leader as an instrument is used by 3 000 similar bodies (LAGs & FLAGs) throughout the European Union. This fact should be considered in order to further enhance territorial cooperation and embrace European diversity through bottom-up transnational cooperation among citizens. In order to further boost the territorial cooperation through CLLD, it is necessary to create conditions allowing LAGs to concentrate on their role of animating the area and helping the best ideas to emerge and subsequently be implemented. An appropriate share of budgets has to be assured for running and animation costs, as well as for transnational cooperation. At the same time, the CoR strongly recommends setting a common set of principles and rules for CLLD international cooperation projects at the European level to ensure its effective and smooth implementation; |
| --- | --- |

55.

| 56. | recalls the relation of CLLD to other integrated development tools: as an optional instrument, together with integrated territorial investments, it contributes to the implementation of a broader development strategy that allows policies to be localised. In this regard, the CoR asks for better synergies between CLLD and ITI: the CLLD can be used in the 2021-2027 programming period as a complementary instrument in an urban or territorial strategy, so it could be part of an ITI approach where the participative approach offered by CLLD can help it deal with some specific local problems; |
| --- | --- |

56.

| 57. | considers that CLLD is a vital instrument to deliver the CoR proposals (4), subsequently endorsed by the European Parliament (5) whereby in programmes co-financed by the ERDF, covering areas with severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, as referred to in Article 174 of TFEU, particular attention shall be paid to addressing the specific difficulties of those areas; |
| --- | --- |

57.

| 58. | considers LAGs as ideal partners to perform the function of innovation brokers for the smart villages approach and to catalyse the potential of rural areas, as they in many cases already do. LAGs are a strong instrument of endogenous development of their areas, have direct links with local enterprises, municipalities and civil society, and, as a result, create strong capacity in the area, involving local and regional resources and people’s skills; |
| --- | --- |

58.

| 59. | endorses the European Parliament proposal that ERDF-funded plans for areas facing structural demographic decline could potentially being allocated with 5 % of the ERDF resources allocated to integrated territorial development in non-urban areas with natural, geographic or demographic handicaps or disadvantages or which have difficulty accessing basic services, including at least 17,5 % of this amount being be allocated to rural areas and communities to develop projects such as smart villages. The CoR believes that CLLD is in many places the ideal approach to deliver such an ambitious proposal; |
| --- | --- |

59.

| 60. | understands the involvement and capacity building of local actors as one of the biggest assets of the CLLD methodology. Integrated local development has proven to be very effective for building links and synergies between various stakeholders and issues in local development. LAGs have been a very successful instrument for strategic planning, animation, networking and coordination of activities, e.g. creating local action plans for education or social services in some Member States. |
| --- | --- |

60.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Community-Led Local Development, Brussels 29 November 2012, Rapporteur Graham Garvie, CdR CDR1684-2012, COTER-V-031 (OJ C 17, 19.1.2013, p. 18).

1

(2)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions ‘Common Provisions Regulation’, Rapporteurs Michael Schneider and Catiuscia Marini, Brussels, 5 December 2018, CDR 3593/2018 (OJ C 86, 7.3.2019, p. 41).

2

(3)  European Parliament, Common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and financial rules for those (Krehl/Novakov Report) Wednesday, 27 March 2019 — Strasbourg. P8_TA-PROV(2019)0310 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

3

(4)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on ‘European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund’, rapporteur Michiel Rijsberman, CdR 3594/2018 (OJ C 86, 7.3.2019, p. 115).

4

(5)  European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 March 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund (COM(2018) 372 — C8-0227/2018 — 2018/0197(COD)) (not yet published in the Official Journal).

5

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/27

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — ‘A Sustainable Europe by 2030: Follow-up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ecological transition and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change’

(2020/C 39/06)

| Rapporteur | : | Sirpa Hertell (FI/EPP) City Councillor of Espoo |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reference document | : | Reflection paper ‘Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030’ (COM(2019) 22 final) |

Rapporteur

:

Sirpa Hertell (FI/EPP) City Councillor of Espoo

Reference document

:

Reflection paper ‘Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030’ (COM(2019) 22 final)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030 — ‘There Is No Planet B’

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | highlights the Council conclusions (1) on the importance of sustainable development and its own keen interest in continuing to play a leading role in implementing the 2030 Agenda, as an overarching priority, for the benefit of EU citizens and their well-being, and as an essential element of rebuilding and strengthening the EU’s credibility within Europe and globally; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | welcomes the renewed dynamic of the debate about an ambitious EU climate policy and a proposal of the ‘European Green Deal’ with increased EU 2030 targets announced by the President-elect of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and calls on the new European Commission to take local and regional authorities on board as real partners for sustainability and climate action when developing the Green Deal with the 2050 climate neutrality targets; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | stresses the importance of defining the new European strategy ‘Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030’, as a basis for a long-term European Future. Europe is, already a forerunner in sustainability, but it faces complex global challenges, which the European Union must tackle. The CoR is convinced that achieving a sustainable European Union, including the goal of reaching climate neutrality by 2050, requires fundamental changes which must be reached using joint efforts on all levels of government and with all parts of our societies; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | highlights that the main policy foundations for a sustainable and resilient future include a decisive transition towards a circular economy, including non-toxic material cycles, a robust commitment to climate neutrality and to tackling climate change, protecting our natural heritage, biodiversity and ecosystems, the sustainability of the agriculture and food systems, the coherence and consistency between agriculture and environmental and climate policies, as well as safe and sustainable low-carbon energy, buildings and mobility sectors, and that this transition is estimated to create over 200 million new jobs globally, worth over EUR 4 trillion by 2030; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | points out the importance of people, new technology, products, services, business models and support for businesses and public and private financing — and all the EC defined ‘horizontal’ enablers in implementing a sustainable and resilient Europe by 2030; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | recalls the importance of the CoR’s recommendations on the long-term EU strategy for a Sustainable Europe by 2030 (2) and European Commission suggestions on strengthening the rule of law, improving EU governance, providing better policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) and linking the better regulation approach to sustainability; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | clarifies that the Agenda 2030 consist of five pillars: peace, planet, people, prosperity and partnership but this opinion will focus on the ‘planet’ pillar, setting out the strategic view for paving the way towards sustainable European cities and regions by 2030; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030: Path for Cities and Regions

| 8. | welcomes the transition to a resource-efficient, low-carbon, climate-neutral and bio-diverse economy and stresses the urgency of taking action and the need to engage governments at all levels, economic players, universities, research centres, civil society and citizens; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | calls on all the decision-makers, at all levels of governance, to recognise the active and, in many cases, innovative role of local and regional authorities, each with its own range of competences, in meeting the targets since these are on the front line and are responsible for 65 % of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | endorses the existing evidence that the SDG targets and implementation cannot be achieved by a top-down approach only, that above all, bottom-up activities are crucially needed — all regions, cities and citizens need to be taken on board as active change makers; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | recalls that implementing the SDGs throughout Europe requires a comprehensive and systemic approach to ensure policy coherence between the SDGs’ diverse dimensions; stresses that the all SDGs are inter-related and cross-cutting and that the four dimensions of sustainable development, that is economic, ecological, social and cultural, are closely interlinked with each other and will require careful balancing; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | underlines that seven out of 17 SDGs (3) can be related to the ecological and climate transition; notes in this context that SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities is directly addressed to local and regional authorities and includes important targets which require political action and multilevel governance; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | points out that cities account for 70 % of world greenhouse emissions, with local governments being responsible for more than 70 % of climate change reduction measures and up to 90 % of climate adaptation actions; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | points out that regions and cities are climate leaders; emphasises the need for multi-level cooperation and more decentralisation and calls on the EU to officially recognise an active role of local and regional authorities in the drafting of climate mitigation and adaptation policies and regulations; reiterates therefore its call to the Member States to fully include LRAs in the drafting of the integrated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs); |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | stresses that localising and ‘territorialising’ sustainable development actions in climate, energy and environmental policies is crucial to achieve the targets of the 2030 Agenda. Therefore calls to further enhance European partnerships (4), networks of cities and regions (5),such as the Under2 Coalition, and cross-border cooperation (6) and platforms, to develop common strategies, coordinate actions, implement more efficient strategies and pooling resources, especially in climate change adaptation and mitigation, environmental actions and preservation of biodiversity; |
| --- | --- |

15.

Sustainable Europe 2030: circular, low-carbon, climate-neutral and bio-diverse economy

| 16. | calls for the EU climate change policy to be holistic, and based on a systemic approach; notes that so far EU policies are often fragmented between different sectors and between urban and rural areas and into different categories like the emissions trading sector (ETS), the non-ETS sector and the land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) sector; encourages regions and cities to drive the gradual transition to a new systemic model and pilot new and more comprehensive solutions before 2030; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | supports the call by the European Parliament for Member States to put in place appropriate policies and financing in order to efficiently reduce emissions; underlines that EU spending from relevant funds could provide additional support where appropriate (7); |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | calls for a combination of appropriate market mechanisms, tax changes, funding measures, legal provisions and voluntary public-sector commitments at Member State level and at local and regional authority level, to attract climate change investment for the non-ETS sector to deliver emission reductions in a cost-effective manner; looks forward in this context to the proposals announced by the Commission President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, on a European Green Deal and a European climate bank; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | is convinced, however, that in addition to the ETS, effective measures to gradually end direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels (such as for example the existing tax exemptions for aircraft-fuel) is necessary in order to create a level playing field for renewable energies, encourage behavioural change and generate the necessary resources to support a just transition; welcomes in this context the debate launched by the Commission President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, with regard to carbon pricing and carbon border tariffs; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | suggests strong market-based incentives to attract the development of new carbon sinks and sustainable substitutions of material from high to low carbon footprint as well as additional efforts to support Research & Development to further develop new CO2-reduction technologies and measurement methods; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | requests the tightening of the EU climate targets according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1,5 °C objective to an implementable level, proposes to set up a carbon budget and to introduce other mechanisms to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas emissions as well as to revise and align the 2030 and 2040 targets with a carbon neutrality target for 2050; highlights the importance of ensuring social fairness and Member States’ competitiveness, as well as international cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | calls on the EC to initiate, in cooperation with the CoR, a study during Finland’s EU presidency on how a more systemic solution could be planned and implemented for the period after 2030; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | encourages the regions and cities to drive the gradual transition to the new systemic model and pilot new solutions before 2030; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | notes that the effectiveness and cost efficiency of climate actions must be key guiding principles in developing a more systemic solution for the EU, including for via measures such as extending and strengthening the emission trading system while simultaneously improving its longevity and predictability; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | points out that the delivery of sustainable development goals and climate goals will need a substantial increase in the investments for clean solutions. For example, if the required GHG emission reductions by 2050 were to be over 90 %, the annual clean investment would need to be more than tripled from the current level; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | proposes to extend and strengthen the emission trading system in mitigation of climate change. However, notes that balancing cost-benefit efficiency should be a guiding principle; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | emphasises the importance and influence of European local and regional authorities and the strong role of citizens at the global level through initiatives such as the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and the UN SDG 25 + 5 Cities Leadership Platform in encouraging the exchange of best practices to ensure the implementation of the SDGs at local level; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | emphasises that local actors and citizens are the best-placed to raise awareness and to fight against climate change; highlights also that local and regional authorities have a responsibility to take action so that citizens can live in line with the SDGs, but also to support citizens’ mobilisation to work towards the targets; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | commits itself to raise the voice of local and regional authorities in upcoming international fora, such as the UNFCCC COP25 on climate change and the UN CBD COP15 on biodiversity advocating an ambitious, time-bound, science-driven post-2020 global biodiversity framework integrated with SDGs; calls on the Parties to apply multi-level governance, which formally includes LRAs in planning, implementation and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV); reiterates its call for comprehensive strategies for coordinated awareness raising and engagement at all levels; |
| --- | --- |

29.

In detail: circular, low-carbon, climate-neutral, bio-diverse economy and socially fair transition

| 30. | advocates the international development of an ambitious, time-bound, science-driven post-2020 global circular economy and biodiversity framework that aligns and integrates with SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | welcomes the recent progress in the EU with regards to the transition towards a circular economy included improved waste management, but notes that the financial and regulatory frameworks at European level still need to become more effective in order to achieve the circular economy strategy; therefore calls on the European Commission, as part of the new circular economy action plan it has announced, to come forward with concrete proposals for the missing elements of such a coherent framework with due regard to the central role of local and regional authorities and, in particular, to proposals for resource-intensive sectors such as construction and changes in product design; considers that the social benefits of transitioning to a circular economy should be more clearly emphasised; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | welcomes the EU’s next strategic agenda 2019-2024 (8) including sustainable consumption and production, fighting climate change and reversing environmental degradation, transition towards a more resource-efficient circular economy by promoting green growth, bio-economy and sustainable innovation, addressing energy security and energy costs for households and businesses; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | calls for a holistic place-based approach in environmental policy through multi-level governance, enhancing the role of cities and regions, impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, environmental reporting, access to environmental information and the enforcement of environmental law; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | highlights the fundamental role of regions and cities in the transition towards a circular economy. ‘Circular regions’ need an integrated and holistic approach, as the CoR opinion on the Directive on single-use plastics shows (9); |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | highlights the urgency of adapting the national energy mix, in the different Member States to the requirements of the long-term decarbonisation strategy; this will also mean the need to increase the share of renewable energies beyond the currently agreed EU target of 32 % by 2030, especially in the base-load power, in order to dramatically reduce GHG emissions; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | calls on public sector and industrial decision-makers to speed up the use of new strategic energy technologies, EU SET Plan, in tackling the climate change by increasing the role of consumers through better awareness and using smart energy grids; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | stresses that climate transitions require significant green and blue investment and innovation; advocating more synergies between funding sources and stronger links between public and private funding for environment; and welcomes in this respect also the CoR opinion addressing the specific issues for regions heavily dependent on fossil fuels (10); |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | calls for any evaluation or fitness-checks, evaluation of the existing environmental legislation on water, soil, noise and air quality to also include a focus on the crucial need to improve policy coherence in the sense of the SDGs by promoting the circular economy, fostering sustainable production and consumption and addressing emerging pollutants such as micro-plastics, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, pesticides, disinfection by-products, and industrial chemicals; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | is deeply concerned by the ecological emergency the world is now facing, as reported in the recent Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; stresses that biodiversity loss undermines the possibility by many countries to achieve the SDGs and therefore exhorts cities and regions to immediate and urgent action on including biodiversity (11) in different sectoral policy fields, including agriculture as well as urban and regional development, indicating clearly, even at a legally binding level, the importance of biodiversity protection objectives; calls on the Commission to support innovative nature-based solutions and green infrastructures developed and implemented at subnational level to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | reaffirms the call for the establishment of a European climate neutrality observatory (12) and highlights the active role of local and regional authorities to develop climate change observatories; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | calls for the adoption of the recast of the Drinking Water Directive to ensure access to water for all, which will entail maintaining water bodies with a good ecological status, to reduce the health risk to below 1 % and to lower bottled water consumption, saving money, reducing plastic waste and CO2 emissions in the process; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | calls for the recast of the Water Framework Directive to pursue the same level of ambition if not to raise it, thereby ensuring that water bodies are preserved and recovered and that the status of water ecosystems in the EU is adequate; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | reiterates its call to improve the effectiveness of water management in the EU by increasing the scope of the EU regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse so that it applies not only to agricultural irrigation, but also to irrigation of green spaces in urban areas such as parks and grounds for public use (13); |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | points out that the Territorial Impact Assessments as supported by the CoR can be a useful tool to estimate the potential and possibly very differentiated impact of legislation on the climatic, energy and ecological transition in different regions in the EU. In this context, the CoR could enhance its cooperation with the impact assessment tools of the Joint Research Centre to further strengthen its action in the field; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | considers that the principle of just transition ‘no-one left behind’, is one of the guiding principles for the climate and ecological transition, from a social, territorial and political point of view. In this context, fighting energy poverty has to be considered one of the priorities when designing energy-related policies and programmes establishing specific objectives to reduce it by 2030 and to eradicate it by 2050 (14); |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | underlines the key importance of commitment from young people. Regional and local youth councils and youth movements should be involved in the design and the implementation of climate and SDG policies; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | emphasises that the ecological transition creates quality businesses and jobs in circular economy, clean energy, food and agriculture sectors and calls on the EU to increase the coherence of climate objectives through cohesion policy, the European Social Fund (ESF+) and InvestEU, while ensuring that SDG implementation is localised and regionalised; |
| --- | --- |

47.

Targets, indicators and data

| 48. | reiterates the crucial need, in the context of an overarching EU sustainability strategy and of Member States’ sustainability strategies implementing Agenda 2030, for jointly agreed tangible milestones, indicators, real time measuring of data related to climate change and SDGs of local municipalities, cities and regions to achieve the economic, ecological, social and cultural sustainability targets; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | highlights the need for a set of local and regional headline indicators for the Agenda 2030, and for robust subnational climate data and the importance of the use of new technology like artificial intelligence to shed light on the climate actions by the local communities. In this regard it recalls the importance of making the most out of the Covenant of Mayors database and the opportunity of creating a bridge between local and regional data and Nationally Determined Contributions through the establishment of Locally Determined Contribution; |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | points out the earlier experience of cities and regions in developing specific indicators related to environment, quality of life and well-being of the citizens; it is important that they are tailor-made to meet the local needs; |
| --- | --- |

50.

| 51. | emphasises that knowledge transfer and knowledge co-creation, peer-to-peer, twinning and mentoring activities need to be identified, promoted and financed adequately by the EU; |
| --- | --- |

51.

Future actions

| 52. | commits to renew its own processes and practices to better support local and regional authorities in localising and implementing SDGs under the EU-wide Sustainable Development Strategy, replying in this way to citizens’ requests to take more action and deliver concrete results to tackle climate change; |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | calls for enhancing the use of public-private partnerships, green public procurement and the implementation of pilot projects related to ecological transition and the fight against climate change; |
| --- | --- |

53.

| 54. | notes with concern the EU’s free trade agreements with other countries and insists that they comply with the SDGs, the Paris Agreement and EU environmental standards; |
| --- | --- |

54.

| 55. | stresses that by using their purchasing power to choose goods and the providers of services and work, local and regional authorities can make a significant contribution to sustainable consumption and sustainable production, to a more resource-efficient economy and thus to the achievement of the SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

55.

| 56. | agrees with the aim of the 2030 Agenda to achieve environmentally sustainable conditions and processes by enhancing the natural resources and protection of the most fragile ecosystems, recalling the importance of the subnational and local actions related to environment and climate change in line with the Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development. Highlights decentralised cooperation, multi-stakeholder partnerships, learning and sharing experiences in the process of reducing and remediating the footprint of the territories in terms of consumption of resources and CO2 emissions; |
| --- | --- |

56.

| 57. | welcomes the commitment of the European Parliament with the Sustainable Development Goals and in particular the Manifesto of the Intergroup on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development, and calls for a fruitful cooperation with the competent committees and with the Intergroup during the mandate 2019-2024; |
| --- | --- |

57.

| 58. | calls for the integration of these recommendations in the future work of the EU institutions in the next mandate, in cooperation with the CoR. |
| --- | --- |

58.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  Conclusions of the General Affairs Council, ‘Towards an ever more sustainable Union by 2030’, 9.4.2019.

1

(2)  COR-2019-00239, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a basis for a long-term EU strategy for a sustainable Europe by 2030, ECON-VI/044, rapporteur Arnoldas Abramavičius (LT/EPP) (OJ C 404, 29.11.2019, p. 16).

2

(3)  Ensuring by 2030 access for all to safe and affordable housing; safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport; a significant reduction of deaths from exposure to disaster risks, air and water pollution; as well as the horizontal targets of improving citizens’ involvement in decision making, developing strategies for integrated urban and rural planning and social integration, protecting the cultural heritage and reducing the per-capita environmental impact of cities.

3

(4)  e.g. EIT Climate KIC, European Innovation Partnerships, Energy Platform, EU Urban Agenda Partnerships and Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy.

4

(5)  e.g. ERRIN, Eurocities, Climate Alliance and the Covenant of Mayors.

5

(6)  Such as the cross-border climate change observatories of the Alps and the Pyrenees and, in particular, the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs).

6

(7)  European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2019 on climate change — a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy in accordance with the Paris Agreement (2019/2582(RSP)) (not yet published in the Official Journal).

7

(8)  COM(2019) 218 final ‘Europe in May 2019: Preparing for a more united, stronger and more democratic Union in an increasingly uncertain world’.

8

(9)  COR-2018-03652 (OJ C 461, 21.12.2018, p. 210).

9

(10)  COR-2019-00617. Opinion on ‘Implementing the Paris Agreement through innovative and sustainable energy transition at regional and local level’, ENVE-VI/040, rapporteur Witold Stępień (PL/EPP) (see page 72 of this Official Journal).

10

(11)  UN Environment Programme — Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPBES in the recent Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

11

(12)  As stated in the opinion COR-2018-05736 on ‘A Clean Planet for all — A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy’, ENVE-VI/037, rapporteur Michele Emiliano (IT/PES) (OJ C 404, 29.11.2019, p. 58).

12

(13)  COR-2019-03645. Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse’, ENVE-VI/034, rapporteur Oldřich Vlasák (CS/ECR) (OJ C 86, 7.3.2019, p. 353).

13

(14)  As stated in the opinion COR-2018-05877 on ‘Multilevel governance and cross-sectoral cooperation to fight energy poverty’, ENVE-VI/038, rapporteur Kata Tüttő (HU/PES) (OJ C 404, 29.11.2019, p. 53).

14

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/33

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementing the Clean Energy Package: the NECPs as a tool for local and territorial governance approach to climate, active and passive energy

(2020/C 39/07)

| Rapporteur | : | József Ribányi (HU/EPP) Vice-President of the County Council of Tolna Megye |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reference document | : | Own-initiative opinion |

Rapporteur

:

József Ribányi (HU/EPP) Vice-President of the County Council of Tolna Megye

Reference document

:

Own-initiative opinion

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes the initiatives of President-elect Ursula von der Leyen under a future European Green Deal and her will to take on board local and regional authorities in making Europe the first climate-neutral continent; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | welcomes Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, which requires the EU Member States to prepare a national energy and climate plan (NECP), setting the basis for a more comprehensive and transversal approach to climate and energy policies; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | points out that the ten-year NECPs cover the period 2021 to 2030, and must contribute to meeting the EU’s new energy and climate targets for 2030 at national level, as well as setting the basis for the successful implementation of the 2050 long term strategy for climate neutrality aimed at slowing the pace of global warming caused by humanity’s actions, as well as be in line with the Paris Agreement objectives. To this end, the CoR calls on the Member States to meet the EU’s ambitious 2030 targets in their final NECPs by the end of 2019, particularly in the areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The preliminary assessments of the NECPs by the Commission show that good progress has been made, but that many draft plans fall short of the requirements, and that, in terms of the overall EU targets and their achievement, all Member States should adopt more ambitious measures, and therefore, add to, clarify and improve their proposals. All Member States, following the Commission recommendations, should prepare their final NECPs ensuring that their plans meet the above-mentioned targets and objectives; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | is pleased that the Governance Regulation recognises the role of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in the NECPs from the preparation stage by stressing the need for effective public consultation and by proposing the establishment of a Multilevel Climate and Energy Dialogue, in line with the bottom-up approach. The involvement of the LRAs should cover all phases starting from the preparation stage, via the response to the preliminary assessments by the Commission, to the implementation and review. However, notices that to date many Member States have not succeeded in fully involving LRAs in this process; draws attention to the fact that engaging local and regional administrations in the drafting process, in addition to the Member States, results in achieving the targets in a more efficient and inclusive manner; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | points out that many Member States consider the structures they have in place to be sufficient to achieve the goals of the public consultation and the multilevel climate and energy dialogue: the fact that the Member States consider themselves capable of going it alone has in the past been one of the biggest problems. The CoR recommends that the Member States critically assess these structures, especially in the light of content they can generate, coverage and representativeness of local authorities, civil society organisations, the business community, investors, other relevant stakeholders and the general public, and to make available the input these structures generate to ensure that the goals set out in the Governance Regulation for the public consultation and the multilevel climate and energy dialogue are fully met with a view to the ultimate goal of contributing to the health and well-being of all and of future generations; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | LRAs’ expertise, responsibilities for implementation and financial resources should be harnessed in order to complete the Energy Union; therefore recommends that LRAs be fully involved in implementing the clean energy package and that their potential issues in this process are duly taken into account for possible future revisions. It points out that the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy and other similar initiatives can play a crucial role in guiding LRAs in the implementation of the new EU energy framework; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | invites Member States to work together closely with the CoR and its members on their respective NECPs. This could make up an important element of their respective public consultations and multilevel climate and energy dialogues and could provide valuable feedback from the local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | recognises the limited time and associated difficulties Member States have had to produce their draft NECPs and encourages a higher level of ambition and more vertical integration for the final NECPs due by the end of 2019 to ensure a robust, Paris-compliant climate neutral pathway for Europe, in line with the most ambitious scenario proposed in the 2050 long-term strategy. The CoR also encourages, in this context, the development of a system of locally-determined contributions (LDCs) to complement the nationally determined contributions under the Paris agreement, which would give additional weight to the role of local and regional authorities in the drafting of comprehensive NECPs. Local authorities can use information and awareness-raising campaigns to help achieve the targets more effectively, and must have access to well-trained professionals for this purpose. EU funds should thus be harnessed for disseminating information and creating jobs in the field of energy and climate policy, with a view to the ultimate goal of safeguarding the health and well-being of all and of future generations; |
| --- | --- |

8.

Active and passive forms of energy contributing to the NECPs

| 9. | points out that the term ‘active energy’ as used in the construction sector, also known under the wider term ‘renewable’ energy, refers here to energy which is generated, stored and consumed locally by various local stakeholders (public, municipal and private bodies, households). Examples of this are renewable, clean energy sources like geothermal, solar, wind, thermal, hydroelectric or marine energy or biomass. Such energy sources play a key role in achieving the NECP targets for 2030; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | points out that the term ‘passive energy’, as used in the construction sector, also known under the wider term ‘energy efficiency’, on the other hand, refers to energy savings based on the efficient use of all energy generated which mean that energy consumption and consequently the end consumers’ energy expenses is reduced, together with the level of pollution. In light of these considerations, LRAs must organise local and regional public services along energy-efficient lines, for example via sustainable procurement policy; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | would further point out that the concept of passive energy is closely linked to climate issues and is also relevant when determining the wider CO2 footprint of buildings and is an integral part of the circular economy. When issuing building permits, LRAs should while taking into account specific local conditions and specificities of the building, encourage the use of building materials made from local, environmentally-friendly raw materials (reeds, pellets, straw, bark, hemp, wood, or glued wood, preferably with a zero carbon footprint balance), rather than concrete and other traditional building materials that involve large amounts of CO2 emissions during production, installation, demolition and recycling. They should also promote other measures aimed at increasing the energy performance of buildings. These concepts should be integrated into the National Long Term Renovation Strategies due by Member States by March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | points out that LRAs are important actors in the field of energy, both active and passive. They should be involved in the NECPs at national level as major investors, parties responsible for the upkeep of buildings, managers of public transport networks, authorities tasked with raising public awareness, agents in the fight against energy poverty, regulatory authorities responsible for town planning, land management and land use, managers of decentralised energy generation and authorities empowered to award green public procurement contracts. The generation and use of local resources must be planned efficiently to enable them to fulfil their mission properly. In this respect, attention must be paid to the various types of renewable energy, buildings’ energy performance, energy efficiency and the use of local, natural and environmentally-friendly building materials; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | flags up the many positive effects of LRA support for stepping up generation, storage and use of active, primarily renewable, energy. As an example, the CoR would point out that in the transport sector, especially both in and between urban areas, it is especially important to step up the use of sustainable biofuels as an interim solution and – in the medium term – battery electric and hydrogen e-mobility, as well as taking steps to address CO2 emissions from transport in an integrated way, including measures to promote public transport, car sharing and other innovative solutions, as traffic volume is expected to grow and combustion engines will continue to play a significant role. An example of a sustainable bio-fuel used as an interim solution could be bioethanol, as an active energy which is generated, used and easily stored locally, which produces usable by-products (such as animal feed), reduces dependence on imports and could create a significant number of jobs. It is very important to ensure that the review of state aid rules and the Energy Taxation Directive does not make it impossible to promote sustainable bioenergy; |
| --- | --- |

13.

The role of LRAS in drawing up NECPs

| 14. | emphasises that LRAs must be able to submit proposals and amendments for their national NECPs and that their role has to be distinguished from other stakeholders not belonging to the public administration. LRAs should have a right to be directly involved in measures touching on energy efficiency, energy transition, climate change and the shift away from fossil fuels, and also have an important role to play in implementing actions to tackle energy poverty, working through all the organisations representing the EU’s local authorities (CoR, Covenant of Mayors); |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | stresses the need to ensure that the Member States are informed about the pivotal role played by LRAs with regard to a number of key priorities set out in the regulation on the Energy Union. They have a right to be directly involved in measures touching on energy efficiency, climate change and the shift away from fossil fuels, with the development of renewable energy and the necessary energy infrastructure, including storage technologies and sector coupling. They also have an important role to play in managing energy poverty; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | points out that the general public is not aware of the drawing up of the NECPs and that due to time constraints, the consultations processes accompanying the NECPs’ development have so far not been as broad and deep as would be desirable. This is an unfortunate development, as these plans are implemented at local level, in towns and cities; Calls therefore on the Member States, the Commission and local and regional authorities to increase their efforts to inform a wider public about the NECP process, and, once the final NECPs have been submitted, to devise formats to involve all stakeholders in their implementation; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | points out that local and regional development priorities linked to the NECPs (such as proposals for projects in the fields of energy efficiency, the shift away from fossil fuels and the fight against climate change and energy poverty) have been set on the basis of a rough estimate. This is partly due to the fact that the local and regional level was insufficiently involved in the NECPs; also recalls that the Covenant of Mayors database can provide useful data and information to Member States where the number of signatories is high; |
| --- | --- |

17.

Good governance: implementing the NECPs in close cooperation with LRAs

| 18. | emphasises that the EU Member States need to draw up NECPs that include implementation initiatives which are in the interests of both energy end consumers and prosumers on the one hand, and the other suppliers on the energy retail market on the other. These initiatives have a number of advantages for the energy system (less need for transport infrastructure and upkeep, more resilience and flexibility), including a fair price and the roll-out of an innovative price setting mechanism for any energy surplus from systems feeding into the grid; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | emphasises that the experience and knowledge of LRAs as implementing actors is needed to identify inconsistencies and potential synergies between the NECPs and the Multiannual Financial Framework, the European Semester and the EU’s long-term strategy for climate neutrality by 2050; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | points out that ongoing initiatives and best practices also need to be coordinated. In this respect, the CoR would draw attention to interactive initiatives organised by the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | notes that thanks to awareness-raising initiatives and campaigns, LRAs can turn energy consumers into prosumers by supporting the use of energy sources which are generated, stored and consumed locally, not least in the form of local energy communities, whose potential still needs to be developed. Prosumers can then become active members of smart, decentralised energy grids established by LRAs; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | supports the Multilevel Climate and Energy Policy Dialogue insofar as it will boost LRA participation in policy discussions carried out in conjunction with the NECPs. This dialogue is also crucial for upholding the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. The close link between energy and climate measures and the need to integrate them effectively should be acknowledged during this process; in this respect, LRAs must appoint energy managers. The Committee therefore points out once again that EU funds should be used to create jobs in the field of energy and climate policy, with the ultimate goal being to safeguard the health and well-being of all and of future generations; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | by way of an example, would draw attention to Ireland’s National Dialogue on Climate Action, which has used awareness-raising and mobilisation measures and various incentives to promote initiatives to combat climate change at local, regional and national level. Thanks to this good practice, a consensus on the solutions to be implemented to meet the various challenges can be reached and the necessary steps taken. Stakeholders can establish permanent mechanisms and platforms for frequent consultation on matters of economic, social, environmental and public interest linked to energy policy and the fight against climate change. The national dialogue also plays an important role in setting priorities in the field of energy policy and climate change; this type of practice should be encouraged and spread more energetically throughout the Member States by promoting appropriate information and awareness-raising campaigns; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | recommends that the Member States recognise LRAs as real partners when preparing the new energy and climate scenario. It is important to understand and overcome the challenges and obstacles encountered at local level, and to define appropriate measures and implementing strategies in order to give credibility to national and European commitments and to achieve the acceptance of the necessary changes by citizens. LRAs are still the tier of government closest to consumers, and they are responsible for managing decentralised energy generation (such as the roll-out of smart meters and grids), together with many aspects of the changes to be made to the existing energy infrastructure. They also carry out information and awareness-raising campaigns on energy and the climate which help households and companies to reduce their expenses and carbon footprint, and create an investment-friendly environment; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | points out that the problems connected to the shift to clean energy and climate issues both require concerted action between all tiers of government (European, national, regional and local) and with the public and private sectors, research and innovation centres and academia. The use of active and passive energy also supports this process, as the ability to minimise energy use throughout the life cycle, and hence carbon footprint concerns, makes sense both for the clean energy transition and for the climate; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | points out that energy poverty is a complex issue, and so the NECPs must tackle it from the perspective of energy and climate by making use of the databases and publications produced by the European Energy Poverty Observatory. The evaluation of the number of households in energy poverty, referred to in Article 3 of the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, must also be based on accurate, verifiable data; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | proposes that LRAs help national authorities to implement future-oriented projects under the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and the JASPERS and ELENA initiatives which contribute to meeting European climate and energy policy objectives. Accordingly, the European Investment Advisory Hub must make provision for a fast-track procedure for granting aid to towns and cities which have undertaken to develop low-carbon projects; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | stresses that better synergies between the ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments are paramount for implementing cross-border sustainable energy projects; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | emphasises that the NECPs must promote energy innovation with a view to the shift to a low-carbon economy and climate neutrality by 2050 and therefore a resilient, forward-looking Energy Union with a climate policy capable of spurring on employment, growth and investment. LRAs should be involved in particular in smart city initiatives, along with green public procurement for clean energy in fields such as energy savings in urban transport, interregional transport strategies, cooperation on new storage technologies and smart public buildings; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | recommends that the CoR, as the body representing local and regional authorities, and as part of its pilot project of regional hubs, play a facilitating role in the implementation of the NECPs and the Multilevel Climate and Energy Dialogue, providing an additional avenue to reach the local and regional level outside of the Member States’ internal frameworks; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | to this end invites the European Commission to consider co-organising a recurring forum to discuss climate and energy matters including the NECPs. This would facilitate cooperation between local and regional authorities, the DG for Climate Action, the DG for Energy, the CoR’s ENVE Commission and Member States. This forum could be implemented similarly to the currently operating ‘Technical Platform for Cooperation on the Environment, DG Environment and the European Committee of the Regions’ which aims at fostering dialogue on local and regional problems and solutions in the application of EU environment law, as referred to in the General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ (7th EAP). This new forum could contribute greatly to the Multilevel Climate and Energy Dialogues throughout the Member States allowing for amongst other things, information exchange, taking stock of progress, sharing of best practices and lessons learnt, contributing to improvements in climate and energy outcomes and strengthening the cooperation and communication between all the actors involved; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | notes that successful implementation of the NECPs will increase the EU’s competitive edge and contribute to its economic stability providing a clear framework for the investors; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | points out that the NECPs create a link between urban and rural areas thanks to local and locally-generated resources. This will guarantee a secure future for people living in rural areas and meet the energy needs of urban areas, while avoiding actions which harm the climate; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | stresses that the NECPs are not a one-shot initiative. Finalising the NECPs at the end of 2019 is a big first step, however the NECPs will need continuous refinement and progress. Therefore it is important to have structures and forums in place to aid in the further improvement of NECPs in the future, and to ensure that the Multilevel Climate and Energy Dialogues can contribute to this fully. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 1.

1

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/38

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Contribution from cities and regions towards a new EU policy framework for SMEs

(2020/C 39/08)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

| 1. | notes that some EU Member States are experiencing a slowdown. This problem is most visible at the regional level and is reflected in decreased in labour productivity and production efficiency, weakening trade trends, a steadily low level of public and private investment into transport, energy and digital infrastructure as well as a persistent — and relatively high — level of economic and social inequality. This, together with global developments such as the next industrial revolution, demography and the changing nature of work, requires innovative policy responses; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | recognises that the competitiveness of European economies is based on the entrepreneurial and innovative potential of SMEs and therefore welcomes the calls by the European Commission and the Council to further develop the EU’s overarching economic strategy, taking into account the specific role of that sector; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | stresses the impact of the Small Business Act (SBA) on the development of SMEs a decade after its launch, but at the same time underlines the need for a horizontal approach to supporting SMEs and for the effects of the programme’s implementation to be monitored more effectively; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | notes the necessity of creating specific support pillars for SMEs within European Commission programmes, taking into account the heterogeneity of the SME sector and pointing to the need for a more flexible approach based on effectiveness and enabling businesses to overcome the next stages of development. The Committee expects the European Commission to take actions in line with the recommendations of the CoR’s study: EU policy framework on SMEs: state of play and challenges (1). New tools should mainly target small businesses carrying out risky projects; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | stresses the role and responsibility of the Member States’ and regions in developing and implementing EU policy tools for SMEs, which should be specifically geared towards supporting the development of skills of SME employees and SMEs themselves, including in the area of digitalisation, which will help these enterprises grow in the long term; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | points to the strong need to focus on supporting the development of SMEs outside metropolitan areas, particularly through the EU Member States’ operational programmes; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | recognises the importance of start-ups within the framework of SMEs (2), since they are responsible for many disruptive innovations, but points to the need to also support existing businesses to scale up and innovate in an incremental way — European policy should be characterised by a broader approach to business support — from the moment they enter the local market to when they join the global market; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | is of the opinion that EU policy should support the process of integrating SMEs integrate into international value chains across all European territories; notes that the internationalisation of the economic activities of selected SMEs beyond the EU can ensure dissemination of the best solutions, benefiting European SMEs and thus bringing about improvements in their productivity, mainly through transfer of knowledge and know-how; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | recognises the importance of the SME Envoys Network, which should play a major role in identifying problems and opportunities for European entrepreneurs; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | stresses the need to promote and implement fewer time-consuming administrative procedures and to reduce the amount of red tape at all levels of European and national administration, which has a significant impact on the way SMEs work, including the financial aspects of their activities; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | draws attention to the need to support new sources of funding for SMEs and to make it easier for them to access traditional methods of financing. These would be available to the broadest possible range of SMEs operating in different EU territories; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | supports the call for a revision of the definition of ‘SMEs’ currently in use at EU level in order to take account of the fact that medium-sized enterprises (‘mid-caps’, with up to 500 employees) are structurally very comparable with SMEs (< 250 employees and an annual turnover of ≤ EUR 50 million or a balance sheet of ≤ EUR 43 million) and yet do not get preferential treatment over large enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | points to the important idea of a one-stop shop for SMEs and, to this end, stresses the need to consolidate SMEs’ support networks on a European scale; proposes using the existing Enterprise Europe Network (EEN). By combining different forms of SME support into a single network and through its cooperation with the SME Envoys Network, the synergies expected by SMEs and the European Commission should be achieved; |
| --- | --- |

13.

Risks and challenges to the further development of SMEs

| 14. | notes that SMEs in the European Union are facing challenges which stem from such factors as growing global competition, the emergence of new business models, the digitalisation and deployment of new technologies, both in industry and in services, the development of the circular economy and the collaborative economy, and continued sustainable development; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | highlights the importance of supporting the cooperation of groups of specialised small and medium enterprises (clusters). Calls for continuous development of existing EU instruments in this area, such as the EU Cluster Portal, The European Cluster Observatory and the European Cluster Excellence Initiative; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | confirms the growing role of corporate social responsibility in society and the environment; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | notes the discrepancy in the speed and strength of economic development between SMEs and larger businesses, which, because of the characteristics of less developed regions, results in the economic polarisation of EU regions; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | stresses that the increasing number and complexity of administrative regulations reduces the growth potential of SMEs, especially micro-enterprises, which do not have adequate administrative and financial support to overcome these barriers, therefore calls for reducing administrative complexity for businesses in the EU, in particular for cross border operations; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | notes that, with the emergence of a growing number of innovative solutions in the market, combined with their limited financial availability to SMEs, a new approach is required which calls for the creation and development of so-called ‘open innovations’; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | welcomes, while stressing that Horizon and COSME will gain importance for SMEs, that the ERDF will remain the most important source of finance for local and regional policies supporting SMEs in the new programming period 2021-2027, and particular in relation to access to finance, support for R & D and innovation, skills development as well as access to markets and internationalisation. Reiterates however its objection to the proposal that the ERDF thematic concentration would focus on the national level as a centralised allocation mechanism would go against a place-based approach and the multilevel governance principle, which are key for an efficient and effective support of SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | draws attention to the differences between EU sectoral policies, including in the area of public procurement, bankruptcy law and environmental protection, as well as differences in support for clusters and the approach to competitiveness, which has a strong impact on SMEs and their further expansion; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | recognises that the single market is a success story for the EU, but also requires further improvement including, for example, breaking down barriers to the free movement of goods and services, which is one of the causes of the difficulties SMEs face when scaling up business activity and benefiting from internationalisation; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | draws attention to the transformation of the economy through digitalisation, with the need for SMEs to invest more in purchasing and/or developing technology and know-how; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | calls on the European Commission to develop measures to support the digital transformation of SMEs in EU regions, drawing on the successes of existing initiatives such as the Digital Cities Challenge; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | believes that digitalisation is an opportunity to move SMEs’ products and services to a wider, pan-European and non-European market, enabling cross-border trade to grow; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | stresses that the challenge for the EU is to further increase productivity and competitiveness (including cost-related) in industrial value chains while maintaining ambitious environmental policy objectives; |
| --- | --- |

26.

SMEs’ expectations for future growth and development policies

| 27. | stresses the potential benefits for SMEs and entrepreneurs of EU level investment in integrating regional entrepreneurship ecosystems; at the same time, encourages the European Commission to further develop the project to link up Europe’s ‘Silicon Valleys’, which is currently being carried out together with European Entrepreneurial Regions (EER); |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | draws attention to the difficulties many SMEs face with acquiring and retaining skilled employees. SMEs face a strong competition for talented workforce from large companies which have larger resources at their disposal and are able to offer higher wages. This is despite the fact that SMEs are the backbone of Europe’s economy representing 99 % of all EU businesses; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | notes that SMEs’ representatives, including bodies that support and bring together SMEs, should be able to play a more active role in shaping and coordinating the implementation of EU policies that are directly relevant to this category of entrepreneurs; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | expects regional representatives to be involved in the management of the EU’s SME policy and for them to cooperate more closely with SME Envoys; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | maintains that EU industrial policy should be geared to innovation in the wider sense, key enabling technologies, as well as important projects of common European interest (IPCEI), digitalisation and SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | supports the European Commission’s idea of streamlining administrative procedures for obtaining funding and reporting, which are particularly burdensome for micro and small enterprises with limited human resources. Proposals such as simplified cost options (flat rates, lump sum and unit costs) will make it easier to establish project budgets and account for them, helping to increase the proportion of SMEs that receive support; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | supports an approach that prioritises local and regional thinking, with a national and international focus coming at a later stage. Testing ideas on a smaller scale, as well as supporting incremental innovation, enables new technological solutions to be developed more quickly and implemented in a financial framework available to SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | notes that the proposed framework of common rules for the European Structural and Investment Funds must be flexible in order to enable requesting regions to focus their operational programmes on SMEs and micro-entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | calls for programmes supporting SME capacity-building to be set up, for instance regarding the use of modern financial instruments, measures to raise awareness of the importance of exchanging information and cooperation as well as the possibility of, and need for, long-term growth strategies and plans; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | draws attention to the growing importance of the integration of clusters, particularly smart specialisation platforms where local authorities play a central role in creating integrated value chains at European level, thereby helping SMEs to grow at international level; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | expects the strong regional and local dimension of EEN points to be maintained. These could take on new roles in the future; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | draws attention to the need to extend the services offered by the EEN, including with regard to the scaling-up of SMEs, information on national and European rules, funding opportunities in individual EU Member States, building partnerships with other stakeholders from the sector/actors involved in the production process, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | points out the need to strengthen regional representations for SMEs, which could regularly contribute, through REFIT platforms for example, to the discussion on proposed legislative changes and take part in the process of monitoring, checking and evaluating the impact of changes on SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | stresses the importance of diversifying sources of finance for SMEs, and addressing the problem of existing funding gaps for specific sectors or types of activities should be one of the priorities; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | welcomes the agreements reached on the Capital Markets Union, making it easier for SMEs to access public markets and introducing measures to streamline and reduce costs and regulatory burdens; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | welcomes the launch of initiatives by some Member States to increase the participation of SMEs in public procurement procedures; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | draws attention to the issue of SMEs’ access to public procurement, while also welcoming the inclusion of this category of enterprises in the reform of the public procurement directive and calls for further measures to support SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | stresses that delayed payments, SMEs’ lack of awareness on key aspects of public procurement and the high potential costs of legal action remain the main obstacles to increasing their involvement in this area and seizing the opportunity to grow in scale; |
| --- | --- |

44.

Final reflections

| 45. | notes that, due to their high degree of structural flexibility and production profile, SMEs are able to respond quickly to dynamic socioeconomic changes. The financial resources needed for these adjustments have proven to be a barrier, meaning that further proposals for support in this area need to be adapted to the needs of SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | stresses that, in view of their impact on the labour market, but also on consumers, SMEs are an important stakeholder which is jointly responsible for introducing the circular economy. This should be reflected in tax breaks or access to European funds; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | recognises that the European Commission should draw on the experience of the SBA and the Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. The aim is to improve and simplify, not to make radical changes or abandon existing achievements by seeking entirely new solutions; |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | points out that the number of initiatives for greater interregional and cross-border cooperation is still insufficient; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | reiterates its call for a new horizontal strategy, the content of which should highlight the importance of innovation — particularly disruptive and incremental — and support key enabling technologies and important projects of common European interest, including with regard to digitalisation and SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | calls on the European Commission to look for solutions that would make it easier for SMEs to take part in public tenders, for example by means of a bonus for local/regional origin, as the changes made so far have been insufficient; |
| --- | --- |

50.

| 51. | draws attention to the fact that despite the European Commission’s extensive and multifaceted actions, which should be welcomed, support for SMEs will not be effective across the EU if some Member States have a tendency to introduce complicated national rules; |
| --- | --- |

51.

| 52. | stresses that local and regional authorities should play an important role in shaping a business-friendly environment and be equipped with tools to adapt actions to the changing needs of SMEs; it would be advisable to involve local and regional authorities more closely in the process of shaping future EU industrial policy, including support for SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | agrees with the position of the European Parliament which calls for an increase in the overall EU budget for the 2021-2027 Single Market Programme, with a view to making SMEs more competitive at international level, expanding into non-EU markets and absorbing innovation; |
| --- | --- |

53.

| 54. | is convinced that the announcement to include all financial instruments available to SMEs under the new Multiannual Financial Framework in the single InvestEU programme will lead to the anticipated simplification of procedures; |
| --- | --- |

54.

| 55. | calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to intensify their effort in improving the functioning of the Single Market to unlock its full potential; |
| --- | --- |

55.

| 56. | calls on the European Commission and the European Parliament to work on instruments and mechanisms that will ensure a level playing field for European SMEs in European and global competition, not least for technologies that are strategically important to Europe. |
| --- | --- |

56.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/EU-SMEs/EU-policy-SMEs.pdf

1

(2)  European Committee of the Regions, Boosting start-ups and scale-ups in Europe: regional and local perspective, ECON-VI/021, rapporteur: Tadeusz Truskolaski, COR-2017-00032-00-01, July 2017.

2

Boosting start-ups and scale-ups in Europe: regional and local perspective

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/43

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementation report on public procurement

(2020/C 39/09)

| Rapporteur | : | Thomas Habermann (DE/EPP), Head of Rhön-Grabfeld district council |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Thomas Habermann (DE/EPP), Head of Rhön-Grabfeld district council

I.   GENERAL COMMENTS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | stresses that this opinion follows up on the CoR’s commitment, in connection with the ‘Task force on subsidiarity, proportionality and doing less more efficiently’ and the Better Regulation agenda, to providing feedback on the implementation of EU legislation at local and regional level. The CoR and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) have therefore undertaken a joint EU-wide survey to assess local and regional authorities’ implementation of the legal framework for public procurement, and commissioned a study on the subject; the CoR emphasises that, due to significant differences in the levels of participation from different Member States, the results of the survey cannot be seen as representative at EU level but can only indicate trends; furthermore, draws attention to the report published in July 2019 on the first consultation of the CoR’s Network of Regional Hubs (RegHub) (1), which essentially confirms the results of the CEMR and CoR survey; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | notes that the comprehensive reform of the public procurement directives carried out in 2014 was transposed into Member States’ national law in some cases in 2016 and in some cases considerably later; now, a maximum of three years since the entry into force of national public procurement law with direct effect, we thus have only limited insight into practical experience in implementing these laws; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | points out that both administrative practice and economic operators have only just adapted to the new public procurement system, and in some cases are still in the process of adjusting; likewise stresses that, in many places, these adjustments involve a not inconsiderable burden in terms of training and advice, in some cases from external legal advisers; in these circumstances, firmly believes that it would not be appropriate to introduce new legislative requirements in the next few years; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | clarifies that this opinion therefore does not focus on new legislative reforms, but addresses the difficulties that contracting authorities at local and regional level are currently facing in dealing with the regulatory framework; it also addresses specific issues that the Commission most recently raised in October 2017 in its non-legislative communication on making public procurement more efficient, sustainable and professional (2); |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | supports the aim and key features of the directives, in particular electronic procurement and facilitating the participation of SMEs, the new concepts for in-house procurement and cooperation between municipalities, the possibility for authorities of using strategic criteria for public procurement as part of their own policy-making processes, and promoting transparency and integrity; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | stresses that, as the survey results show (3), cross-border procurement has not brought any added value for local and regional authorities. Though EU-wide procurement procedures are carried out regularly, costing considerable time and money, few if any cross-border contracts are awarded; the reason is presumably that the electronic platforms differ in each country and so act as a hurdle to companies and authorities in neighbouring countries taking part: conceived and launched in one particular country, platforms often do not provide for the use of different languages or for incorporating the administrative requirements of countries other than the one in which the contracting authority is located; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | highlights the fact (4) that the correct application of the legal framework for public procurement has now become an end in itself, rather than a tool for procuring works, supplies or services; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | highlights the need to clarify the circumstances in which local and regional authorities are permitted to promote local economic growth and local structures in the interests of sustainability and positive environmental impact, by using short supply chains (e.g. the ‘Holz von hier’ initiative) in line with the ‘buy local’ principle; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | stresses that, in line with the principle of local self-government, the option allowed for in the 2014 reforms of taking account of green, social or innovative criteria in public service provision must remain entirely at the discretion of the local authority concerned; takes the view that any future obligation to apply strategic procurement objectives to any procurement process should be clearly rejected, in order to avoid unnecessarily overburdening the procurement procedure; points out that in many procurement procedures it is not expedient to take account of strategic procurement objectives, for example in the case of standard procedures for the supply of products; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | stresses that increasing the number of policy goals increases both the likelihood of errors and the risk of conflict between those goals; points out that public procurement objectives can only be achieved insofar as they do not undermine the primary goal of providing the public with high-quality goods and services at a reasonable price; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | also stresses that the 2014 reform clearly recognises the right of local and regional authorities to provide and organise their services themselves using their own institutions and businesses or public undertakings, as well as the ‘in-house’ concept and cooperation between municipalities. Contracting with third parties is thus just one of many alternative ways to provide public services (5). Finally, the CoR stresses that contracting authorities have the right to remunicipalise contracts previously awarded to third parties; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | believes that the goal of increasing the thresholds beyond which public contracts must be put out to tender across Europe is appropriate, with a view to preserving the balance between transparency on the one hand and the administrative burden placed on authorities and SMEs on the other hand; calls on the Commission, in the long term, to work towards significantly increasing the thresholds in the Agreement on Government Procurement at WTO level. |
| --- | --- |

12.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Strategic procurement

| 13. | takes the view that the possibility introduced in the 2014 public procurement directives for contracting authorities to take account of strategic objectives in procurement can in individual cases result in ‘better procurement’ from the contracting authority’s perspective; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | points out, however, that the resulting administrative burden for local and regional authorities must be proportional to the benefits that public procurement can bring for the public. Public procurement is not primarily intended to achieve policy goals regarding, for example, environmental sustainability, social inclusion or innovation, or to further specific socio-political development. However, it is increasingly being used as a vehicle for steering and achieving other policy goals. It is nonetheless important not to lose sight of the aim and purpose of public procurement: determining the best price-quality ratio in line with the principles of sound financial management and efficiency of the public administration; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | points out that, as the results of the CoR/CEMR survey show, local and regional authorities are aware of the option of using green, social and innovative award criteria. Such criteria are, it seems, in some cases used only sparingly, sometimes because there is no need and sometimes because the increased likelihood of errors increases the likelihood of legal proceedings; local and regional authorities particularly complain of the shortage of skills needed to get more procurements of this kind up and running; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | points out that, though they have the option of awarding contracts on the basis of various qualitative criteria, local and regional authorities often prefer the lowest price, because they see it as the most appropriate use of public money, as well as being a criterion that is easier to apply; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | refers to the criticism made by the Commission in its communication (6) that 55 % of procurement procedures still use the lowest price as the only award criterion; clarifies that strategic objectives may well have been taken into account in the procurement procedures in question, since, for example, it is often just as effective to include environmental and energy efficiency criteria in the specifications, and then to award contracts consistently on the basis of the lowest price; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | highlights the fact that, according to the survey results, the need for strategic award criteria varies widely. Thus, contracting authorities largely see no need for innovation-friendly procurement, have mixed opinions on social procurement, and are mostly in favour of environmental procurement; notes that they experience difficulties in applying all the criteria due to the complexity of the legal framework, with regard to setting the conditions for executing the contract and, in particular, assessing the equivalence of national certificates and labels used to demonstrate compliance with the criteria (7); |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | points out that, to date, the use of innovative procurement, including innovation partnerships and pre-commercial procurement, has been restricted to a few local authorities in certain Member States. The main reasons are that promoting research and development is rarely a priority, standard products are being procured, or there are budgetary restrictions. The Commission’s ‘Big Buyers’ initiative could be a tool in promoting innovative procurement. The CoR stresses, however, that bundled procurement and purchasing groups regularly make things easier for local authorities, especially smaller ones, and help them make efficiency gains; |
| --- | --- |

19.

Access to public procurement markets for SMEs

| 20. | recalls that promoting SMEs was one of the five priorities for the 2014 public procurement reform; notes that SMEs and start-ups still find it difficult to meet economic or technical eligibility criteria. In addition, late payments, SMEs’ lack of knowledge of key aspects of public procurement, and the high potential cost of legal proceedings present significant constraints; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | points out that the measures taken to date to increase SME participation have – as shown in the CoR/CEMR survey – not resulted in the expected degree of improvement; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | stresses that strategic procurement objectives frequently present a significant barrier to participation in procurement procedures specifically for SMEs in comparison to professionally organised large companies, given that SMEs often lack the necessary resources to meet strategic procurement criteria; stresses that strengthening strategic procurement is potentially at odds with the appropriate and laudable goal of promoting and facilitating access to public procurement procedures for SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | in this connection, highlights the need to revise the definition of ‘SMEs’ currently in use at EU level (8); points out that, under the current definition, medium-sized enterprises (‘mid-caps’, with up to 500 employees) are structurally very comparable with SMEs (< 250 employees and an annual turnover of ≤ EUR 50 million or a balance sheet of ≤ EUR 43 million) and yet do not get preferential treatment over large enterprises; in view of the rising tide of protectionism on key markets, stresses that it is important for the EU to take a constructive and clearly market-oriented position in terms of global competition, in the interests of the domestic European economy, and to take account of medium-sized enterprises as a strong economic factor, particularly in rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | points out that the new regime for social and other specific services is causing difficulties for local and regional authorities, and notes that the problems encountered are linked, inter alia, to the particular nature of these services and to the specific context in which they are provided; is critical of the fact that competitive tendering is now compulsory above a certain threshold (EUR 750 000) even though the reasons for deeming this type of service to have no internal market impact still apply; points out that these rules do not always fit in with the Member States’ national systems. In cases where the public authorities do not make selective choices when service providers operate within a simple authorisation procedure or open-house model, the Court of Justice has ruled that the Public Procurement Directive does not apply (9). However, the rules in the Public Procurement Directive do not always fit in well with the Member States’ national systems and may in practice result in disproportionate administrative burdens for local and regional authorities (10). Moreover, the scope of the regime is not clear, due to the references in Annex XIV to CPV codes, the content of which is ambiguous; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | takes the view that procurement in lots particularly benefits SMEs and medium-sized companies, and is therefore a good approach; points out, however, that underperforming enterprises and excessively small lots may increase the administrative and coordination burden on contracting entities; |
| --- | --- |

25.

Cross-border purchasing of goods and services

| 26. | notes that the overall share of cross-border contracts fell from 5,95 % in 2013 to 3,4 % in 2017 (11); |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | stresses that the concept of public procurement should be interpreted using a functional approach. However, even if it is considered from such a perspective, different types of planning services should not be added together when calculating contract value, but may instead be treated as separate contracts; explains that this is important particularly for the protection and increased participation of SMEs in public procurement procedures; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | calls on the Commission to adopt more comprehensive guidelines on electronic public procurement procedures in order enhance legal certainty and improve participation of SMEs in electronic public procurement; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | points out that the exclusions specified in Article 10 (h) of the Public Procurement Directive (Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (12)) reflect the considerable importance attached to non-profit aid organisations which may emerge as a result of voluntary activities, particularly in the event of civil protection operations; takes the view that Member States may explicitly state in national law which organisations are considered to be non-profit, if national law ensures that these organisations meet the non-profit criteria laid down by the European Court of Justice (13); |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | underlines that 70 % of respondents to the CoR/CEMR survey state that cross-border purchasing brings no added value, due to a lack of tenders from other Member States, and only 24 % say that it promotes competition and offers better choices; draws attention to the findings of the RegHub report that in some sectors, particularly in social fields, there is no cross-border dimension, and that the required internal market relevance is therefore lacking; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | agrees in principle with the Commission’s objective of increasing the number of cross-border procurement procedures; points out that the reasons for the low level of cross-border contracts include the need for the procurement documents to be available in several languages, which is time and resource intensive and necessarily increases costs, as well as differences in the interpretation of the public procurement directives in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | notes that another key reason is likely to be the different standards and legislation applicable in the Member States, for example in the fields of labour law, occupational health and safety, and construction; these differences deter potential foreign bidders – and particularly SMEs, which often lack the necessary material and legal resources to meet the requirements of other Member States – from submitting tenders; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | points out that it is very common for companies to create subsidiaries in other Member States so that they can be close to local markets. It is generally these subsidiaries and not the parent company that submit tenders in local and regional procurement procedures. Such transactions are not included in statistics on cross-border procurement; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | finally, particularly highlights the difficulties encountered by bidders in dealing with the Member States’ differing requirements for certificates and electronic signatures across borders; hence the need to introduce common guidelines for putting in place common regulatory and IT systems and establishing electronic platforms that enable authorities and companies based in the various bordering countries to bid; |
| --- | --- |

34.

Actions to improve implementation

| 35. | points out that the ‘professionalisation’ to which the Commission refers – i.e. the training of administrative staff – lies entirely within the organisational purview of the Member States and particularly of local and regional authorities; is also concerned that further guidance and manuals from the Commission on the professionalisation of contracting authorities (such as the planned comprehensive European Professionalisation Framework (EPF)), alongside the already comprehensive regulatory framework, would probably result in additional administrative burdens for contracting entities; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | Welcomes the final action plan of 26 October 2018 by the Partnership on Innovative and Responsible Public Procurement within the Urban Agenda (14) and supports in particular the recommendations addressed to the EU level to consider EU funding for joint cross-border procurement, procurement of innovation, strategic procurement in particular social procurement (i.e. using social clauses and award criteria in tendering processes and contracts) and circular procurement, to the Member States’ level to invest into capacity building on Innovative and Responsible Public Procurement and to both the Member States’ and the city levels to increase training on circular procurement as well as on innovative and responsible public procurement; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | considers that the EU must ensure consistency between the various European policies governing public procurement, competition and state aid, in order to ensure that the EU as a whole is strengthened as an industrial centre and that European companies are competitive in a globalised world; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | calls on the Commission to launch a process for reliable and clear EU-wide labelling and certificates, particularly in the field of environmental sustainability, in order to create legal certainty and reduce burdens for contracting authorities on the ground; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | draws attention to the fact that the development of in-house e-procurement systems and national public procurement portals has in some cases led to compatibility issues both within and between Member States; the development of fully compatible systems could significantly simplify and speed up public procurement procedures; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | highlights, finally, that the directives have not fulfilled their main purpose of substantially simplifying procedures for local and regional authorities; nonetheless takes the view that, in the interests of continuity and for the reasons mentioned above, further legislative reform in the coming years would be highly inadvisable. |
| --- | --- |

40.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  Committee of the Regions, Subsidiarity Steering Group, Network of Regional Hubs for EU Policy, Implementation Review, Implementation Report, First Consultation on Public Procurement, July 2019.

1

(2)  Commission Communication on Making Public Procurement work in and for Europe, 3.10.2017 (COM(2017) 572 final).

2

(3)  See the consultation on assessing the implementation of the 2014 Directives on public procurement: challenges and opportunities at regional and local level, carried out by the CoR in conjunction with the Council of European Municipalities and Regions.

3

(4)  See joint CoR/CEMR survey.

4

(5)  See the European Committee of the Regions’ opinion of 5.7.2018 on the Public Procurement Package, rapporteur: Adrian Ovidiu Teban (RO/EPP).

5

(6)  Commission Communication on Making Public Procurement work in and for Europe, 3.10.2017 (COM(2017) 572 final).

6

(7)  CoR/CEMR survey.

7

(8)  Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC, 6.5.2003 (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36).

8

(9)  Cases C-410/14 Falk Pharma and C-9/17 Tirkkonen.

9

(10)  REFIT Platform opinion on the effectiveness and efficiency of public procurement (youth welfare and social support) by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, 14.3.2019.

10

(11)  European Parliament, Policy Department for Economic, Science and Quality of Life Policies Contribution to Growth. European Public Procurement. Delivering Economic Benefits for Citizens and Businesses, January 2019.

11

(12)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65.

12

(13)  ECJ, judgment in case C-465/17 of 21.3.2019.

13

(14)  https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/final_action_plan_public_procurement_2018.pdf

14

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/48

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Better regulation: taking stock and sustaining our commitment

(2020/C 39/10)

| Rapporteur | : | Olgierd Geblewicz (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Zachodniopomorskie region |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reference documents | : | COM(2019) 178 final
  SWD(2019) 156 |

Rapporteur

:

Olgierd Geblewicz (PL/EPP), Marshal of the Zachodniopomorskie region

Reference documents

:

COM(2019) 178 final

SWD(2019) 156

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Comments

| 1. | welcomes the European Commission’s stock-taking on the better regulation activities and stresses that better regulation indeed should not be a hidden deregulatory agenda, that better regulation and evidence-based, transparent and inclusive policy making are key imperatives in a climate where democracy and decisions by compromise are being attacked, but also that better regulation-tools should never substitute democratic political decision-making; underlines that better regulation tools themselves do entail ‘costs’ (in terms of time, human resources, etc.) and therefore they also need to be designed effectively; and that better regulation must be a shared effort among all levels of governance; welcomes therefore in particular the positive recognition of the need to involve local and regional authorities and the Committee of the Regions more directly in the EU policy process; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | states that the citizens of the European Union deserve good quality legislation that builds European added value, that is clear and well-communicated to those it is addressed to in terms of objectives, and that is monitored in terms of results. Because local and regional authorities implement and use approximately 70 % of EU legislation, while also having the closest links to citizens, they must be directly involved in the process of creating good EU rules and the process of assessing their effectiveness. Because it is crucial from the point of view of implementing rules and for the perception of the EU that citizens understand the aim and benefits of rules, as credible bodies in the eyes of citizens, local and regional authorities must be fully involved in this communication process, i.e. providing information about and clarifying the meaning of rules in a way that can be understood at local level. The role of the Committee of the Regions, as a formal bridge between the EU institutions and local and regional authorities, is essential here; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | notes that the quality of law is one of the keys to the success of European integration and that if governance guarantees cooperation between levels of government to implement EU policies, apply legislation effectively, and find socially acceptable responses to global challenges, Europe will be strong, its institutions will be governed by the rule of law, its policies will be effective, and citizens will be engaged and involved in the decision-making process; supports in this sense also the European Commission’s statement that quantitative approaches (aimed at reducing so-called administrative burdens by a certain percentage) are not adequate to address the complexity and diverse nature of EU regulation and its impact at different levels; endorses in this context also the recommendation of the Task Force on Subsidiarity that the issue of ‘legislative density’ in relation to its added value should be a core element of the REFIT exercise; also welcomes in this context the commitment of the future Commission president to set up a Conference on the future of Europe in 2020 and recalls the CoR’s desire to be fully involved in any discussion on improving EU governance, and its suggestion for a permanent, structured system of citizens’ dialogue in order to strengthen the democratic functioning of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | agrees that the better regulation agenda is a tool to help improve EU policies and to provide a basis for making sound and timely policy decisions, ensuring that the legislation adopted by EU institutions ‘does more good than harm’, i.e. making sure that legislative measures are evidence-based and well-designed, and that they deliver tangible and sustainable benefits for citizens, businesses and society as a whole. This applies both to new rules as well as to the large body of existing EU legislation; is aware that this tool is, in effect, the beginning of a process to develop the best possible regulatory mechanisms; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | is aware that, in view of the competencies given to it under the Treaties and the human resources it has, the European Commission plays a key role in better regulation policy. However, the Committee points out that better regulation cannot be achieved exclusively through action at the EU level. It emphatically points out the important, but not fully exploited, potential of cooperation with local and regional authorities, which the CoR is a natural bridge to; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | points out the EU’s obligation to regulate in areas of shared competence only if and only in so far as the aims of the policy in question cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, their regions or their local authorities, in accordance with Article 5 of the Treaty of the European Union, i.e. with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; supports the conclusions of the Task Force on Subsidiarity and Proportionality and the proposal to open up the policy by improving involvement of all levels of government through a new approach to the principle of subsidiarity – ‘active subsidiarity’; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | stresses that local and regional authorities are not currently directly involved in the negotiations between the EP and the Council during legislative procedures, and are also not directly involved in the formal subsidiarity control mechanism; recalls, however, that the CoR does have the right to take action before the European Court of Justice in cases where subsidiarity is not respected, and that it is using this possibility to reinforce its political messages on the subject and thus plays an important role in making the voices of local and regional authorities heard; calls on the Commission to explore ways of involving regional parliaments more closely in these processes for instance by formally including them in the early warning mechanism or the extension of the yellow and red cards system to regional parliaments in order to ensure that they can contribute positively to the development of active subsidiarity; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | notes that monitoring and evaluation are key to the process of improving legislation. The CoR points out that new rules are often implemented before full and proper evaluation of the impact of the existing legislation has been completed. Local and regional authorities apply the majority of EU law and therefore have the broadest knowledge of its impact on citizens in practice; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | welcomes the Commission’s call for REFIT measures to be strengthened through increased involvement of the Committee of the Regions; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | highlights the CoR’s capacity to consult and communicate with local communities by using its contacts with existing networks that bring together representatives of local and regional authorities in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

10.

Better regulation tools and the role of local and regional authorities in making better use of them

| 11. | notes that consultations with stakeholders can provide an important input into the content of legislation and have a legitimising effect – they boost acceptance of the rules and can thus make implementation much more effective. The Committee therefore welcomes the initiative to set up the ‘Have Your Say’ portal for communicating with and consulting citizens. It notes, however, that responses from individual citizens so far constitute only a minority of submissions, which is probably due to the fact that the portal and the consultation processes are not yet widely known; therefore calls for a strengthening of measures to inform about and promote such consultations, not least through cooperation with local and regional authorities; in addition, suggests to envisage specific, targeted consultations for local and regional authorities, particularly on topics with particular relevance to them. In this context, involving the CoR by using its contacts in networks of representatives of local and regional authorities could make it possible to reach a wider range of individual and institutional stakeholders, which would improve the consultations’ outcome; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | notes that assessing results is a key tool for enhancing the legitimacy and transparency of legislation, and therefore supports the Commission’s intention to pay particular attention to subsidiarity and proportionality when carrying out assessments; draws attention to the fact that local and regional authorities can provide especially valuable information in this area; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | points to the need to undertake further work on developing impact assessment indicators that take into account tools covering the sub-national level, particularly indicators used to develop policies such as the sustainable development goals or a social scoreboard. This will enable European, national, local and regional authorities to familiarise themselves with the impact assessments in different regions and identify areas where improvements in legislation and policy-making are needed at the local level; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | draws attention to the diversity of European regions, which can result in a law having an asymmetrical territorial impact. Initial impact assessments should determine whether there is a territorial impact of policy implementation to be taken into account at an early stage in the legislative process and therefore it should become the usual practice for all Commission Directorates and departments to analyse this aspect when preparing legislation. This would allow them to better assess the best means to achieve their policy objectives and to carry out more in-depth territorial impact assessments on legislation where this is relevant. It would also help to sensitise all Commission directorates for the potential territorial and geographical impact of their policy choices; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | notes that in 2018 it launched a pilot project on a network of regional hubs for gathering local and regional data on EU policy implementation through specific questionnaires (RegHub). The Committee welcomes the fact that the Commission communication on better regulation confirms support for this project. It calls for further efforts to be made to improve this project and after the positive evaluation of the pilot phase, to integrate it into the system of EU policy and law-making; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | strongly supports the objectives of the REFIT platform; has been a member of the platform’s stakeholder group since it was established in 2015; calls for the platform’s mandate to be extended in line with the proposals of the Subsidiarity Task Force, which identified a number of problems preventing the CoR from contributing more effectively to the functioning of the platform; stresses that the CoR, as a consultative body, is best placed to provide informed input, but that at present the highly specific and technical nature of submissions to the platform, and the short deadline for submitting contributions, do not allow the Committee of the Regions to make use of its potential and make an appropriately significant contribution; also points to the major contribution that the RegHub network could make, via the CoR, to the REFIT platform’s objectives; |
| --- | --- |

16.

CoR recommendations

| 17. | while acknowledging the Commission’s efforts to date to review existing legislation, recommends preparing sectoral plans for the revision of laws to ensure coherent and systematic implementation of the objectives set by the Commission. At the same time, the CoR highlights that both when evaluating existing rules and when creating new ones, it is necessary to strengthen multi-level cooperation based on mutual trust; notes that this cooperation should entail actively involving the regions and local authorities from the outset in shaping the European Commission’s annual work programme, as well as in the annual planning of legislative assessment and monitoring activities, particularly as regards territorial impact; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | agrees with the need to strengthen the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles in EU decision-making as part of a more overarching agenda for better regulation. The Committee calls for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality to be given the highest priority and for an active approach to be taken to subsidiarity, as a way to ensure that bottom-up input is fully taken into consideration within the framework of existing competencies at EU level. These principles must be treated as fundamental aspects of the EU decision-making process, not least through close cooperation with the Committee of the Regions, as the institutional representative of local and regional authorities, which are responsible for directly applying large parts of European law; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | points out that in terms of work methodology, the REFIT platform seeks to include both the technical and the political level within the same framework; at the same time, notes that the Committee of the Regions, which represents local and regional political authorities, is treated as an interest group, which does not reflect the nature of its composition; calls, therefore, for the methodology to be reconfigured so that CoR representatives are more directly involved in the political process determining the policy objectives of the platform and of selecting the provisions to be analysed. This would allow CoR members who take part in the platform to make full use of their experience and expertise concerning the implementation of European law and its impact on citizens, while also building the bridge to the CoR’s networks; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | reiterates that it is important for local and regional authorities to be able to adapt EU regulations to local and regional circumstances to avoid creating unnecessary administrative formalities, restrictions or economic burdens. The Task Force on Subsidiarity and Proportionality points out that regulatory density has increased, narrowing the margin for interpretation that should exist when implementing directives. This makes it harder for the Commission to achieve better and more efficient regulation. The issue therefore needs to be addressed in the future work on better regulation; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | recommends also to modify the structure of the REFIT platform by including experts from the local or regional level in the work of national expert groups and groups that bring together representatives of interest groups; this would be an additional way to implement, the recommendations of the working group on increasing the role of local and regional authorities in the law-making process contained in the Commission’s communication; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | notes that the European Commission pledged to step up its cooperation with the Committee of the Regions, as well as with the Economic and Social Committee and representative associations. After a successful completion of the pilot phase, the Regional networks (RegHub) can become a key channel for this increased cooperation. Notes that this would require the Commission, the CoR and all other stakeholders to define jointly with the hubs the timeline, content of policy areas and significance for regions and cities. In this context, the CoR calls for greater involvement of the European Commission already during the pilot phase of the project; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | invites the European Commission to consider the possibility of expanding RegHub after the pilot phase has been completed. The added value the project can bring if the networks are developed, and around 280 regions are involved, increases significantly. Pan-European regional networks (RegHub) could become an important tool for overcoming some of the challenges currently facing the better regulation project and many regions have expressed great interest in participating in the pilot phase of the project. Nevertheless, developing and maintaining such networks would entail investments of financial and human resources along with support for the regions which intend to ensure that they are ready to make a long-term contribution to the network’s activities once the pilot phase is completed; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | welcomes the fact that the European Parliament, Council and Commission signed a new interinstitutional agreement on better regulation in 2016 and that the agreement increased control over the procedure for adopting delegated and implementing acts. The Committee points out, however, that this agreement has not been fully implemented by the signatory institutions and that the Committee of the Regions, was unfortunately not included in the process of drawing it up; highlights that on the basis of the points raised above, it would indeed be in the overall institutional interest of the EU to involve the European Committee of the Regions in any future revision of the inter-institutional agreement; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | calls for the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to be expanded to include a permanent member designated by the Committee of the Regions. The justification for this expansion is the urgent need to raise the Board’s awareness of local and regional perspectives on EU legislation; is convinced that giving local and regional authorities and the CoR a stronger, formalised role in shaping EU policies and law is the only way to help ensure rules are more effective and boost compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, thus increasing legitimacy; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | calls on the EP and the Council to carry out an impact assessment on any substantial amendments these institutions propose during the legislative process. In the event that the agreement reached differs significantly from the Commission’s initial impact assessment, the CoR calls for the economic, social and environmental impacts and regulatory burdens to be reassessed in cooperation between the institutions involved before a final decision is made. In such cases, the CoR insists on being regularly informed of the process of negotiations between the EP and the Council and of the impact on the initial provisions of the regulation and, in the event of significant changes, on being consulted again where possible; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | calls on the Commission to ensure that future impact assessments comprise both an assessment of the economic burdens that new legislation may entail for the public sector and a territorial assessment. This will provide a more qualified basis for discussions on whether EU legislation is the most effective instrument; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | supports the European Commission in its request to Member States to provide the reasons behind any intention at national level to add specific requirements in the process of transposing European law into national legislation (‘gold-plating’); in such cases, and in particular where these requirements add additional burdens for sub-national levels in the implementation of EU law, the Member States should inform the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions as early as possible in order to allow for an appropriate dialogue on the matter to take place; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | calls for the CoR to be included in the next interinstitutional agreement on better regulation, which will be concluded between the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission, in the form of a special protocol for agreement with the Committee of the Regions, particularly concerning the implementation of certain evaluation and consultation mechanisms; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | calls on the European Commission, in cooperation with the CoR, to brief and train the regions and local authorities on the procedures and tools for better regulation. Due account should be given to the information and training initiatives already in place in the Member States, organised by the regions themselves or their representative associations, in order to promote links, synergies and the exchange of information and best practices between the people running both types of initiative and the European Commission through the CoR; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | recommends that, as part of the better regulation approach, the Commission develop communication approaches that aim to convey the need for – and importance of – difficult or controversial future legislative proposals to the public in a transparent way and at an early stage; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | calls for regions that have constitutional legislative powers to be taken into account, and for channels to be provided for full and direct involvement in drawing up legislative acts that are linked to their fields of competence; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | endorses the European Commission’s view that better regulation requires a joint effort, while at the same time emphasising that this initiative has a multi-level dimension, meaning that responsibility must be shared between all tiers of governance; therefore recommends that the European Commission amend the guidelines for better regulation so as to factor the regional dimension into the procedures and tools laid down in the agenda for the entire policy cycle, drawing partly on appropriate consultation of the networks of regions and local authorities coordinated by the CoR; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | stresses that good regulation also means communicating effectively to citizens the reasons, meaning and benefits of laws, something which, due to communication, language or cultural barriers or distance, cannot be achieved effectively at EU or national level; therefore recommends that, from the very beginning, when communicating on the legislative process, the Commission should work closely with the Committee of the Regions which, as the representative of local communities, was created in part by associations of local and regional authorities from across the EU. In this way, communication will be comprehensible for those who apply European law, thereby contributing to a positive image of European institutions and the rules they create. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/53

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Active and healthy ageing

(2020/C 39/11)

| Rapporteur | : | Birgitta Sacrédeus (SE/EPP), Member of Dalarna County Council |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Birgitta Sacrédeus (SE/EPP), Member of Dalarna County Council

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Political priorities

| 1. | calls for a strong public health programme and for the budgetary prioritisation of health promotion, disease prevention and reduction of health inequalities in the EU’s post-2020 research programme, including Horizon Europe; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | expresses its support for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing and hopes that the European Commission will continue supporting this initiative. Innovation in assistive technologies is an important incentive in helping older people to lead an active and healthy life, and the European Committee of the Regions therefore supports research and development in this field; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | calls on all local and regional authorities to embrace the opportunities of e-Health and digitalisation as tools and to step up their efforts to modernise health services for all ages, using digital innovation to reduce health inequalities and improve access to care, especially in sparsely populated areas; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | suggests that local and regional governments should include the development of age-friendly environments, independent living, community-based care and accessibility in spatial planning; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | is convinced that ageing is a hidden opportunity and supports the actions in the European Silver Economy Strategy, as increased longevity creates a market for new affordable products and services supporting active and healthy ageing; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | stresses that one of the key factors in the successful development and innovation of new sustainable and innovative solutions is for European industry to work in close partnership with local and regional representatives; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | considers that the challenges of demographic change will require research and an active European industry in order to modernise, design and produce new innovative solutions for an ageing population, be they everyday products, infrastructure, technology or software; sees this as an opportunity for the EU to position itself as a market leader in the Silver Economy, creating local jobs, generating wealth and exporting ground-breaking innovations abroad; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | highlights its institutional cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe and encourages local and regional politicians to explore the possibilities offered by the CoR-WHO Memorandum of Understanding and by the WHO affiliated networks: Healthy Cities and Regions for Health; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | stresses that an increase in healthy life years is one of the main goals of the EU’s health policy, as it would not only improve the situation of individuals but would also lead to lower public healthcare expenditure and a likely increase in people’s ability to continue to work until later in their life; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | agrees with the WHO’s assessment (1) that active and healthy ageing is determined by (1) health and social service systems, (2) behavioural determinants, (3) personal factors, (4) physical environment, (5) social environment and (6) economic determinants, and emphasises that policy intervention across all these dimensions can make a positive contribution to the development of the European silver economy market; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | also highlights the important role of the social partners in ensuring active and healthy ageing and refers in this respect to the framework agreement on active ageing and an inter-generational approach adopted by the European social partners in 2017. The framework agreement provides for the implementation of measures to make it easier for older workers to work actively and remain in the labour market until retirement age, something that contributes to healthy and active ageing; |
| --- | --- |

11.

Statistical background

| 12. | notes that, on 1 January 2017, the EU-28 had an estimated population of 511,5 million. Young people (aged 0-14) made up 15,6 % of the EU-28’s population, while people deemed to be of working age (aged 15-64) accounted for 64,9 %. Older people (aged 65 and above) made up 19,4 % of the population, an increase of 2,4 percentage points in 10 years. |
| --- | --- |

12.

The European Innovation Partnership (EIP) on Active and Healthy Ageing and the Communication on the digital transformation of health and care

| 13. | notes that the Commission undertook a mid-term review of its Digital Single Market Strategy in May 2017, and in April 2018 published a communication (2) on enabling the digital transformation of health and care in the Digital Single Market (3). The communication highlighted three priority areas for the digital transformation of health and care:






  — | secure access to, and the possibility of sharing, health data across borders; |
| --- | --- | --- |

13.

—

secure access to, and the possibility of sharing, health data across borders;

| — | better data to advance research, disease prevention and personalised health and care; |
| --- | --- |

—

better data to advance research, disease prevention and personalised health and care;

| — | digital tools for citizen empowerment and person-centred care; |
| --- | --- |

—

digital tools for citizen empowerment and person-centred care;

| 14. | draws attention to the fact that the EIP has contributed to the large-scale introduction of cross-border digital health and care solutions; |
| --- | --- |

14.

Local and regional relevance/importance for the CoR

| 15. | notes that regional authorities in 20 of the 28 Member States are — at least partly — responsible for health (and often social) systems. Their budgets bear the responsibility of chronic diseases and the rising costs of long-term care; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | notes that, at the same time, local and regional authorities define, deliver and manage a whole range of services than can make a positive difference and influence how people age in their communities. Through smart health and social care prevention, healthy lifestyle promotion, awareness raising and targeted information campaigns, local and regional authorities can reach all people and help them to sustain and prolong healthy life expectancy. These authorities can also develop innovative cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries in order to provide greater support for person-centred care solutions using integrated healthcare arrangements; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | stresses that local and regional authorities play a pivotal role in designing and scaling up innovations that make life easier for older people. By investing in the silver economy sector, supporting innovative assisted living solutions, and promoting self-care and digital health expansion, local and regional authorities across the Union can thus turn the ‘demographic tsunami’ into a real opportunity to improve services to their citizens while also stimulating new jobs opportunities; |
| --- | --- |

17.

Fiscal stability and age-related spending

| 18. | reiterates the ECOFIN Council’s conclusions (4) calling on the Member States to implement the European Semester recommendations related to the sustainability of public finances, as well as apply the three-pronged strategy for addressing the economic and budgetary consequences of ageing by reducing government debt, raising employment rates and productivity, and reforming pension, health care and long-term care systems; |
| --- | --- |

18.

Long-term care and socio-medical personnel

| 19. | wishes to draw attention to a sobering report (5) on long-term care commissioned by the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion in 2018, and to its findings: (1) home care services and community-based care remain underdeveloped and difficult to access; (2) informal care is on the rise due to a lack of affordable alternatives, adversely affecting women and their labour market performance; (3) there is a severe shortage of qualified professionals in long-term care sector; and (4) social and health care are becoming increasingly fragmented, impacting sustainability in the long run; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | is aware that shortcomings in social care and cooperation with primary care can lead to inappropriate use of healthcare services, in the form of ambulance services, emergency hospital visits, and disproportionately long hospital stays for older people. This can be due to a lack of coordination and coherence between the hospital and care sectors; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | calls for a new discussion on the integration of social and health care services to ensure that patients are discharged in good time and that the flow of information is not obstructed by jurisdictional boundaries, and to facilitate coordinated and integrated care solutions; also calls in this respect for better coordination between the hospital and care sectors to ensure that treatment and care are streamlined. This will ensure that the flow of information is not obstructed by jurisdictional boundaries, and will lead to integrated care solutions, which will benefit patients; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | points out that with the number of older people in need of care on the rise across Europe, there is a shortage of suitably qualified workers in the field of social and health care. Additional recruitment is therefore needed in the care sector, partly to avoid relatives being left with responsibility for care; also notes that women often bear a disproportionately high burden in the informal care sector, and calls for more support for informal carers; |
| --- | --- |

22.

Digitalisation offers unprecedented opportunities for health and care

| 23. | recalls the findings of the EU consultation (6) highlighting that most Europeans do not currently have access to digital health services, and echoes the recommendation made in the CoR’s opinion on digitalisation in the health sector that the Commission should promote the convergence between European, national and regional digital plans, strategies and funding that is necessary in order to complete the large-scale rollout of integrated, digital and person-centred healthcare services; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | emphasises that eHealth services, digitalisation and the electronic exchange of data between patients and their carers and healthcare providers facilitate patient-centred care and the transition from institutional to community-based care, and at the same time give individuals more opportunities to make informed choices and decisions on their own care; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | suggests that the rapid developments taking place in the field of digitalisation, including artificial intelligence, should be monitored more attentively in order to enable future innovative solutions in the interests of better informed individuals and patients, of staff’s ability to take preventive action, and of the development and economic viability of health care providers; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | is aware of the size of the European market for domestic robots and other devices for assisting older people and reiterates the recommendations of the 2018 report on the Silver Economy (7) that the robotics market should be developed to help reduce the burden on caregivers and assist older and frailer people; |
| --- | --- |

26.

Accessibility

| 27. | welcomes the adoption by the co-legislators of the European Accessibility Act (8); |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | recognises that the Act will bring about improvements in access to ICT, payment terminals, e-books and e-readers, e-commerce websites and mobile apps, and ticket machines; |
| --- | --- |

28.

Geriatric medicine

| 29. | is concerned about the shortage of geriatric doctors and nurses across Europe and calls on the Member States and their regions to reflect — together with doctors’ and nurses’ organisations — on how to make the profession more attractive, on training and retraining modules, and on attractive remuneration schemes for these practitioners so that more doctors decide to choose geriatrics as their specialty and less of them decide to abandon it, and to consider the possibility of re-employing retired staff; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | is convinced of the value of mutual learning, and recommends fostering mobility for medical practitioners, including geriatricians, in the spirit of the Erasmus Plus scheme; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | shares the concerns of the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society regarding the expertise requirements for doctors to work in care homes, and believes that, while each Member State is free to make its own policy choices, some specialised training may be useful both for care practitioners and for ensuring the best possible care solutions for residents; |
| --- | --- |

31.

Connecting the dots

| 32. | recognises that an active ageing policy is a social challenge that requires a broad spectrum of knowledge and methodological tools, ranging from medical science through psychology, sociology and social gerontology to technology, urban planning and economics; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | observes that many cities and regions are developing active ageing policies, providing good opportunities to exchange ideas, and encourages municipalities and regions not yet involved in transnational cooperation and local partnerships to consider the benefits of mutual learning and explore the possibilities offered by many EU initiatives, including the EIP on active and healthy ageing, Interreg, Urbact (9) and many others; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | shares the concerns of the public concerning the unavailability of certain medicine on the market and asks the Commission to investigate the reasons for rising difficulties of access to vaccines and medicines across the Union; points out that older patients typically use more medicinal products and that their health can be severely compromised if they cannot receive their prescribed medicines in a timely manner; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | recalls that access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines is a priority for Europeans and a key commitment of the EU under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the European Pillar of Social Rights; remains convinced that the European pharmaceutical industry can deliver these products and further boost its role in innovation and world industrial leadership; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | recommends reading the WHO’s Global Age-Friendly Cities Guide (10), and particularly highly recommends its tool for local policy-makers and planners on ‘Creating age-friendly environments in Europe’ (11). The Committee firmly believes that safe, barrier-free physical environments for people with disabilities can benefit the entire population, and calls on local and regional authorities to promote the construction of barrier-free housing, to modernise existing infrastructure, and to remove obstacles to mobility and access to public transport and facilities; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | reiterates the recommendations it made in its opinion on health in cities encouraging local communities ‘to frame policies that ensure healthy and active ageing in good physical and mental wellbeing, social life and relationships and encourage involvement in the city’s leisure activities and intergenerational programmes, not least to combat loneliness and isolation’; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | refers to its opinion on health systems and its recommendation that ‘EU Member States should strengthen their primary care systems to meet the needs of ageing populations, create better chains of care and to better rationalise the use of hospital care’; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | is convinced that the foundations for active and healthy ageing are laid early in life and therefore recommends, in line with its opinion on local and regional incentives to promote healthy and sustainable diets, making efforts to ‘promote healthy eating habits and [...] guide the younger generation towards more sustainable dietary choices in the form of unprocessed fresh, local and seasonal products of plant origin’; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | calls for the results of the European projects focusing on healthy and active ageing and promoting integrated care, which are funded under various EU programmes, to be used more effectively and disseminated more broadly; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | observes that physical activity is still regarded as something for children and adolescents, and not for adults (28 % of whom never exercise (12)); points out that physical activity is a key element in healthy ageing and calls on local and regional authorities to engage with local stakeholders (sports facilities, NGOs, seniors’ organisations, etc.) to increase the accessibility of sports venues, gyms and physical activities and to expand walking and cycling path networks; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | finds it reassuring that research (13) confirms that the prevention of diseases that increase disability is necessary at every age, and therefore calls on decision-makers to increase the proportion (currently 3 % on average) of health budgets allocated to prevention; |
| --- | --- |

42.

Future of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing

| 43. | argues that, after 2020, the EIP must be firmly embedded in the Union’s policy priorities and have strong ties with the Digital Single Market, the European Pillar of Social Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals in the field of health; recommends pursuing contact and cooperation with whichever member of the new Commission after the 2019 elections is most directly responsible for the policy area of active and healthy ageing, in order to develop a new innovative partnership; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | is convinced that the future EIP also needs a stronger link with the cross-border healthcare directive and its policy and practice developments, such as e-prescriptions and interoperability of electronic health records; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | expects the future EIP to look into cross-regional procurement opportunities, identify obstacles and enable faster deployment and scaling-up of innovative electronic health and care solutions; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | notes that one of the key challenges facing Europe in the field of active and healthy ageing is to implement and scale up cross-border innovative solutions, and therefore supports the EIP on AHA initiative ‘Innovation to Market’ which aims to improve the match between the supply side (companies, start-ups and researchers) and the demand side (care providers, policy makers and insurers); is convinced that dialogue between the two can make digital innovations more useful and strengthen business and academic communities, which will benefit end users. |
| --- | --- |

46.

Brussels, 8 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67215/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf;jsessionid=F15F61D4E71955EDF2E37D4E8CFE8698?sequence=1

1

(2)  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-enabling-digital-transformation-health-and-care-digital-single-market-empowering

2

(3)  The CoR responded to this communication with an opinion on the digitalisation of health.

3

(4)  https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/05/25/public-finances-conclusions-on-age-related-spending/

4

(5)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8128&furtherPubs=yes

5

(6)  https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/ehealth/docs/2018_consultation_dsm_en.pdf

6

(7)  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/silver-economy-study-how-stimulate-economy-hundreds-millions-euros-year

7

(8)  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-deeper-and-fairer-internal-market-with-a-strengthened-industrial-base-labour/file-jd-european-accessibility-act

8

(9)  https://urbact.eu/

9

(10)  https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf

10

(11)  http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/333702/AFEE-tool.pdf?ua=1

11

(12)  https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/28/over-a-quarter-of-europeans-do-not-exercise-at-all-eurostat

12

(13)  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878764916300699

13

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/58

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Socioeconomic structural change in Europe’s coal regions

(2020/C 39/12)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Support for climate policy goals

| 1. | welcomes the EU Member States’ climate goals. At the conference in Paris in December 2015 197 states agreed on a global climate change agreement, which was also ratified by the EU Member States. In it, the states pledge to limit global warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase in average temperature to 1,5 °C; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | points out that in its Communication in the run-up to the UN climate summit in Katowice, the Commission states that the EU must achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 if it wishes to play a leading role globally. However, in order to achieve this goal, the EU must — in the end — largely abandon fossil fuels. Power generation from coal, in particular, must be significantly reduced; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | stresses that coal is currently still mined in 41 regions at NUTS-2 level in 12 Member States (including in the United Kingdom). These regions have in common the great economic importance of the coal and related sectors in terms of value creation and jobs. Apart from this, however, these regions differ widely, for example in terms of geographical location, economic development level and future demographic trajectory; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | points out that, in order to achieve the climate policy goals, these regions will have to abandon current value chains based on coal production or set them on a new foundation. In addition, in the short, medium and long term they also have to close coal mines (open cast and underground); |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | insists that the socioeconomic structural change in Europe’s coal regions takes place against the background of worldwide increasing efforts to phase out coal consumption. Draws in particular attention to a new normal in China, which consumes half of global coal production and accounts for a similar share of global imports, and where the domestic coal demand is now peaking, despite massive domestic production overcapacity. Also highlights a court decision in the Australian state of New South Wales, the world’s biggest coal exporting country, which for the first time prevented a company from developing new mines because its investment was not considered consistent with the Paris Agreement. Supports therefore international cooperation related to accompanying the phasing out of coal, such as by the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which includes, inter alia, 30 national governments and 22 subnational governments; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Alleviating the socioeconomic consequences of transition

| 6. | stresses that the planned further cut in coal production and electricity generation will bring with it a significant transformation in the economic structure, associated with a massive loss of employment, added value and purchasing power in these regions. Most coal regions are traditional industrial areas in which industrialisation was based on harnessing local resources. They are therefore mainly linked to the iron, steel and metal industries, the chemical industry and other energy-intensive industries; the objective must be to shape structural change in the coal regions in question in a way that is economically successful, environmentally sustainable and, above all, socially acceptable, with a view to achieving a more diversified and low-carbon economy; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | highlights the fact that, at present, 185 000 people are still employed in coal mines across Europe, and a further 52 000 work in coal-fired power plants. The coal industry is also indirectly linked to various economic sectors, such as production of inputs, equipment, services and consumer goods. According to a European Commission study, a further 215 000 workers are dependent on these linked activities. The study estimates that some 160 000 jobs could be lost by 2030 as a result of current plans to phase out coal mining and coal use for power generation; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | notes that the EU Member States made an agreement to be at the forefront of the global transition to a carbon neutral and circular economy. The resulting profound transformation of the entire energy system will create opportunities as well as difficulties. The energy transition that has been launched has already created a wealth of new jobs in Europe and, given future needs, should be continued. Care should be taken in the process to make sure that coal regions also benefit from these developments. The European strategy for achieving the climate goals should take on board the consequences for the regions; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | points out that experience to date from coal regions shows that these transition processes take a long time. A start should already be made now, therefore, on developing new prospects for coal regions and introducing measures. This will require considerable effort at all levels; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | stresses that one aspect of a successful transformation of the economic fabric is offering affected workers in the coal industry new prospects. This includes re-skilling them for new kinds of work. Access to new jobs in the region or in neighbouring regions should also be eased; |
| --- | --- |

10.

Promoting socioeconomic transformation in coal regions

| 11. | is convinced that the energy transition being aimed at, and hence the structural change in coal regions, is a European task. This requires taking a holistic approach, including, in particular, measures for infrastructure development, innovation, research and science, business support and development, development of skilled workers, marketing, culture and tourism; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | points out that a sustainable structural transformation in the regions should take advantage of existing strengths. The existing industrial and energy fabric should serve as the basis for future development and take into account the innovation and investment cycles of the existing industrial players. It is therefore necessary to build on regional industrial clusters and operational skills, the skills of professionals, and existing research and development strengths; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | points out that, given the starting position, there is a risk that very similar strategies for the transformation process are being developed in the regions affected. In order to avoid inefficiencies, for example due to duplication, there should be an exchange of information at European level; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | welcomes, therefore, the Platform on Coal Regions in Transition launched by the European Commission, which met for the first time on 11 December 2017. The aim of the platform is to support the 41 coal regions in 12 Member States of the EU in their efforts to modernise their economic structure and to prepare them for the structural and technological change. This work should be further stepped up; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | takes the view that this platform can be used as an interregional instrument to provide technical assistance at EU level through exchange of experience and coordinated access to the Commission’s services wherever necessary; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | highlights the fact that interregional and cross-border cooperation, for example as part of existing initiatives such as the Vanguard Initiative or in the context of a place-based approach under the Structural and Investment Funds, should play an important role in the approach to structural change: in this area, too, the EU could assume a stronger role in initiating and advancing such cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | stresses the need for a secure environment to generate long-term investment and create new jobs. As far as possible, this should further develop existing value chains in the regions. The CoR stresses that public and private investment should be encouraged, especially in view of current economic growth, in order to boost investment in the modernisation and decarbonisation of European industrial, transport and energy systems; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | stresses the need to strengthen the regions’ capacity for innovation. The CoR urges coal regions to develop a strategy to support existing businesses in their efforts to innovate, as well as new business start-ups, particularly in future-oriented areas such as digitalisation and artificial intelligence. In this context, it is very important to improve the environment for start-ups. The CoR points out that many coal regions tend to have smaller employers in industrial, commercial and craft sectors; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | takes the view that the scientific community plays a key role in the economic development of the regions. Coal regions should therefore also promote the establishment of universities with an emphasis on future technologies that can serve as clusters for setting up companies. However, this is where coordination at European level is particularly useful in order to avoid inefficient duplication. Here, too, there should be support for interregional cooperation in research; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | takes the view that modern and efficient transport and energy infrastructure, as well as digital infrastructure, is a prerequisite for successful structural change in order to make these areas a more attractive place for setting up a business. Europe-wide coordination and stronger networking also make sense here; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Financial support for coal regions

| 21. | stresses that building up new industries in the regions is a lengthy business that requires considerable financial resources. The CoR notes that local and regional authorities in coal regions need support in this, particularly since they will initially lose revenue as a result of coal production and coal-powered electricity generation being phased out. A large portion of the investment for economic development must come from public funds from the Member States concerned or by attracting new private investments. In this context, the CoR first calls on the Member States concerned to provide sufficient financial and other resources to this end; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | is of the opinion that cultural and industrial heritage stemming from the rich past, as well as sports infrastructure and tradition should play a positive role in this transformation and should not be viewed only as a burdensome legacy of better days gone by; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | calls for structural change to also be supported at European level. Even now, the European Regional Development Fund, in particular, is already an important instrument for promoting the regions. The European Social Fund, Horizon 2020 and the resources of the European Investment Bank also make a great contribution to regional development. However, the Committee points out that the funds provided there are not funnelled directly towards coal regions and that, in view of the challenges facing coal regions and the fact that they also benefit other regions, they are too limited. The CoR therefore calls for the provision of additional funds tailored to the needs of coal regions; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | underscores the fact that EU financial support makes particular sense where projects are to be implemented across national borders. Since all coal regions are currently undergoing structural change, collaboration between regions in developing forward-looking projects is particularly promising. It may also be useful to include adjacent regions in the strategies in order to create functional units; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | supports, in this context, the European Parliament’s call in the ongoing Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) negotiations for additional funding to mitigate the social, socioeconomic and environmental impact of structural change in European coal regions by means of a EUR 4,8 billion new Fair Energy Transition Fund; stresses however that this fund would have to be financed through additional resources and not from the envelope provided for the European Structural and Investment Funds; welcomes the fact that the Commission president-elect has also expressed support in the political guidelines presented in July 2019 for the principle of such a Fair Energy Transition Fund; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | considers, however, that the funding should be closely interlocked with cohesion policy, while the CoR calls for efforts to ensure that this funding is not calculated within the proposed limits of Annex XXII, but is made available as additional funding. This additional funding could then be used to strengthen the ERDF and ESF programmes for these NUTS 2 regions over the next seven years. This interlock would also allow for tailor-made support for all coal regions. This funding is intended to actively promote European added value and is to be open to all coal regions affected by structural change. Allocation criteria could include total employment in coal mining and the level of coal production in the reference year 2019; regions that have already started coal mine closures and have partially undergone such transitions should not be excluded provided that coal mining is still taking place; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | calls for funding to be likewise ERDF funding allocated directly to the regions where these coal mines are located. Support for the regions concerned would be linked to a specific strategy for phasing out coal assessed on the basis of verifiable targets; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | calls for this allocation to be financed from funding earmarked for the Reform Delivery Tool under the next Multiannual Financial Framework; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | invites the European Parliament and the Council to include this proposal for a special transitional allocation in the ongoing negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework; |
| --- | --- |

29.

Revising State aid rules

| 30. | points out that European law on State aid has to be taken into account in this connection and that the current State aid framework expires in 2020, unless the rules are extended by two years (to the end of 2022). The CoR calls on the Commission, when drawing up the new guidelines, to also take account of the problems linked to the structural change in coal regions and to ensure that coal regions have sufficient flexibility to enable them to phase out coal in a socially and economically viable way; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | points out that projects involving cross-border cooperation can already be supported from a State aid point of view, particularly when they are of common European interest. The relevant EU institutions should give more guidance to the regions in the planning and implementation of such projects; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | calls, in this context, for coal regions to be identified as assisted areas in accordance with Article 107(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and for the EU aid rules for these special regions to be adapted so as to enable measures to be taken to deal with structural change, in order to offset the absence of added value from politically overarching objectives. In addition, consideration should be given to whether such support measures could be based on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, given the high-profile and exemplary importance of the climate-resilient transformation of coal regions for EU energy and climate policy. In order to resolve these issues in a timely manner, it is proposed that a joint working group of representatives of interested coal regions and Member States, the Directorates-General for Competition and Regional Policy and the CoR be set up as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/62

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — African swine fever and the European pork market

(2020/C 39/13)

| Rapporteur | : | Sławomir SOSNOWSKI (PL/EPP), Lubelskie Voivodeship Councillor |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Sławomir SOSNOWSKI (PL/EPP), Lubelskie Voivodeship Councillor

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Political context

| 1. | observes that African swine fever (ASF) is a threat and a challenge at the local, regional, national and European level and that it is therefore necessary for the European Committee of the Regions to respond to this problem as the institution that is the voice of local and regional communities in the European Union and to participate in the mobilisation of all stakeholders to fight this very dangerous virus; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | stresses that the ASF epidemic is a threat to the environment, the economy and, most importantly, to people living in rural areas and who are involved in pig production mainly in Central and Eastern Europe; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | considers that the fight against ASF combines policy objectives in the common agricultural policy and the environment and in other policy and funding programme fields that address such issues as societal challenges and regional development, thereby ensuring a coherent approach across various sectors; within the 2020 budget previsions for agriculture support measures against African swine fever, supports the proposal for EUR 50 million for emergency measures and EUR 28 million for development of a vaccine/drug against the ASF; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | recognises that African swine fever is an international challenge. European regions should show solidarity on the threat posed by ASF to rural areas, the rural economy and agricultural processing. The speed at which the virus has spread to its current level could lead to the collapse of the European pork market and deprive hundreds of thousands of farmers of their source of income. This is a problem that is no longer local or regional, but has become a pan-European threat. The disease is currently present in several European countries:






  — | Poland (1 492 cases and 1 outbreak), |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

—

Poland (1 492 cases and 1 outbreak),

| — | Lithuania (728 cases of the disease in wild boars), |
| --- | --- |

—

Lithuania (728 cases of the disease in wild boars),

| — | Latvia (286 cases), |
| --- | --- |

—

Latvia (286 cases),

| — | Estonia (150 cases), |
| --- | --- |

—

Estonia (150 cases),

| — | Ukraine (26 cases, 22 outbreaks in pigs), |
| --- | --- |

—

Ukraine (26 cases, 22 outbreaks in pigs),

| — | Czechia (25 cases), |
| --- | --- |

—

Czechia (25 cases),

| — | Italy (24 cases, 2 outbreaks), |
| --- | --- |

—

Italy (24 cases, 2 outbreaks),

| — | Romania (3 outbreaks) |
| --- | --- |

—

Romania (3 outbreaks)

- data from 1.1-15.4.2018;

| 5. | believes that the grant referred to in Article 5(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) should always amount to 100 % in the event that a case of ASF is confirmed because ASF is a threat that has a major impact on public health and disruptive effects on the economy; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | draws particular attention to the need for cross-border cooperation on a par with that adopted in the event of natural disasters; points out that the problem also concerns the EU’s external borders, but believes that strengthening cross-border cooperation is essential and necessary. The Committee points out that there is a further and ongoing need to act together across borders to stabilise the situation in the EU’s neighbouring countries (the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova); |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | recognises a number of economic and social risks that a crisis brought on by ASF could trigger. In addition to the public health preoccupation and the impact on the EU pork market and associated major structural changes in pigmeat production, other branches of the economy could be affected, such as tourism, forestry, meat processing and trade. ASF also affects the image of individual countries, but also the EU as a whole; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Proposed measures

| 8. | welcomes the work of the European Parliament and the European Commission in combating ASF undertaken within the current financial perspective, but believes that it is necessary to plan for additional resources in the next multiannual financial framework, including significant spending on scientific research that aims to develop an effective vaccine against this virus; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | calls for a special, dedicated cross-border grant to be allocated to combat ASF as part of projects that are conducted jointly by at least two countries; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | believes that at the Member State level and at the level of the European Commission, intensive discussions should be held with the above-mentioned third countries on joint, coherent action in the fight against ASF and that the possibility of supporting these actions through cross-border programmes on food safety should be considered. CORLEAP could be an appropriate forum to discuss such cross-border actions; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | calls on and encourages all stakeholders:






  (a) | local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- | --- |

11.

(a)

local and regional authorities;

| (b) | hunters and farmers; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

hunters and farmers;

| (c) | veterinary services; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

veterinary services;

| (d) | national authorities of individual Member States; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

national authorities of individual Member States;

| (e) | the media; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the media;

to play an active and dynamic role in the process of combating ASF in Europe under the leadership of the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA);

| 12. | calls for increased funding for educational and informational activities among stakeholders with the aim of raising public awareness of the illness, how to prevent and combat it, as African swine fever poses an enormous threat to rural development, the local and regional economy, the environment, farming and, as a result, to humans and public health in particular; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | encourages local and regional authorities to disseminate information on the application of due diligence to prevent the spread of the disease, and to continue to cooperate on promoting biosecurity, particularly in small farms, and to take further joint measures in the event of an outbreak in border areas. This information should be provided to anyone who owns pigs and anyone else who comes into contact with wild boars; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | calls on hunters to step up epidemiological surveillance of wild fauna in the infected area and to increase hunting where there is an excessive amount of wild boars. The Committee recognises that, despite not being affected by the disease, people — particularly hunters — can cause the disease to spread through:






  — | any contact with infected animals, alive or dead (corpses), |
| --- | --- | --- |

14.

—

any contact with infected animals, alive or dead (corpses),

| — | contact with anything contaminated by the virus (e.g. clothing, vehicles, other equipment), |
| --- | --- |

—

contact with anything contaminated by the virus (e.g. clothing, vehicles, other equipment),

| — | feeding animals meat or meat products from infected animals (e.g. sausages or uncooked meat) or waste containing contaminated meat (e.g. kitchen waste, swill feed, including offal); |
| --- | --- |

—

feeding animals meat or meat products from infected animals (e.g. sausages or uncooked meat) or waste containing contaminated meat (e.g. kitchen waste, swill feed, including offal);

| 15. | believes that the effectiveness of the fight against the disease depends primarily on the size of the wild boar population. Action should therefore be taken to reduce the wild boar population in the concerned regions to regionally appropriate numbers. Cooperation programmes between the agricultural and environmental sectors (management of hunting, ban on additional feeding except where necessary for hunting (use of bait), farming practices) adapted to the specific situations of Member States should be promoted; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | appreciates the work done so far by the European Commission to combat ASF and at the same time suggests that the EC plan further grants, including in the new Horizon Europe programme, for action in this area, as all calls for proposals concerning ASF within the Horizon 2020 programme are currently closed; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | believes that farms affected by ASF should receive specific support from the EU which should be in the form of:






  (a) | reimbursement of the equivalent value of herds that were disposed of, without the imposition of additional conditions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

17.

(a)

reimbursement of the equivalent value of herds that were disposed of, without the imposition of additional conditions;

| (b) | application of a historical subsidy mechanism for a period of five years after the cessation of production caused by depopulation of the herd; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

application of a historical subsidy mechanism for a period of five years after the cessation of production caused by depopulation of the herd;

| (c) | financial assistance to re-orient farms towards another area of production; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

financial assistance to re-orient farms towards another area of production;

| (d) | assistance in implementing full biosecurity for farms that continue pig production and pig-fattening, and also in the event of crisis-associated financial burdens due to measures taken (e.g. inspections, transport provisions); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

assistance in implementing full biosecurity for farms that continue pig production and pig-fattening, and also in the event of crisis-associated financial burdens due to measures taken (e.g. inspections, transport provisions);

| (e) | assistance for pig producers and pig keepers in the case of lost income resulting from a destabilised pork market; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

assistance for pig producers and pig keepers in the case of lost income resulting from a destabilised pork market;

| (f) | assistance for farms that want to increase pig production using biosecurity on their farms; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

assistance for farms that want to increase pig production using biosecurity on their farms;

| (g) | support for farms affected by restrictions on plant production due to ASF; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

support for farms affected by restrictions on plant production due to ASF;

| (h) | assistance for farms that have carried out on-farm slaughter and produced on a small scale; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

assistance for farms that have carried out on-farm slaughter and produced on a small scale;

| (i) | disposal of all dead wild boars at the expense of the state; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

disposal of all dead wild boars at the expense of the state;

| 18. | is concerned by the further spread of the ASF virus and calls on the European Commission to continue its efforts, to monitor and to evaluate actions to combat ASF at EU level with the participation of local and regional authorities. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 1.

1

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/65

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Pastoralism

(2020/C 39/14)

| Rapporteur | : | Jacques Blanc (FR/EPP), Mayor of La Canourgue |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Jacques Blanc (FR/EPP), Mayor of La Canourgue

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

| 1. | considers that maintaining pastoralism is vital for farming across the EU in order to keep rural areas alive, and so for meeting the Lisbon Treaty objective of territorial cohesion, not to mention our environmental, climate-related and biodiversity protection objectives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | points out that pastoralism is under threat from a range of difficulties. These cannot be ranked in any particular order of gravity and apply differently in different regions, but some of them could suffice in themselves to jeopardise its very survival: difficulties in taking account of its specific characteristics when granting support under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (wooded and shrub pastures, mobility, communal pastures, etc.); difficulties arising from the economic context; competition for land; difficulties in handing on know-how; environmental constraints on the organisation of grazing; competition with other users of pasture, in particular for leisure purposes; and lastly the threat posed by large carnivores to livestock; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | requests that, as part of efforts to reorient CAP support, proper consideration be given to pastoralism and extensive, sustainable grazing, taking more closely into account their beneficial role in balanced territorial development to help meet our environmental and climate objectives, as recommended by the CoR in its opinion on CAP reform; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | welcomes the proposal by the European Parliament’s AGRI Committee on the regulation governing support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the Common Agricultural Policy, the aim of which is to amend Article 4 of the regulation with a view to recognising wooded and shrub pasture areas as agricultural production areas eligible for basic payments; nevertheless asks for the definitive version of this article to be revised in order to introduce the concept of pasture areas that may or may not include herbaceous resources (beneath trees, for example). In order to clarify the status of pasture areas and their eligibility for aid, they need to be recognised as an agricultural area distinct from permanent grassland. In order to define pastures areas separately from permanent grasslands, any reference to the need for herbaceous resources to be present should be omitted from the definition; combined areas of permanent grassland and pasture areas could be regrouped under the heading ‘permanent pasture’; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | recommends that areas used for pasture be fully recognised as agricultural production areas within a stable and secure regulatory framework which includes an effective CAP support ceiling as in other sectors; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | notes that pastoral livestock farming, which relies on the natural environment as a spontaneous source of feed for livestock, makes use of flexibility and security margins in order to cope with climate risks. Farmers therefore need designated ‘buffer’ areas which may not be used every year, or may be grazed with widely varying degrees of intensity, but which are necessary in the event of seasonal drought; these areas generally consist of heathland, water meadows and woods; the ongoing climate change increases the need for such areas; the provisions for recognising pasture areas in the first pillar should also recognise and ensure legal certainty for the use of these areas, a need that will not arise every year and cannot be predicted at the time of submitting the CAP files. Again, pastoralism develops agro-ecological practices of exchange with ecosystem services by making complementary use of areas allocated for other uses, including vineyards and orchards, something that helps reduce inputs and mechanised practices; European policies should recognise, encourage and find legally sound ways of developing practices enabling livestock farmers to make use of areas declared by other farmers. Furthermore, pastoralism also develops practices associated with silviculture, referred to as ‘silvopastoralism’, of mutual benefit to foresters and farmers alike; European public policies should recognise and encourage mixed use of these areas and practices which, under certain conditions, are particularly useful in protecting forests against fire and adapting livestock farming to climate change, as well as complying with the need for forestry regeneration and products; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | supports the proposal by the European Parliament’s ENVI Committee on the rules governing support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, aimed at establishing farm livestock density limits and limiting payments to farms that exceed such limits; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | welcomes the proposal by Parliament’s AGRI Committee to amend Article 68 of the same regulation so that the EAFRD can continue to support the purchase of dogs for the protection of livestock from large predators protected by the Habitat Directive; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | asks that it be made it compulsory for Member States with mountain areas to implement an integrated mountain policy making targeted use of a substantial part of the tools available (payments for natural constraints, support for second-pillar disadvantaged areas, a specific sub-programme for mountain areas), endowing it with a budget for these purposes that is commensurate with the importance of such areas; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | calls on the EU to recognise the ecosystem services provided by farmers and owners of mountain forest and of Mediterranean areas in their capacity as local knowledge holders as understood by the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), and to grant fair compensation in the light of these services which contribute to the well-being of the entire population; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | hopes that each Member State will have the option of applying certain measures under the first pillar (eco-schemes) and the second pillar to the entire pasture area, and not only to the area eligible for support. It should be possible to extend some measures, such as localised agri-environment-climate measures (AECMs) including the Forest Fire Defence Network (DFCI), to cover the entire geographical area; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | suggests, to support the continuation of farming in less favoured areas and areas with handicaps, that the compensatory allowance for natural handicaps (CANH) should be mandatory in those Member States where it may be applicable; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | encourages the Member States and local and regional authorities to finance investments in pastoral areas, as they often lack mechanised access. Providing infrastructure (shepherds’ accommodation, containment pens, fences, water point arrangements, and so forth) and carrying out maintenance work or clearing are essential for the sustainable management of these areas; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | takes the view that the integrated management of agricultural and pastoral land must be supported at local level. Where land is divided between multiple owners, the establishment of a suitable land organisation is vital for healthy pastoralism; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | encourages Member States and local and regional authorities to facilitate access to land for pastoral farmers, in particular through specific multiannual agreements guaranteeing exclusive use as pasture for livestock farmers or user collectives; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | encourages Member States and local and regional authorities to set up support systems suitable for collective management practices. In order to equip them with the infrastructure and human resources needed to make use of pasture areas, pastoral farmers have been required to develop, at a very early stage, original forms of collective organisation involving types of use that do not cause damage to the property. These authorise private property and communal land to be grouped together for use as pasture, within the same perimeter and under a single management body. They make for a secure relationship with the administration and the different types of partners or users; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | asks the EU to continue to stimulate the development of agricultural products bearing quality labels and to create added value by protecting high-quality agri-food products from pastoral livestock farming. The Member States must in particular be encouraged to use the ‘mountain product’ optional quality term, which is not always used in most countries despite having been adopted in 2014; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | calls for the term ‘milk, cheese and meat from grazing’ to be reserved for products that guarantee that more than 80 % of animal feed comes from pasture used during the grazing season; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | notes that farmers are affected by unfair competition from low-cost imports which are threatening the survival of pastoralism in Europe. This means that the EU has to provide compensation in the form of support for pastoral livestock farming, as for other sectors; calls on the EU to use its influence as the world’s largest food importer and exporter to change the international agricultural trade rules (WTO, 1994) so as to encourage greater fairness and solidarity in trade relations, as argued in the Committee’s opinion on the post-2020 CAP; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | welcomes the pilot project launched and supported by the European Parliament to set up regional platforms on wolves, bears, wolverines and lynxes in order to deal with conflict situations; calls for full recognition of the consequences of predation and of the need for protection of livestock and for appropriate management plans to be set up to handle them, and for all the relevant legal measures to be discussed, including those authorising selective culling, to make them more dissuasive; and notes that some regions have also taken the initiative of creating platforms for discussion; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | requests that cross-border cooperation on pastoralism be put in place to avoid instability caused by contradictory measures unsuited to Europe as a whole; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | calls for the biodiversity strategy to be based on a new specific fund for species conservation. The fund should cover compensation for damage caused by large carnivores, the cost of which is rising sharply, and the protection of livestock, something that can take up an increasing proportion of EAFRD funds at a time when the budget is being significantly reduced. If such a new fund is not created, the existing financial instruments at regional (where applicable), national and EU level (including the EAFRD) will have to be used; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | calls on the Commission to assess the need to revise the Habitat Directive based on the next State of Nature in the EU report in 2020, taking into account the results of the Action Plan for nature, people and the economy and the conservation status of the different species and habitats. A possible revision of the Habitat Directive should explore the opportunity to amend the annexes in the future by means of the comitology procedure in order to react more quickly to changes in specific populations and to either reduce or increase the protection status per country or territorial entity, where this is justified by the positive or negative trends in populations of protected species and by the threat to pastoralism; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | calls on the Commission to do more to include agronomy and zootechnical science in scientific studies in order to support political decisions. Decisions need to be based on the best available knowledge in the field of natural and social sciences and agronomy, and on experience with a sufficiently broad base and of a sufficient duration to guide public policy. In particular, there is a need for detailed information on the specific case-studies analysed on pastoralism and large carnivores in order to understand local conditions and gauge the extent to which examples of protection of livestock and management of large carnivores are effective and may or may not enhance collective thinking on the subject and guidance for other areas, and help draw the lessons from difficulties and set-backs. This would make it easier to bring EU texts and the necessary measures into line with local realities and consequently manage species, wolves in particular, more effectively; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | calls on the Commission to promote research on the recognition of the organoleptic properties of pastoral products and those of pastoral livestock; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | would ask the EU to develop an ambitious policy to safeguard forests against fire by promoting the presence of livestock in woods and heathland, which requires their prior recognition as areas of production, as pointed out above; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | welcomes the Unesco project on heritage and the EU aimed at using world heritage as a tool to enhance the economic and social sustainability of rural areas in Europe, and encourages the European institutions to support this initiative. Pastoral landscapes are included in the world heritage list, not only as cultural landscapes but also as relict landscapes or depictions in ancient cave sites, providing a boost for local tourism; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | calls on the EU to promote pastoral occupations. The Member States should give greater recognition to the work of pastoral livestock farmers and paid shepherds, and raise the profile of this occupation within and beyond the farm sector. Better training, in particular on leading animals to pasture and their health management, but also on the protection of livestock and the management of guard dogs, together with the introduction of mentoring schemes with experienced practitioners, would allow for better transfer of knowledge. With regard to shepherds, improving their living and working conditions in mountain pastures and in farming areas, including in Mediterranean areas, investing in infrastructure to provide decent living conditions and proper working conditions, drawing up collective agreements and organising job fairs to recruit seasonal workers are all incentives that should be built upon. In its opinion on innovation and the modernisation of the rural economy, the European Committee of the Regions specifically recommended modernising the vocational training provided in rural regions and adapting it to global competitive conditions and the needs of local businesses, and increasing the ESF funding allocated to vocational training in rural areas, which is currently very low. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/68

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Research infrastructures: The Future of the European Research Area (ERA) from a Regional and Cross-border Perspective

(2020/C 39/15)

| Rapporteur | : | Eamon Dooley (IE/Renew Europe), Councillor, Offaly County Council |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Eamon Dooley (IE/Renew Europe), Councillor, Offaly County Council

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

| 1. | welcomes the European Commission’s overall approach to identifying the key role that research infrastructure can and does play in the advancement of knowledge and technology. Research infrastructures (RIs) and their use are fundamental for the development of the European Research Area (ERA). In this regard, supports the work of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) that has an important role in policy-making on research infrastructure at EU level and assists in creating a single European market for science; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | highlights that research infrastructures have a deeply territorial character. They are critical for regional development, extending from scientific output to the impact on educational ecosystems to overall market and societal benefits; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | notes that the ESFRI Strategic Roadmap identifies RIs of pan-European interest as contributing to meeting the long-term needs of Europe’s research communities across many scientific areas and moreover welcomes the fact that it identifies investment into RIs as a method of increasing regional competitiveness and thus cohesion between the different Member States and regions; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | highlights that RIs have a key role to play in combating global challenges in the areas of environmental and climate change which impact our society on all levels from the local to regional, national, European and on a global scale; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | in addition, reaffirms the conclusion of previous CoR opinions that LRAs play a key role in the creation of effective innovation ecosystems especially through the strategic identification of regional research priorities by the development of Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3s) (1); |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | notes that Europe has developed a successful medium- to long-term vision for the development of a coherent RI ecosystem where cooperation between existing infrastructure is encouraged while, in parallel, plans are being put in place to construct and develop the next generation of RIs as defined by the ESFRI; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | agrees with the conclusions of the European Council that a well-functioning ERA will contribute significantly to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall European research and innovation ecosystem and recognises the importance of a close partnership between Member States and the European Commission in jointly working towards strengthening the ERA especially through Horizon Europe as the main funding instrument (2). Regrets though that the Council does not sufficiently recognise the role LRAs can play in this process; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | is concerned that there remain various shortcomings in the ERA framework with regards to RIs, resulting in an implementation gap that reduces potential benefits and efficiencies; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | welcomes the Commission’s proposed budget allocation of EUR 100 billion to finance science, research and innovation during the 2021-2027 period in order to address these shortcomings. At the same time, is concerned at the risk of inequalities growing between cities and regions that benefit from the framework programme for research and innovation, and whose budgets will increase, and the others, who will suffer the consequences of the fall in cohesion policy budgets (3); |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | last but not least, recognises that demonstrating EU added value in any EU policy is crucial, in particular, bearing in mind that such policies are increasingly scrutinised. Notes that recent analysis shows that, while progress on ERA implementation continues, it is occurring at a slower pace than before and there remains large disparities between MS’s in both performance levels and growth rates (4). Therefore emphasises the need for better communication of European R&I impact through more robust and clear statistics; |
| --- | --- |

10.

Challenges to ERA, as identified from the regional and cross-border perspective

| 11. | regrets that the share of research funding by the government sector in the EU stagnated at around 2,03 % between 2014 and 2016 (5). This demonstrates that the share of national income spent on R & D is still well below the Barcelona target of 3 % of gross domestic product set in 2002 and that less than 1 % of national R & D funding is spent on transnational research (6); |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | is concerned, furthermore, that the R & D gross domestic expenditure imbalance is also reflected at regional level, leading to the fact that there are just 31/281 NUTS 2 regions that reported R & D investments above the EU target of 3,0 % in 2015, with clear research-intensive ‘clusters’ throughout certain regions in the EU. These regions are located mostly in Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, France and Finland (7); |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | notes that the implementation of the ERA shows also variations between the allocation of Horizon 2020 funding and R&I investment under ESI funds. EU-13 Member States are the main recipients of ESI funds whereas the application of the excellence criterion under Horizon 2020 has led to a concentration of funding as well as R&I capacities mainly in the EU-15, widening the innovation gap between the EU-15 and EU-13 (8); |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | warns that long term sustainability is another key challenge facing RIs, especially large-scale pan-European infrastructures which are extremely expensive to construct, maintain and operate, with construction costs frequently exceeding EUR 1 billion, with a related annual operational cost of approximately 10 % of construction costs. With national science budgets often equalling or exceeding such costs the question of their long-term sustainability remains an ongoing issue (9); |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | recognises that costs associated with access to RI facilities, especially in cross-border situations can be a barrier to researchers, and thus inhibit scientific advancement; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | warns that especially, in order to address the so-called grand challenges, such as climate change, RIs must be capable of integrating with neighbouring RIs, thus creating greater knowledge-sharing and contributing to interdisciplinary research. In this regard, digital research infrastructure is of the utmost importance and therefore the CoR supports increased open data availability through the European Open Science Cloud; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | notes that human resources are an important component of RIs. Human resource policy and management defines the quality and quantity of staff that can be recruited and is crucial to ensure the proper implementation, operation and impact of the RIs (10). Therefore, the skills development and mobility of managers and the development of RI user skills are critical; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | is concerned that the impact of R&I infrastructures on industry and society is still underdeveloped. Recognises however that the Commission is making efforts to convert Europe’s scientific expertise into marketable products and services; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | recognises that for RIs to impact wider society, they must also service industry needs. Hence, a robust, interconnected RI ecosystem should be capable of generating responses across disciplines to address complex problems; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | has been warned that communication about existing and future RIs, in connection with research and development projects that are being performed at these infrastructures need to be more effectively communicated to the citizens, as part of the overall EU communication on benefits of the EU for its citizens; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Research infrastructure: policy recommendations

| 21. | calls on the new European Commission to continue monitoring whether Member States and regions respect their obligation to devote 3 % of GDP to R & D until the end of the current decade; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | urges to this effect the Commission to swiftly propose the successor to the Europe 2020 Strategy, which should include quantified targets also in the field of R & D; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | believes that further strengthening of shared efforts is needed at all levels together with further reforms to national and regional research and innovation systems to realise a well-functioning ERA and help spread excellence through synergies. Therefore, generally agrees with Commission proposals to include new initiatives to enhance the effectiveness of RIs in the 2021-27 programming period including the use of regional funds, a European reform delivery tool and Horizon Europe, which includes a dedicated pillar to help strengthen the ERA (11); |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | believes that RIs create regional opportunities to compete for EU funds in RI investments which can result in the development of innovation hubs within distributed RI. Considers that, to ensure Long-term sustainability for RIs, additional, specific funding models are required across the whole RI lifecycle to address funding gaps where European, national or other funding sources are insufficient. Specifically, dedicated budget lines are needed for:






  — | funding pre-construction or pre-operational phases; |
| --- | --- | --- |

24.

—

funding pre-construction or pre-operational phases;

| — | funding ongoing RI operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

funding ongoing RI operations; and

| — | funding human resources, i.e. staff salaries, recruitment, retention and training. |
| --- | --- |

—

funding human resources, i.e. staff salaries, recruitment, retention and training.

This could include more creative use of funds from ESIF, Interreg, Framework and loans from the European Investment Bank, but also include Erasmus+, Digital Europe, COSME, Connecting Europe Facility, LIFE, etc., potentially along a co-funding model with national research funds. This is critical to the long-term sustainability of RIs;

| 25. | supports furthermore the ‘Spreading excellence and widening participation (12)’ approach, in combination with making the EU state aid rules more R&I friendly as a mechanism to equalise supports and realise the full research potential of all EU regions, including those outside the research-intense clusters; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | fully supports the initiative that combines Horizon 2020, the European Fund for Strategic Investments and the Programme for the competitiveness of enterprises and small and medium sized enterprises to launch Venture EU with a view to boost venture capital in Europe and provide more private investment for research activities (13); |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | suggests that Horizon Europe should include specific actions to enable RI access, including making costs related to access eligible for funding, as this can facilitate the development of RI services as well as ensuring long-term sustainability; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | calls for more actions enabling increased open access to RI infrastructure and suggests that this can be achieved using a series of measures:






  — | costs relating to access to RI facilities should be eligible under the next framework programme; |
| --- | --- | --- |

28.

—

costs relating to access to RI facilities should be eligible under the next framework programme;

| — | free access (excellence-based or open wide access) to services developed or tested in the context of approved projects; |
| --- | --- |

—

free access (excellence-based or open wide access) to services developed or tested in the context of approved projects;

| — | funding dedicated to promotion and communication with the potential user community of RIs. |
| --- | --- |

—

funding dedicated to promotion and communication with the potential user community of RIs.

| 29. | supports greater harmonisation and standardisation of access rules and procedures, especially the development of access charters to ensure fairness and consistency (14); |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | is especially supportive of linking R&I policy with the development and implementation of S3 as these are innovative approaches to boosting economic growth, job creation based on identified regional needs, linking and involving regions in R&I activities. Furthermore, these offer the possibility of inter-regional and peer-to-peer collaborations in the implementation of RIS3 by LRAs to refine objectives, and develop synergies and better alignment; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | calls for greater involvement of local and regional authorities in the design and implementation of R&I initiatives due to the importance that small and medium RI facilities have for local and regional development and as many of those initiatives are implemented at the local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | reiterates its support for the creation of a European network of regional ecosystems and innovation hubs by creating synergies between existing European, national and regional strategies and linking regional ecosystems and innovation hubs to key industrial value chains to promote a competitive RD&I ecosystem and thereby maximise the next Framework Programme’s impact on society (15); |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | calls for more integrated cross-regional and cross-border RI campuses to strengthen opportunities to establish close links to actors in regional ecosystems, i.e. local research infrastructure, incubators, technological parks, universities. Consequently, expresses its strong support for strategic initiatives like ASTRONET or APPEC; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | notes that higher education has a key role in providing the future-orientated skills and competencies to successfully innovate. Calls for the creation of stronger structured collaborations between RIs and universities leading to greater mobility and exchange programmes between these sectors; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | supports the new direction of ESFRI for greater interdisciplinary interfaces and greater coordination between ESFRI and national strategies and roadmaps to ensure better coordination and more efficiency in the RI ecosystem, as a robust, interconnected RI ecosystem should be capable of generating responses across disciplines to address complex problems; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | supports concretely spreading the delivery of intelligence about publicly funded innovations and innovators and their market readiness through the use of the innovation radar (16); |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | supports the use of common evaluation criteria, building on existing quality assurance mechanisms as a means of achieving cross-border comparability, and supports the EU Council decision of May 2018 encouraging Member States to develop a common approach to monitoring RI performance (17); |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | calls on the European Commission and the Member States to work closely together with local and regional administrations to collect information on RIs and activities connected to them including mapping of activities and outputs, in order to increase awareness by citizens of its contribution for them as individuals, as well as for the regional, national and European economy. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  CoR: Smart Specialisation Strategies (RIS3): impact for regions and inter-regional cooperation (2017).

1

(2)  Council of the European Union: Draft Council conclusions on the Governance of the European Research Area. Brussels, November 2018.

2

(3)  CoR Opinion on Horizon Europe: The Framework Programme 9 for Research and Innovation (COR-2018-03891) (OJ C 461, 21.12.2018, p. 79).

3

(4)  European Research Area Progress Report 2018; COM(2019)83.

4

(5)  Eurostat, Europe 2020 indicators — R & D and innovation.

5

(6)  EPRS: European Added Value Unit: PE 603.239 – December 2017.

6

(7)  Eurostat, Europe 2020 indicators — R & D and innovation.

7

(8)  European Parliament Briefing: European Research Area Regional and Cross-Border Perspective. PE 637.939 April 2019.

8

(9)  SWD(2017) 323 final: Sustainable European Research Infrastructures — A Call for Action.

9

(10)  ENEA; Reflection Paper on Research Infrastructure — the Future of the ERA from a regional and cross-border perspective; May 2019.

10

(11)  European Commission: ERA progress report 2018: (2019)83 Page 4.

11

(12)  https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/spreading-excellence-and-widening-participation

12

(13)  European Commission: A Renewed European Agenda for Research and Innovation – Europe’s Chance to shape its Future: EU May 2018. COM(2018) 306 final

13

(14)  ENEA: Reflection Paper on Research Infrastructures – the Future of the ERA from a Regional and Cross-Border Perspective. May 2019.

14

(15)  CoR: Draft opinion. A renewed European Agenda for R&I. Europe’s chance to shape its future. 2019.

15

(16)  Innovation Radar: Identifying Innovations and Innovators with High Potential in ICT FP7, CIP, & H2020 projects.

16

(17)  EU; Conclusions of the Council of the European Union-Accelerating knowledge circulation in the EU. May 2018. Doc 9507/1.

17

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/72

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Implementing the Paris Agreement through innovative and sustainable energy transition at regional and local level

(2020/C 39/16)

| Rapporteur | : | Witold STĘPIEŃ (PL/EPP) Member of the Łódzkie Regional Assembly |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reference document | : | Own-initiative opinion |

Rapporteur

:

Witold STĘPIEŃ (PL/EPP) Member of the Łódzkie Regional Assembly

Reference document

:

Own-initiative opinion

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Implementing the Paris Agreement through rapid, effective and multi-level energy transition

| 1. | points out that an innovative and sustainable energy transition requires a profound change throughout the entire energy system – production, transmission and consumption – with a direct impact on infrastructure, the market, the environment and society. It is an opportunity to build a more secure, fair and transparent energy market, to create cross-border networks, to improve access to and distribution of renewable energy, to eradicate energy poverty and to safeguard rights for consumers and prosumers in the energy system; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | recognises the findings of the special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and strongly agrees that limiting global warming to 1,5 °C above pre-industrial levels requires immediate action and a broad transition across sectors to a sustainable, low-emission energy system (1). The scale of this transition requires integrated solutions and close cooperation across all levels of government and civil society to meet the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the objectives of the Paris Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | welcomes the recognition received by the European Parliament (2) of the need for an anticipatory approach to ensure a just transition for EU citizens and to support the regions most affected by decarbonisation, as moving towards a climate neutral Europe makes the economy more competitive, protects the planet and improves health and well-being of our citizens; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | welcomes the proposal of President-elect Ursula von der Leyen of A European Green Deal with first European Climate Law to enshrine the 2050 climate neutrality target, and in particular the creation of a new Just Transition Fund that will help the coal regions to move towards clean energy while boosting European competitiveness; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | calls on the Commission and the Member States to support a strong medium-term target in line with the Energy Union objectives, as a crucial stepping stone to net-zero Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 (3), and to increase the level of ambition of the Union’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) (4) with an economy-wide target of at least 50 % domestic GHG emission reductions by 2030 compared with 1990 levels, with a special focus on those sectors whose emissions are not as yet limited under the effect of the EU emissions trading system; reiterates its call for more ambitious but at the same time realistic targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy at EU level, which should be raised to 40 % by 2030, and extensive support for the development of innovative technologies allowing further progress; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | calls for adequate engagement and empowerment of all levels of government in the development, implementation and monitoring of effective and target-oriented climate and energy action. Underlines the large responsibility that lies with the Member States and the EU, as they set the general conditions. Believes that local and regional authorities (LRAs) are best placed to engage their communities, attract private investors and implement ambitious and timely action, acting not only as administrators but also as energy service providers and significant purchasers of energy services (e.g. electricity grids, heating services, public transport, lighting). Underlines, in addition, that LRAs can lead by example and inspire their communities. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Transferring knowledge and fostering cohesion to enable a one-speed energy transition for Europe: supporting coal- and carbon-intensive regions as well as islands

| 7. | notes that climate change is a global challenge and progress made by the EU towards reaching a climate neutral economy by 2050 must be met by similar commitments by third countries; in this regard, highlights the risk to the EU's global competitiveness caused by third countries not pursuing equally ambitious climate targets. Therefore, calls on the Commission and Member State to maintain climate change as a strategic diplomatic priority in order to achieve a global level playing field; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | underlines the importance of managing the energy transition from the levels closest to citizens, and understanding local and regional characteristics and financial, historical, geographical and geopolitical constraints and needs; calls on the Member States, with the support of the European institutions, to show more solidarity and to develop a one-speed, sustainable energy transition while fostering economic development and social cohesion in Europe, focusing particular attention and support on coal regions, carbon intensive regions and islands suffering depopulation that will be hard hit by job losses in the wake of this transition; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | welcomes the Commission’s initiatives, including the Coal and Carbon-Intensive Regions in Transition and the Clean Energy for EU Islands initiatives, intended to support and provide technical assistance for regions that are more vulnerable to economic and social risks, whose characteristics hinder this transition and make implementing it properly more difficult and urgent; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | points out that there are currently 41 coal regions at NUTS-2 level in 12 EU countries (including the United Kingdom), and the coal sector provides approximately 240 000 direct jobs in coal mines and coal power plants, as well as around 215 000 indirect jobs. In addition, there are regions highly dependent on carbon intensive activities, including iron, steel or peat. Therefore, calls on the EU and the Member States to provide financial and technical support to ensure security of supply in the regions affected by systemic changes, and to mitigate the negative social and economic aspects of the transition; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | notes that over 2 200 inhabited European islands, which are home to 12 million people, are particularly affected by the energy transition as they suffer from a combination of high energy prices and high dependence on fossil fuels. Meanwhile, islands can provide valuable test-beds for scalable sustainable energy solutions for shifting to a fossil-free system, and curtailing the current fossil fuel subsidies; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | supports the development of regional innovation hubs with a view to bringing together research, academia and industry; notes that these hubs should act as a sounding board, informing and raising awareness among citizens and local communities and providing space for designing and implementing the regional innovation strategies in an interactive manner; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | as the clean energy transition has already created 2 million jobs across the EU, calls for the establishment of regional vocational training centres in the context of the energy transition to provide capacity building (including digital skills) and training to repurpose labour skills towards more sustainable industries; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | also calls for more emphasis to be placed on the energy transition under the Erasmus and Erasmus plus programme to raise awareness and give additional opportunities to individuals affected by the transition to improve their opportunities through exchanges and knowledge sharing; reiterates its support for ‘strategic partnerships’ (5) under decentralised management, to allow for the exchange of best practices in energy innovation between LRAs through cross-border and transnational projects; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | underlines how, thanks to their history, coal- and carbon-intensive regions should be appreciated for their own economic development and the importance of energy for the development of civilization. Many of them have gained specialist knowledge and cultural awareness of the significance of changing patterns in energy production and are open to innovation and economic and social development in the energy sector. These traditions (resources) and possibilities should be used for the development of regional strategies, including knowledge transfer and reskilling, channelling expertise and labour into low-carbon technologies and innovations; |
| --- | --- |

15.

Investing in a future-proof energy transition for Europe

| 16. | notes that the energy transition provides a great opportunity to invest in future-proof infrastructure and to drive a transformation that would benefit the quality of life of all Europeans. Therefore, calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide LRAs with adequate resources, mandates and support to speed up the energy transition across Europe; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | in this context, welcomes the announcement of President-elect Ursula von der Leyen to establish a new Just Transition Fund and calls for the funding to be closely interlocked with the 2021-2027 cohesion policy to allow the affected coal NUTS 2 regions to strengthen their operational programmes since they face the biggest challenges in greening their economies and ensuring a just energy transition for their citizens; This allocation should not be calculated within the proposed limits of Annex XXII, but it should be made available as additional funding. This additional funding could then be used to strengthen the ERDF and ESF programmes for these NUTS 2 regions over the next seven years actively promoting the EU added-value; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | in addition to increased budget climate mainstreaming, calls for effective measures to gradually end direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels (such as for example the existing tax exemptions for aircraft-fuel) in order to create a level playing field for renewable energies, encourage behavioural change and generate the necessary resources to support a just transition; welcomes in this context the debate launched by Commission President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, with regard to Carbon pricing and carbon border tariffs; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | stresses the importance of co-funding rates for EU funds to facilitate access to them for small communities and islands; calls to strengthen their capacity to be used as energy transition ‘laboratories’, by devising innovative solutions and coordinated policy action focusing on policy frameworks, regulatory measures, funding, cooperation and stakeholder engagement; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | welcomes the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework proposal with its focus on sustainable development and reiterates its call to earmark over 30 % of the budget for climate policy mainstreaming; calls for increased support for the development of smart specialisation strategies to scale up and bring innovative products and processes to the European market (6); welcomes the proposed research focus area of climate-neutral and smart cities under Horizon Europe with a view to boosting research and innovation across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | recommends raising the funding rate from the 60 % proposed to 70 % for profit-oriented organisations and 100 % for public authorities and non-profit organisations in the LIFE sub-programme on Clean Energy Transition, and continuing to attract LRAs and smaller organisations such as local energy agencies; welcomes the establishment of the InvestEU Fund, and suggests leveraging this opportunity to facilitate the energy transition, particularly in vulnerable regions; proposes that these programmes reward projects carried out in regions in transition with an additional score; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | in view of the state aid framework post-2020, calls for an increase in the level of permissible state aid as well as sufficient flexibility for projects related to the energy transition in coal regions, carbon intensive regions and islands, as well as local communities in order to encourage investment by the business sector; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | calls for the creation of mechanisms for greater support and financing of energy transition projects in regions classified as coal- and carbon-intensive. There are several reasons for this: 1) we should not wait until the consequences of the transition affect these regions in ways that will no longer be possible to counteract; 2) it should be possible to increase the maximum levels of aid to all undertakings, in particular large enterprises, given their capacity to invest in a given territory and their potential to encourage change; 3) it should be possible to implement other measures to mitigate the effects of the transition, e.g. increasing the level of ERDF funding; 4) coal regions should be identified as assisted areas in accordance with Article 107(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the EU aid rules for those regions should be adapted accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | reiterates its call to reduce red tape and simplify the mechanisms related to the preparation of projects and capacity building in LRAs; reiterates its call for the further implementation of tailor-made technical assistance to help cities and regions secure investment for ambitious projects, both to access the European Investment Bank’s JASPERS and ELENA programmes and to develop bankable projects, including smaller-scale projects; looks forward in this context to the proposals announced by Commission President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen on a European climate bank; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | calls for more synergies between various funding sources at the EU, national and regional levels, as well as stronger synergies between public and private financing in order to increase the effectiveness of the clean energy transition; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | supports the development of a coal and carbon intense regions financial facility to provide financial and technical assistance from a very early stage in project development; recommends linking the newly developed regional strategies with comprehensive divestment plans from fossil fuels and unsustainable practices, while creating opportunities for high-quality employment; |
| --- | --- |

26.

Driving innovation and applying technology strategically

| 27. | points out that LRAs already act as facilitators and catalysts of social, governmental and technological innovation, by providing organisational and institutional platforms for stakeholders to engage and co-develop strategies for a fair, sustainable and innovative energy transition; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | points out that a wide range of technical solutions for a cost-effective, climate-neutral Europe are already available on the market, and that with the current technologies, up to 86 % of CO2 emissions (7) can be reduced in an interconnected energy system; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | draws attention to the need to encourage innovative energy storage solutions that do not depend on natural resources that are scarce or highly concentrated in geographical terms; also draws attention to the need to make progress with carbon capture, use and storage technologies and commercial processes for those industrial processes that cannot be completely decarbonised with the current level of knowledge (e.g. integral steelworks); |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | highlights that the main barriers to rapid implementation of low-carbon technologies are related to the lack of financial and human resources, to existing policies, regulations and organisational structures still dependent on fossil-fuel based value chains, as well as to socio-cultural factors such as a lack of social acceptance, since in coal regions this could lead to job losses and a decline in population. Agrees therefore that innovation should stem from specific local contexts and immediately address the impact on the overall system and community and counteract processes that cause a lack of public acceptance; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | calls for further administrative simplification and reduction of regulatory barriers concerning the development and implementation of new and innovative technologies and business models; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | calls for the integrity and operation of the EU Emission Trading Scheme to be improved, while providing support for vulnerable regions and groups with a reliable and affordable sustainable energy supply; |
| --- | --- |

32.

Complex challenges require shared solutions: enabling contributions to the achievement of the Paris Agreement at all levels

| 33. | stresses the need to engage all actors — citizens, industry, private — bringing on board in particular the reluctant participants in this process, by shining a spotlight on all the co-benefits of the energy transition: better air quality, health, environment, green spaces, biodiversity, cheaper energy, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | welcomes the adoption of the Clean Energy for All Package (8) and underlines the importance of effective public participation and regional cooperation in the development and implementation of the National Energy and Climate Plans (9). Calls on the Member States to roll out a permanent multi-level climate and energy dialogue with LRAs and other stakeholders in the energy transition (10) and to strengthen systematic horizontal and vertical coordination of political and technical decision making, as this dialogue with local and regional authorities and energy agencies is crucial if they are to have detailed local knowledge; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | stresses the urgent need to fully leverage the complementarity between NDCs and Locally/Regionally Determined Contributions (L/RDCs), by supporting voluntary local and regional integrated plans (11), aligning reporting requirements and maximising impacts across sectors (12) and government levels; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | highlights that more than 9 000 LRAs across Europe have committed to ambitious targets to reduce GHG emissions and tackle climate change by participating in initiatives such as the European Covenant of Mayors, and by developing strategies and action plans in direct response to their community’s needs and vision for a sustainable future; |
| --- | --- |

36.

Shaping a people-centred energy transition

| 37. | acknowledges that citizens and energy communities now have unprecedented opportunities to become ‘prosumers’ (active market participants) and welcomes the formal establishment of local energy communities in the Clean Energy Package, and calls for the provision of a clear set of rights and obligations, and requirements for national level support to fully operationalise the potential of such structures; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | in order to make consumers more independent and responsible for their own energy consumption, reiterates its call to put in place smart grids and meters (provided that the economic interest of the end user is met) that are affordable, cost effective, efficient, strong on reducing fraud, easy to use, safe and adapted to consumers’ needs and expectations with regard to information, taking control of their consumption and reducing their bills; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | encourages the Commission and the Member States to fully harness the potential of decentralised production by prosumers, supporting the development of energy grids and by ensuring regulatory certainty for small- to large-scale energy investments, stepping up access to digitalised transmission and distribution systems, services and platforms for consumers; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | highlights the need for clear market rules, stable policies, simplified and flexible administrative procedures and targeted financial support schemes to speed up the energy transition; |
| --- | --- |

40.

Strengthening synergies for a systemic shift across sectors

| 41. | recognises the thermal sector as an essential component for a sector-coupling and the most cost-effective solution that allows the integration of shares of variable renewable energy of up to 87 % and more, with technologies already available, while providing flexibility and ensuring the stability of an overall integrated sustainable energy system (13); notes that there are currently extreme energy losses such as excess heat within the electricity production, which theoretically would be able to supply Europe’s entire building stock (14) that is directly responsible for 36 % of CO2 emissions, and almost 75 % of which is considered energy-inefficient (15); |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | underlines that a sustainable energy transition needs to consider the energy system as a whole, with interlinked production, supply, distribution and consumption; fully supports the primary imperative of efficiency and the commitment to increase the existing target of 32 % to 40 % renewable energy by 2030 in order to reduce the pace of anthropogenic global warming and reach climate neutrality by 2050, and calls for an integrated and cross-sectoral energy market in which energy loss is regulated and renewable energy can be supplied efficiently; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | draws attention to the challenges faced by the outermost regions in implementing a sustainable energy transition. In this regard, the Committee calls on the European Commission to recognise the inherent constraints on these regions and to adopt legislation that allows them to be placed at least on an equal footing with other European regions; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | highlights that the energy transition provides an opportunity to shape a more secure and future-proof energy system by increasing energy efficiency and lowering consumption, scaling up renewable energies, and building infrastructure and interconnections across Europe in order to respond quickly to supply disruptions. Supports therefore the development of synergies between urban and rural areas to combine their potentials related to renewable energy production and energy waste management by using optimised, low-loss and more resilient energy infrastructures; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | highlights the importance of the circular economy as an integrated part of a sustainable energy transition, using lifecycle concepts for the demand and supply of infrastructures, products and services; Public procurement offers great potential for reducing climate impact. This should be supported by ecodesign requirements, standards and information systems for life cycle data, both at EU level and in the Member States, emphasises innovation procurement as a strategic instrument to support this integrated approach, in which LRAs can play a crucial role to ensure multi-sectoral implementation and up scaling. |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | stresses that to achieve a multi-level transition, as regards both the regions and the municipalities LRAs could appoint energy managers to efficiently coordinate climate and energy policies at different levels; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | encourages its members to set up an intergroup that would bring together representatives of coal and carbon intensive regions, as well as the experts and relevant stakeholders to work on concrete proposals for an innovative and sustainable energy transition and exchange best practices across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

47.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  A worldwide scenario in line with the Paris Agreement objectives would call for RES to supply 70-85 % of electricity by 2050. According to the 2017 statistics released by the EEA, the energy supply sector is the largest contributor (28 %) of direct GHG emissions in the EU.

1

(2)  European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2019 on climate change – a European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy in accordance with the Paris Agreement (2019/2582(RSP)).

2

(3)  COM(2018) 773 final.

3

(4)  In the NDCs, the EU and its Member States have committed to a target of at least 40 % domestic reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 1990.

4

(5)  CDR 3950/2018 (OJ C 168, 16.5.2019, p. 49).

5

(6)  COM(2018) 374 final.

6

(7)  HRE 2050 scenario compared to 1990, Quantifying the Impact of Low-carbon Heating and Cooling Roadmaps (en).

7

(8)  The Clean Energy for All Package sets targets for 2030: a binding renewable energy target of at least 32 % and an energy efficiency target of at least 32,5 %, which may be revised upwards in 2023.

8

(9)  Regulation (EU )2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 1).

9

(10)  CDR 830/2017 (OJ C 342, 12.10.2017, p. 111).

10

(11)  Such as SECAPs under the Covenant of Mayors.

11

(12)  Including electricity, heating and cooling, transport, waste, agriculture and their subsectors.

12

(13)  HRE 2050 scenario compared to 1990, Quantifying the Impact of Low-carbon Heating and Cooling Roadmaps (en).

13

(14)  Guidelines for the Energy System Transition. The Energy Union Perspective (en).

14

(15)  EASME, High energy performing buildings — Support for innovation and market uptake under Horizon 2020 energy efficiency.

15

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/78

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the regions — Smart cities: new challenges for a just transition toward climate neutrality — how to implement the SDGs in real life?

(2020/C 39/17)

| Rapporteur-General | : | Andries GRYFFROY (BE/EA), Member of the Flemish Parliament |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reference document | : | Letter of referral from the Finnish Presidency |

Rapporteur-General

:

Andries GRYFFROY (BE/EA), Member of the Flemish Parliament

Reference document

:

Letter of referral from the Finnish Presidency

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | recognises that a smart city is a place where traditional networks and services are made more efficient with the use of digital and telecommunication technologies for the benefit of its inhabitants and business. Beyond the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for better resource use and less emissions, a smart city involves a more interactive and responsive city administration that better services its population through smarter urban transport networks, upgraded water supply and waste disposal facilities, and more efficient ways to light and heat buildings that leaves no one behind; a smart city must also be a place where emphasis is put on creating inclusive and accessible structures for education and training, to develop the capacities and talents of the population and ensure their ability to participate in their community’s development. Welcomes the increased focus of the UN Sustainable Development Goals precisely for this reason, namely that they draw attention to the fact that sustainability requires a holistic view of all aspects covered by them; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | as already pointed out in the opinion on Multilevel governance and cross-sectoral cooperation to fight energy poverty (rapporteur: Kata Tüttő (HU/PES) (1), also flags up the need to factor in energy poverty when framing the various policies and considers that the clear acknowledgement of the fact that the social impact must also be taken into account when drawing up current and future energy and climate policies is one of the most important policy developments of recent years; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | as already stated in the opinion on ‘Smart Cities and Communities — European Innovation Partnership’ by Mr Ilmar Reepalu (SE/PES), reaffirms the importance of recognising the existing great variety of urban settlements, be they considered cities or not, and the importance of their relationship and complementarity with the surrounding rural territories; as already stated in the opinion on ‘Revitalisation of rural areas through Smart Villages’ by Mr Enda Stenson (IE/EA), also reaffirms that ‘in common with the Smart City model, a Smart Rural Areas initiative should take a broad approach to development and innovation to include the following six dimensions:






  — | a smart, innovative, entrepreneurial and productive economy, |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

—

a smart, innovative, entrepreneurial and productive economy,

| — | improved mobility, with accessible, modern and sustainable transport networks, |
| --- | --- |

—

improved mobility, with accessible, modern and sustainable transport networks,

| — | an environmental and sustainable energy vision, |
| --- | --- |

—

an environmental and sustainable energy vision,

| — | qualified and engaged citizens, |
| --- | --- |

—

qualified and engaged citizens,

| — | quality of life in terms of culture, health, safety and education |
| --- | --- |

—

quality of life in terms of culture, health, safety and education

| — | an efficient, transparent and ambitious administration,’ |
| --- | --- |

—

an efficient, transparent and ambitious administration,’

stresses, however, that an essential additional element of promoting ‘smartness’ must be to involve citizens and provide the conditions for them to develop their potentials, through education and support for research, innovation and social cohesion. This also requires for effective, transparent and reliable regulation of data protection and data use to be in place;

| 4. | underlines the existing gap between regions, big cities, towns and small communities in terms of human and financial resources, skills and digitalisation. In this regard recalls that smart development strategies have to be adjusted to the scale of the community and the approach has to be fine-tuned to the specific situation of each of these, providing the infrastructure and support needed so that all groups have sufficient access to information and digital services; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | points out that in its recommendations, issued after assessing the proposals for integrated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) for the period 2021 to 2030 submitted by the EU Member States, the European Commission called for a greater level of ambition to ensure that the 2030 climate targets set by the Paris Agreement are met and that the transition to an economy with zero climate impact by 2050 is successful by making greater use of renewable sources and energy efficiency and by modernising the economy; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | acknowledges that the scale of the challenge, and the cross-cutting nature of climate change, requires integrated, problem-based solutions that address multiple interacting and interfering dynamics and goals; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | points out that it is important to establish a close link between the SDGs and 2021-2027 cohesion policy’s policy objectives, particularly policy objective 2: ‘a greener, low carbon Europe, by promoting clean and fair energy transition, green and blue investment, the circular economy, climate adaptation and risk prevention’, which could help deliver the SDGs through the specific objectives set out in the proposals for a regulation; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | recognises that the transition towards a climate-neutral future, beyond the necessary adaptation to the effects of climate change and the decarbonisation of the energy, buildings and mobility sectors, also involves a transition towards a circular economy, the sustainable transformation of the agriculture and food systems, and the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity. To this end, the Committee supports the possible establishment of a European Climate Neutrality Observatory; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | acknowledges the efforts of the Covenant of Mayors and the Clean Energy for EU Islands Initiative in mobilising local authorities, local businesses, local academia and educational institutions, as well as local community organisations, in the development of strategies for decarbonisation and calls on European local and regional authorities to sign up to, implement and monitor actions according to the Covenant of Mayors and the Clean Energy for EU Islands Initiative; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | invites Member States to include the topic of smart communities in their National Energy and Climate Plans, recognising its great potential in terms of cost efficiency, energy efficiency and emission reduction; |
| --- | --- |

10.

On smart governance of smart communities

| 11. | highlights that smart cities and communities provide an excellent opportunity to implement smart governance mechanisms and in doing so improve the capability of local authorities to take decisions in an increasingly complex environment; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | highlights the need to accelerate the transition to a smart governance model at local and regional level by developing and implementing electronic services, which enable citizens to get access to a wider range of e-government services from a single account; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | calls for the European Semester to be seen as an instrument for coordinating the EU’s economic policies and as a forum in which the SDGs can be bolstered and the EU-wide delivery of the SDGs can be planned, monitored and assessed; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | reaffirms the crucial role of multilevel governance in ensuring that local authorities can effectively tackle climate change and implement SDGs and considers smart cities as a strong enabling factor in this context; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | acknowledges the use of taxation and public procurement as a tool to accelerate the market introduction of innovative and sustainable technologies, ensuring that their implementation is demand-driven and allows challenges to be met with local and decentralised solutions; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | considers open data in standard formats to be a key tool to support the creation and development of smart cities and stresses that, along with these, the provision of ‘open components’ (i.e. open API) will function as a significant building block for generating and multiplying smart city solutions at a higher speed and with higher flexibility; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | recognises the potential of data generated by real-world user interfaces, such as citizens’ mobile devices or smart meters and calls for developing comprehensive frameworks which integrate and use data generated by users for the purposes of smart governance and, at the same time, guarantee the required protection for the owners of the data; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | recalls the importance of supporting climate objectives at the regional or city level, both when they are imposed directly as well as when they are derived from climate objectives at a higher level, with sound technical and scientific local transition paths towards the set objectives; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | underlines that smart sustainable urban governance involves a shift from short-term, non-holistic policies towards long-term, systemic and learning-based approaches. This shift requires a strategic and continuous change management, applied to those existing urban governance structures that could lead to short-term and isolated decision-making; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | highlights that next to the importance of imposing objectives, there is also a need to elaborate the necessary concrete measures, and the accompanying monitoring of these measures, so adjustments can be made as required. Setting up learning networks with others and with knowledge centres will improve this ‘learning process’ of objectives versus measures; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Smart cities, towns and villages and the implementation of the SDGs

| 21. | recalls that the CoR has been working intensely on the SDGs framework during the past years and that the recent opinions on ‘Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a basis for a long-term EU strategy for a sustainable Europe by 2030’ by Mr Arnoldas Abramavičius (LT/EPP) (2) and on ‘Sustainable Europe by 2030: Follow-up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ecological transition and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change’ by Ms Sirpa Hertell (FI/EPP) (3) summarise the position of the Committee of the Regions; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | reaffirms ‘the crucial need for jointly agreed tangible milestones, indicators, real time measuring of data related to climate change and SDGs of local municipalities, cities and regions to achieve the economic, ecological, social and cultural sustainability targets’ as stated in the opinion on ‘Sustainable Europe by 2030: Follow-up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ecological transition and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change’ by Ms Sirpa Hertell (FI/EPP) (4). In this regard it highlights that smart cities and communities can be pioneers thanks to the smart technologies and data collection processes they are implementing; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | reaffirms ‘the need for robust subnational climate data and the importance of the use of new technology like artificial intelligence to shed light on the climate actions by the local communities. In this regard it recalls the importance of making the most out of the Covenant of Mayors database and the opportunity of creating a bridge between local data and Nationally Determined Contributions through the establishment of Locally Determined Contributions’ (5). In this context it recalls once again the crucial importance of providing smart cities and communities with tools aimed at boosting their ability to collect and analyse data and to use it to improve the decision making processes; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | considers a smart approach to be a key tool to achieve the targets related to SDG 11 on Sustainable cities and communities and SDG 13 on climate action; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | acknowledges that smart cities must involve their citizens, so that they can actively participate in shaping their local context; human initiative, supported and supplemented with ICT, and local services adapted to citizens, can enable the identification and implementation of smart solutions and collective ideas that improve cities and enhance their sustainability, thereby building social capital and resilient communities while also having in mind the need to address Energy Poverty; in this regard highlights the importance of bridging the digital gap and upskilling citizens to ensure smart communities do not segregate vulnerable citizens and to avoid any kind of social exclusion; also believes that it is important to promote energy efficiency and innovative technologies in social housing in order to combat energy poverty; |
| --- | --- |

25.

Smart cities, towns and villages and the transition to a resource-efficient, climate neutral and biodiverse Europe

| 26. | with a view to a smart transition, considers that it is strategic to develop specific programmes to boost people’s digital skills with due regard for the various age groups and professional situations, drawing on experiences and good practices relevant to smart city projects; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | welcomes the frontrunner experience of some smart communities already moving towards circular economy solutions for buildings, mobility, products, waste management and in the planning and management of their territories and encourages the European Commission to further promote this aspect for all smart communities. These contributions will play a significant role in achieving the SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | notes that smart technologies play a key role in the implementation of the Clean Energy Package and the successful implementation of the clean energy transition. In this sense it points to smart cities and communities as a powerful tool to ensure these smart technologies are implemented in a consistent and harmonised way, making the most out of the existing potential synergies; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | considers local energy communities to be a powerful resource to ensure a just clean energy transition and promotes the engagement of citizens in smart cities and communities and recalls in this context the suggestions it has made in its opinion on this subject (6); |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | recalls that nature plays an important role in the SDGs related to poverty, hunger, health, well-being and sustainable cities. It highlights that smart cities and communities should consider nature-based solutions and green infrastructure as essential complementary policies to ensure the conservation of ecosystem services and biodiversity and to promote their sustainable use and limit land take; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | recalls that the European long term strategy for climate neutrality by 2050 recognises the central role of smart technologies and cities in achieving climate neutrality; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | recalls, in addition to increased budget climate mainstreaming, the calls for effective measures to gradually end subsidies to fossil fuels in order to create a level playing field for renewable energies, encourage behavioural change and generate the necessary resources to support a just transition; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | notes that transition to climate neutrality creates quality jobs in circular economy, clean energy, food and agriculture sectors and calls on the EU to increase the coherence of climate objectives through cohesion policy, the European Social Fund (ESF+) and InvestEU; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | points out that ‘smart water’ solutions are of growing importance as a component of a complete smart cities policy aimed at climate-sustainable solutions; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | recalls the relevance of the implementation of smart infrastructures and considers smart cities and communities to be natural pioneers in this field; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | recalls that the energy efficiency of buildings is a key issue with a view to a successful transition to climate neutrality and that smart solutions are meant to play a decisive role; in this sense recalls that those smart solutions are likely to be effective only if they are inscribed in the context of smart cities and communities and if they are not implemented as an isolated solution; in this context also recalls the important role of the ‘Smart Finance for Smart Buildings Initiative’ in providing funding mechanisms for this purpose; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | points out that local and regional authorities play a key role in implementing sustainable housing policy and make a significant contribution to enabling the EU’s policy objectives to be implemented in practice; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | calls for the provision of incentives oriented towards maximum energy efficiency in new buildings and retrofits as per standards in line with the Passive House Standard, together, where appropriate, with the use of smart technology in buildings; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | recalls the CoR’s support for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans based on multimodality and coordinated use of low- or zero-emission urban-regional transport and logistics, underlining the principal role of rail and water-borne transport in lowering emissions; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | Recalls that the urban transport sector is currently shaping and experiencing a paradigm shift, with coinciding transitions in the field of energy use (electrification, alternative fuels), technologies (ITS) and behavioural change (sharing economy, focus on active travel). These changes affect passenger as well as freight transport, business as well as leisure travel. This paradigm shift can be directed to achieving Smart City objectives such as stimulating the local innovation market, mainstreaming best available technologies and knowledge based decision-making; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | considers as well that smart mobility technologies can help in finding sustainable mobility solutions in low-density territories, rural areas and peripheral regions, as well promoting an active mobility pattern which can improve the health of citizens; |
| --- | --- |

41.

Creating more opportunities for smart communities to finance and fast-track innovative solutions

| 42. | notes that the outermost regions and other island regions are ideal locations for testing alternative technologies, energy and procedures and that they are also considered as ‘living laboratories’. Their isolation, distance from the centre of Europe and high biodiversity, the proximity and accessibility of the sea, extreme environmental phenomena (atmospheric and geological) and the availability of geothermal energy are not limitations in the context of developing solutions for implementing the SDGs, but rather geographical advantages that provide the opportunity to test prototypes in controlled conditions, but with the highest level of difficulty. |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | highlights the potential of local zones where flexible and innovative regulatory tools or alternatives to regulation can be tested in a real world urban context, which can enable the exploration, and possible subsequent implementation, of sustainable innovations (e.g. in the housing domain); the city as ‘a learning machine’ facilitates social learning and enables cooperation that can reduce social risks; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | highlights the importance of decentralisation in the fiscal domain, in order to facilitate the improved embedding of regional and (large) urban climate-oriented fiscal measures in the local context; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | highlights the importance of providing local communities with tools and capacity building activities to enable their transition to smart communities, bridging the digital gap and ensuring no citizen and no territory is left behind; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | recalls the crucial role of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) in the implementation of smart cities and communities and calls on the European Commission to make further efforts in creating the enabling conditions for large and small local authorities to apply this instrument; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | reiterates the role of smart communities as drivers of a smart and inclusive energy transition and calls on the European Commission to further support smart cities and communities in their action through dedicated and accessible funding instruments; |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | welcomes the decision of the European Commission to identify a Mission on climate-neutral and smart cities in the framework of the new Horizon Europe; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | calls for the EU climate policy to be holistic and based on a systemic and integrated approach, noting that so far EU and national policies are often fragmented between different sectors and categories and between urban and rural areas. |
| --- | --- |

49.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  COR-2018-05877-00-01-AC-TRA (EN) (OJ C 404, 29.11.2019, p. 53).

1

(2)  COR-2019-00239-00-00-AC-TRA (EN) (OJ C 404, 29.11.2019, p. 16).

2

(3)  COR-2019-00965-00-01-PAC-TRA (EN) (see page 27 of this Official Journal).

3

(4)  COR-2019-00965-00-01-PAC-TRA (EN).

4

(5)  COR-2019-00965-00-01-PAC-TRA (EN).

5

(6)  OJ C 86, 7.3.2019, p. 36.

6

---

| 5.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/83

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Digital Europe for all: delivering smart and inclusive solutions on the ground

(2020/C 39/18)

| Rapporteur | : | Anne Karjalainen (FI/PES), city councillor of Kerava |
| --- | --- | --- |

Rapporteur

:

Anne Karjalainen (FI/PES), city councillor of Kerava

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

| 1. | draws up, at the request of Finland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union, robust proposals on how local and regional communities can develop and implement smart and inclusive digital solutions for every citizen, regardless of where they live in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | takes note of the proposals made by the CoR President and first Vice-President in the strategy document ‘Digital Europe for All’ (1) for inclusion in the next European Commission’s strategic agenda for developing the Digital Single Market; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | would like the proposals to contribute to the strategic approaches of the European Commission’s Digital Europe programme, which will determine the content of the work programmes and of specific funding applications for the 2021-2022 period; would like to provide input for the investment priorities of the Digital Europe programme: high-performance computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, advanced digital skills and support for the widest possible deployment of digital technologies in different sectors of society. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Societal challenges to be addressed by digital solutions

| 4. | is concerned that, while the priorities of the future Commission’s political agenda underline the need to promote frontier technologies, such as artificial intelligence and the platform economy, they do not place enough emphasis on an inclusive Digital Single Market; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | stresses that the sustainable success of the Digital Single Market requires that all citizens benefit from it throughout the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | endorses the European Commission’s proposal for a robust Digital Europe programme, which must, however, extend throughout the European Union via a regional digital innovation centre network funded under the programme, so that everyone has a reasonable opportunity to benefit from the exchange of information, peer-to-peer learning and the development of interregional partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | considers that access to and active participation in the digital economy are key to successful local and regional development in the future; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | considers that the term ‘digital cohesion’ is an important additional dimension of the traditional concept of economic, social and territorial cohesion defined in the EU Treaty. The CoR therefore proposes an open debate on the future role of digitalisation in promoting ‘cohesion’ in the European Union. The aim would be to address societal challenges, such as demographic challenges, climate change and changing work environment, while making sure not to leave any person or region behind and fostering entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | welcomes the phenomenon-based approach used by the Commission to harness research and innovation in the search for solutions to global challenges. Digital technologies are a key enabler in the EU Member States’ efforts to deal with the significant societal challenges faced by local and regional authorities across the EU in areas such as climate change, demographic change and labour market change; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | highlights, in particular, the potential of existing and emerging technologies in the public sector in reducing administrative burdens and waste, cumulating efficiency gains and providing new solutions to societal challenges; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | endorses a vision of Europe where digital technologies, innovation, and artificial intelligence can provide Europe’s people with competitive jobs, better health and quality of life, better public services and access to international knowledge flows; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | calls for strong European cooperation between all levels of government in the EU to achieve better use, further enhancement and upscaling of a citizen-driven digital transformation in cities and communities; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | notes that it is essential from an EU policy perspective to invest in the creation of innovative eco-systems, enhancing innovation in crucial technologies like AI, the internet of Things (IoT) and 5G at local and regional level across the EU, and singles out regional smart specialisation strategies under the relevant EU funds as a key opportunity; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | considers it important for regions to be able to evaluate the status of existing hubs in the light of the criteria for and future tasks of digital innovation hubs. In order for SMEs and local government to truly benefit from hubs’ expertise, hubs and their networks should operate efficiently on the basis of a high level of expertise and service. The regional and thematic coverage of the hubs and cooperation with local schools and universities and regional ecosystems are important for meeting the objective; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | stresses that the network of digital innovation hubs should be promoted throughout the EU, with a view to ensuring that each NUTS2 region has one hub, established with the support of the Digital Europe programme; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | notes that Europe’s strength should be its ability to identify the opportunities provided by artificial intelligence and ethical issues, and reconcile these. Europe’s core common values provide good opportunities for reconciling democracy and human rights with artificial intelligence. Ethical guidelines and a legal framework are needed for artificial intelligence; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | underlines the need for local and regional authorities to engage in wide-ranging cooperation to improve interoperability of public administrations and improve the delivery of public services. Developing cross-border infrastructures, interoperability and common standards is one element of the Digital Europe program that can deliver real European added value. The interconnection of large European, national and regional infrastructures should continue. Calls to this effect for the continuation beyond 2020 of the ISA2 programme (Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations); |
| --- | --- |

17.

Empowering local and regional authorities

| 18. | recalls that cities and regions — of all sizes and across Europe — must be part of the European digital transformation. Regions and municipalities have to make decisions on administrative re-evaluation, technical infrastructure, services and data policy. The Digital Europe programme should provide regional and local administrators with sectoral training programmes for advanced digital skills; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | endorses the forthcoming declaration by Eurocities ‘Collaborate, Empower, Sustain’ on joining forces to promote digital transformation in Europe’s cities and communities, with the aim of fostering strong European cooperation between all levels of government in the EU to achieve a better use, further enhancement and upscaling of a citizen-driven digital transformation in cities and communities; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | agrees with Eurocities that cities and communities are the ideal testing ground for digital solutions, ensuring coordinated stakeholder participation and active citizen involvement; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | calls on local and regional authorities to foster dialogue between all layers of government and industry, employers and trade union organisations on working conditions and employee rights in an increasingly digitalised work environment, rethinking the EU Member States’ employment policies in a way consistent with the latest technology-induced challenges; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | notes that securing the supply of natural resources and reducing the carbon footprint are key aspects of sustainable development. It is possible to accelerate sustainable development through digitalisation and the introduction of smart solutions in business, in everyday life and in public services, in particular transport and energy efficiency; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | calls on regional and local actors to use open source licences as far as possible. Software and software components commissioned by local government for its own needs should, in principle, be produced under a software licence allowing the client, in accordance with their wishes and needs, to edit, develop and distribute the product or have this done by a third party. This encourages the genuine creation of ecosystems and open, knowledge-based competition. Furthermore, most of the compensation in open source projects is paid to regional and local actors, not to parties outside the EU. Re-usable solutions increase trust and ensure transparency, thereby winning citizens’ acceptance; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | stresses that, in the context of interoperable public services, digital information processed by public administrations could be made in compliance with open specifications/standards and be available for access and reuse as open data, unless specific restrictions apply (e.g. for protection of personal data, confidentiality, or intellectual property rights) (2). It agrees to this effect on the need to ‘ensure a level playing field for open source software and demonstrate active and fair consideration of using open source software, taking into account the total cost of ownership of the solution’ (3), while giving preference to open specifications; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | supports the proposal made by DG CNECT during the 2019 Digital Assembly to produce a ‘local DESI index’ to complete the existing Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) that is produced every year at national level; recommends close cooperation between DG CNECT, the European Committee of the Regions, the ESPON (the European Spatial Planning Observation Network) programme and other initiatives and institutions to develop the concept for such an index, which then should be produced on an annual basis by DG CNECT alongside the national DESI index; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | sees the local DESI index as an important tool for assessing the territorial impact and the steering of future EU policies to promote stronger digital inclusiveness and to identify specific challenges of digital inequalities. The CoR stresses that the local DESI index would also be useful for the cities and regions in Europe to identify common challenges and successful practices and to promote peer-to-peer learning and cooperation between cities and regions; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | suggests — based on the positive experience with the WIFI4EU initiative — developing similar easy-to-use initiatives with limited administrative burden for the beneficiaries. A similar voucher scheme could be introduced for digital audits at local level where the participating local authorities would receive a voucher for an initial assessment of the availability and quality of digital services in the community, with the findings then being used for an informed debate in the local council and with local citizens. These audit reports should also be used to provide some advice to link up with similar initiatives in other local authorities in the EU and in accessing additional EU support if needed; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | emphasises that the digital transformation needs to be built on a sustainable, competitive and human-driven data economy in the EU, which must be based on data quality and respect for the rights and privacy of the individual. Europe should develop a global approach and create a framework for data governance — considering data as public goods and resources for democracy and local development — as well as guiding data principles for tackling inconsistency and fragmentation; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | calls for the strengthening of the protection of personal data, addressing in particular the issue of the application of the GDPR in areas of general interest, and stresses the need for a European definition of the notion of general interest data at the territorial level; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | underlines the need to address the crucial issue of data, in itself and in the context of Artificial Intelligence, and the way it is handled by local and regional authorities. The Committee could contribute in this regard by facilitating the exchange of best practices and deepening the reflection on the management of personal and public data by local and regional authorities. The CoR further highlights the role of open data in spreading digital innovations for the territories, as a democratic counterpart and a source of revitalisation of citizens’ engagement. At the same time, it calls for serious reflection on the principles of data circulation in the light of the challenges of protection and sovereignty of data of general interest vis-à-vis digital giants; |
| --- | --- |

30.

Focus on the citizen

| 31. | calls on all levels of government to work to increase citizen involvement and empowerment in the context of digitalisation, allowing them to play a role in the co-creation of new digital solutions addressing a variety of citizens’ needs, especially in the context of smarter cities and community projects. Instead of technology-driven product development, attention should be paid to developing human-centric techniques, services and products, including user-centred design, co-creation and rapid piloting; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | stresses that digitalisation is a matter of trust, without which it is not possible to develop public e-services or provide the necessary protection for consumers; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | underlines the need to develop local public capacities in order to address digital challenges and to build the autonomy of local authorities in the face of digital giants. Creating local public and civil society platforms to provide, inter alia, digital training is a step in the right direction; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | notes that, while opening up new opportunities for citizens to connect and disseminate information, digital technologies have also brought about new risks. These include cyber-attacks and fraud, data theft, threats to civil liberties and to public action especially at local level, and attempts to destabilise our democracies. It is crucial to invest in cybersecurity, as trust and awareness are the foundation for a Digital Europe for All; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | highlights the importance of AI literacy, so that citizens can participate in the societal debate on AI and critically evaluate any claims made; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | emphasises the importance of consumer protection as regards digital services. Enforcement and awareness of existing rules can improve people’s access to justice and increase their trust in the e-commerce sector. The planned Digital Services Act, for example, should help ease the situation; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | recalls that in 2017, 43 % of the EU population did not have sufficient digital skills (4) and only one fifth of companies said that they had offered ICT training to their staff (5). The Committee of the Regions stresses that local and regional actors should ensure that digital skills are developed systematically at all levels of education, from early education through to study leading to a vocational or academic qualification, and as an essential part of lifelong learning, by using the European Digital Competence Framework (DigComp) and other similar qualification frameworks for digital skills. The Committee stresses that digital education must develop at the same time critical thinking skills in order to enable digital technology users to be less passive in their consumption of content and to empower them to address rationally social uses of digital technologies; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | calls for the sharing of good practices for developing digital skills outside the formal education system, in particular for vulnerable groups, by, among other things, making better use of digital skills initiatives such as the European Code Week, the Safer internet Day initiative, the National Digital Skills and Jobs Coalition initiative and the Europass CV tool; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | stresses that the digital transformation is changing working habits, job contents and professions, inevitably rendering some jobs obsolete, and therefore the public sector and business must be able to recreate themselves and retrain the workforce. A variety of measures and mechanisms are needed to continuously improve the skills of people in working life; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | emphasises that accessible public online services and mobile applications must be such that all kinds of users in all situations can use them, regardless of disadvantage or disability. The Accessibility Directive must be implemented without delay; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | recalls that digitalisation improves the accessibility of public services for people who are able and willing to use the internet. At the same time, digitalisation may prove to be a challenge for those people who may need digital services the most, thus increasing the risks of digital inequality. Local authorities should therefore monitor the development of digital inequality and look for ways to prevent digital exclusion; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | requires that a gender perspective be included in all digital measures. Welcomes initiatives such as the Digital4Her declaration, which promotes the integration of women into technology sectors. |
| --- | --- |

42.

Infrastructure

| 43. | stresses the right to connectivity for every European citizen, enabling their participation in digital society and providing access to digital services. An embedded and pervasive digital infrastructure will allow everyone, regardless of location, to reap the benefits of the digital age. EU policy should in the future be geared towards reducing the cost of broadband network deployment and use in local communities, regardless of their size and population density; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | points out the difficulty in implementing digital infrastructure in the outermost regions, due to their constraints and their distance from the European mainland. It therefore underlines the need to ensure that these regions, like other European regions including the remote ones, have a full right to connectivity; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | underlines that digital services and eGovernment services require high-speed, uninterrupted broadband, which should also be available in areas where current commercial conditions do not support the building of connections. Fibre networks should preferably be built on an open-access basis, where the network owner, for example a regional cooperative, allows all interested operators to offer their services to end-users. Existing optical fibre networks should be opened up to competition; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | welcomes Digital Europe programme investments in advanced high-capacity digital infrastructure such as 5G networks, which are necessary to enable the deployment of digital services and technologies everywhere in Europe. The Committee considers that, in this context, broadband has an instrumental role to play in developing innovative and competitive digital services, provided that rapid 5G standardisation can ensure the interoperability of telecommunication networks; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | underlines the need for reliable high-speed data connections in Europe, not only to support digital services and the data economy but also to fully utilise the potential of advanced technologies in areas such as automation and smart farming. When it comes to communications technologies for smart and interoperable systems and services, the principles of technology neutrality should be supported. |
| --- | --- |

47.

Funding and synergies with other EU policies

| 48. | expects the new Digital Europe programme to earmark sufficient funds for skills, high-performance computing, innovation hubs and boosting the adoption of AI technologies; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | proposes that the Digital Europe programme be implemented through extensive regional digital innovation hub networks, to be funded from the programme and included in strongly regional digital strategies that reach all sections of society (and funded under the ESIF programmes); |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | considers it important that the Digital Europe programme and other European programmes involving digital measures, such as Horizon Europe, Connecting Europe and ESF+, be put together in as clear and complementary a manner as possibly, so as to avoid duplication and achieve synergies. |
| --- | --- |

50.

Brussels, 9 October 2019.

The President

of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ

---

(1)  COR-2019-03082-00-00-TCD-TRA.

1

(2)  New European Interoperability Framework- Promoting seamless services and data flows for European public administrations (https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/sites/isa/files/eif_brochure_final.pdf).

2

(3)  Idem.

3

(4)  DESI 2019.

4

(5)  Enterprises providing training to their personnel to develop their ICT skills, 2017.

5

---