# Official Journal C 175/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.175.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 175 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 531 July 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.175.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 175

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 531 July 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 83rd plenary session held on 9-10 February 2010 |
| 2010/C 175/01 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on coordinated and sustainable responses to meet the challenges facing the European automotive sector and to strengthen its links to the regions | 1 |
| 2010/C 175/02 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Sixth Progress Report on economic and social cohesion | 4 |
| 2010/C 175/03 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on contributing to Sustainable Development: the role of Fair Trade and non-governmental trade-related sustainability assurance schemes | 10 |
| 2010/C 175/04 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the quality of agricultural products | 15 |
| 2010/C 175/05 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps | 19 |
| 2010/C 175/06 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on a renewed European Strategy Investing in Youth | 22 |
| 2010/C 175/07 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on combating functional illiteracy — an ambitious European strategy for preventing exclusion and promoting personal fulfilment | 26 |
| 2010/C 175/08 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Green Paper on promoting the learning mobility of young people | 31 |
| 2010/C 175/09 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Internet of Things and reuse of Public Sector Information | 35 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

83rd plenary session held on 9-10 February 2010

2010/C 175/01

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on coordinated and sustainable responses to meet the challenges facing the European automotive sector and to strengthen its links to the regions

1

2010/C 175/02

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Sixth Progress Report on economic and social cohesion

4

2010/C 175/03

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on contributing to Sustainable Development: the role of Fair Trade and non-governmental trade-related sustainability assurance schemes

10

2010/C 175/04

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the quality of agricultural products

15

2010/C 175/05

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps

19

2010/C 175/06

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on a renewed European Strategy Investing in Youth

22

2010/C 175/07

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on combating functional illiteracy — an ambitious European strategy for preventing exclusion and promoting personal fulfilment

26

2010/C 175/08

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Green Paper on promoting the learning mobility of young people

31

2010/C 175/09

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Internet of Things and reuse of Public Sector Information

35

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 83rd plenary session held on 9-10 February 2010 |
| 2010/C 175/10 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Year of Volunteering (2011) | 40 |

III   Preparatory acts

Committee of the Regions

83rd plenary session held on 9-10 February 2010

2010/C 175/10

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Year of Volunteering (2011)

40

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

83rd plenary session held on 9-10 February 2010

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/1

---

83rd PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 9-10 FEBRUARY 2010

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on coordinated and sustainable responses to meet the challenges facing the European automotive sector and to strengthen its links to the regions

(2010/C 175/01)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

1.   notes that the automotive sector is a strategic one for the European Union as approximately 12 million people depend on it either directly or indirectly for work in manufacturing and auto parts supply throughout the Member States;

2.   points out that the industry is suffering a serious crisis that looks likely to worsen in the coming months and that will have repercussions for the entire European economy;

3.   believes that the current mix of economic and political conditions demands that the EU rethink its support for key economic sectors in terms of jobs and the potential for sustainable growth;

4.   calls for a ‘New Deal’ for the European automotive sector in its entirety;

5.   believes it is now crucial that industrial contractors and public authorities start the necessary consultations;

Major challenges

6.   believes that the end of the exceptional injection of aid from the European and national recovery plans will result in considerable over-capacity in the European automotive industry, which will therefore have to reduce its production capacity. Many assembly sites and SMEs throughout Europe are therefore under threat;

7.   stresses that companies and employees in the automotive sector are facing growing needs in terms of training, internal and external restructuring and social innovation;

8.   underlines the growth in consumer demand for vehicles that are greener and more reliable while also affordable;

9.   would stress the new technological challenges faced by the automotive sector. New sustainable transport options are needed;

Existing European instruments should be more flexible

10.   regrets that the existing European instruments are not always geared up to respond rapidly to situations encountered by industry;

11.   regrets in particular the long and tortuous procedure for obtaining funds from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund;

12.   deplores the difficulties encountered by certain regional authorities when attempting to adapt their ERDF operational programmes to the context of the crisis, despite such changes having initially been encouraged by the European Commission;

13.   calls on the European Parliament to examine these issues;

A forum is needed for strategic consultations

14.   reiterates the fact that the future of many European regions depends largely on decisions taken by vehicle manufacturers;

15.   recommends that the dialogue upstream between the European Commission, the Member States, the relevant local and regional authorities, the automotive manufacturers and the unions be stepped up (1). This sort of dialogue would provide a means of anticipating the inevitable major restructuring and implementing the measures needed to manage the transition;

16.   also hopes that the CARS 21 High Level Group will be retained so that it can begin work early in 2010 on a concerted long-term response to the challenges faced by the automotive sector. Local and regional authorities should be represented here and all voices must be heard;

17.   recommends establishing a European observatory for the automotive sector in order to support the work of CARS 21, players in the industry and the public authorities concerned;

A ‘New Deal’ for the automotive sector

18.   calls on the European Commission to frame a long-term industrial policy for the automotive sector, structured around existing initiatives, building in the regional dimension and contributing to the European objectives of competitiveness, territorial cohesion, sustainable development and the fight against climate change;

19.   calls on the European Commission to pay special attention to the need to maintain the industrial capacities generated through the European Structural Funds;

20.   urges the European Commission to lean on the players represented in the CARS 21 High Level Group as it considers this policy;

21.   recommends that this industrial policy be comprehensive, and include the following measures in particular:

Access to financing for parts manufacturers

22.   recommends that the European Commission extend the possibilities for local and regional authorities to support struggling companies within the framework of the single market;

23.   underlines the serious difficulties encountered by small and medium-sized parts manufacturers, despite their long-term financial viability, when attempting to access credit;

24.   recommends that the European Commission and the Member States facilitate the implementation of a financing system for such companies (2);

An ambitious research and innovation policy

25.   urges the European Commission, in conjunction with the players concerned and on the basis of thorough scientific analyses, to support a select number of priority technological options, so as to promote the development of a carbon-free car;

26.   recommends that additional financing be earmarked for the Green Cars Initiative and the ‘Transport’ theme of the Seventh Research and Development Framework Programme;

27.   underlines the need for bold measures to promote and provide information on clean transport technology and to raise consumers’ awareness;

28.   recommends the rapid implementation of the infrastructure and standards necessary for the development and market release of new technologies (e.g. the electric car) (3);

29.   calls on the European Commission to begin looking into the possibilities of supporting innovation in the automotive sector by means of public tendering before the marketing stage;

Access to appropriate training

30.   stresses that vehicle design, production and maintenance involves increasingly advanced technologies and thus gives rise to new training needs;

31.   recommends that the European Commission and the Member States start facilitating the development of and access to basic and continuing training courses on these new technologies as of now;

32.   recommends that the European Commission and the Member States encourage external restructuring measures, i.e. moving into new sectors;

Legislative stimuli

33.   underlines the capacity of European legislation to accelerate the technological transition towards cleaner vehicles;

34.   calls on the European Commission to continue its efforts to reduce vehicles’ carbon footprint, while bearing in mind the capacity of companies to adapt;

35.   recommends that all new regulations be accompanied by financing for R&D, enabling companies, and SMEs in particular, to rise to the corresponding technological challenge.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  The informal meeting of 13 March 2009, during which the European Commission met with the relevant national ministers and representatives of General Motors, should be replicated with the other vehicle manufacturers present in the EU on a regular basis.

1

(2)  This could be based, for instance, on the ‘reverse factoring’ model applied in the United States and championed by CLEPA, the European Association of Automotive Suppliers.

2

(3)  The Franco-German working group on industrial policy is an excellent example of an approach aimed at stepping up the development of the necessary rules and standards. Its brief was to explore possibilities for Franco-German cooperation and new initiatives in the area of electromobility.

3

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/4

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Sixth Progress Report on economic and social cohesion

(2010/C 175/02)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS:

Introduction

1.   welcomes the 6th Progress report on economic and social cohesion that focuses on creativity and innovation aiming at helping the Union to emerge faster and stronger from the economic crisis. It shows which factors can boost creativity and innovation in all regions of the EU. The CoR welcomes also the synthesis that is provided on the debate on Territorial Cohesion after the launch of the Green Paper last year;

2.   notes that the world is in the throes of a major financial and economic crisis. The public authorities and financial institutions, struggle to cope with the issues. Companies and enterprises, large and small are in financial difficulties. Men and women across the continent see homes and jobs put at risk; others see their employment prospects vanish. The economic and social outlook in the short and medium term is not good: unemployment, business closures as well as drop in both national and local budget revenues and less room for manoeuvre in public finances;

3.   recognises that Climate Change is a real threat to the lives of many people and species around the world, and immediate action needs to be taken at all levels to minimise the rise in temperature. At the same time, Climate Change also presents an important opportunity to do things differently to the benefit of the environment, society and the economy;

4.   understands that this current situation that we find ourselves in is considerably different to that in which the parameters for the 2007 -2013 program were established. However more than half of the current programming period remains before new programmes begin in 2014. Whilst the CoR accepts that the function of cohesion policy is to set and deliver on long term strategic goals, the CoR also believes that some benefit could be gained from small changes now to mitigate the impact the current economic and financial crisis is having upon its member states and local and regional authorities and to aid recovery. The CoR believes that this can be done within the current strategic aims of the policy;

5.   understands that there will not be a full mid-term review of the current programming period, therefore it is important to build on the opportunity presented in the 6th Cohesion Progress Report to take advantage of best practice that have been established to date. It is an opportunity to look at how European Structural Funds are working in local and regional areas and at how they can be better used. Given the growing concerns that are emerging about the very future of EU Cohesion Policy, this input needs to be used to provide a strong message through to the 5th Cohesion report, due out in autumn 2010 for the discussion on the future programming period post 2013 and which, in line with Article 175 of the new Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, will from now on address economic, social and territorial cohesion;

6.   recognises that Territorial Cohesion Policy which the new Treaty sets as a new EU Objective, needs also to relate to the Lisbon Agenda. The review of the Agenda in 2010 provides yet another opportunity for the EU to assess what the successes have been and where greater flexibility is needed to enable Member States and, particularly, local and regional authorities to successfully implement programmes which will have a real direct impact on the citizens’ well being and opportunities. It will also provide an opportunity to better incorporate climate change issues into the future direction of the EU, not least through a revision of the earmarking mechanism for the Structural Funds in line with the new goals of the new Lisbon strategy;

7.   is disappointed that in the case of the 6th Progress Report on Cohesion, an analysis of the current economic and environmental conditions is sadly missing. It neglects to put the current situation in the context of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and fails to take important decisions to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. Crucially it does not look at the impact on our regions, towns and cities and the people within them;

8.   considers that the territorial impact of EU innovation policies needs to be analysed more effectively, in order to identify and promote the best European measures to support investment in innovation at local and regional level. The competitiveness of the regions as drivers of sustainable growth can only be achieved through smart public investment in innovation both in manufacturing and, above all, in the service sector;

9.   has written this Opinion to seek to address the problems not from the perspective of international solutions, but from the perspective of regions, cities and towns, and the men and women who live in them;

The current situation in Local and Regional Economies

10.   understands that indigenous enterprises, which grow organically in a city or a region, contribute an area's strength and economic stability. Such enterprises - whether SMEs, social enterprises or community-based initiatives - can catalyse the regeneration of an area. Yet, before these businesses can grow, interventions on the economic, environmental and social conditions such as improving skills, implementation of various development programmes, reducing the causes of deprivation and investing in public infrastructure need to be in place for businesses to thrive;

11.   also recognises the importance of inward investment into a community. Regions and local communities work to attract investment from businesses, bring in skilled workers and also have a role in retaining those who already live or have studied in the region. This means looking at the economic and social challenges of that area and define how to address them in order to then be able to benefit from the unique offer of their region and to be able to exploit whatever comparative advantages they have in job offers, housing, education and quality of life;

12.   acknowledges that the analysis of the situation in the various categories of regions (convergence, transition and competitiveness and employment) made by the Commission in the Sixth Progress report reflects the different socio-economic situation of the three kinds of regions, particularly as regards their capacity for creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Both the current economic crisis and the range of variables that impact on regional development potential (demographics, accessibility, capacity for innovation, etc) are factors that highlight the existence of important data that should be taken into account when assessing local and regional economies and shaping an effective cohesion policy. This calls for the inclusion of new indicators to supplement GDP per capita for classifying regions with a view to the post-2013 programming period;

Territorial Cohesion

13.   welcomes the report in the 6th Progress Report on the responses to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, which has had a significant input by local and regional authorities. According to the 6th Progress Report, the goal of Territorial Cohesion is to encourage the harmonious and sustainable development of all territories by enabling them to build on their territorial characteristics and resources. This also requires land planning providing for the necessary transport and communication links to ensure efficient flow of goods, services and capital. The CoR also emphasises the message that no two regions are identical and each have a unique offer to make in reaching their full potential;

14.   given the broad support for this new territorial goal and in the light of the current economic situation, nonetheless laments the lack of specific proposals for the future development and application of territorial cohesion during the current and upcoming programming period;

15.   notes that Territorial Cohesion is more important under the Lisbon Treaty as Territorial Cohesion has become a political objective of the EU and a third dimension of Cohesion Policy. The CoR therefore reiterates what it said in its opinion on the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, namely that, following ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, a White Paper on Territorial Cohesion should be published to outline more precisely how this goal will be integrated and made practicable across all EU policies;

16.   maintains that, in terms of Territorial Cooperation, the programmes need to be based on addressing common challenges and providing EU added value, building on the programme's current experiences and outcomes. The added value will be gained through working with local and regional authorities, wider functional areas, sharing a land or sea area or thematic challenge across two or more Member States. A number of pilot projects bringing together functional economic areas crossing two or more member states could be developed and supported in this programming period in order to help develop a more strategic approach going forward. The CoR looks forward to inputting into the 2010 revision of the regulation on the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), drawing on experiences of local and regional authorities;

Integrating Innovation and Creativity in Cohesion Policy

17.   believes that the aim of any Cohesion policy review must be to learn from what has succeeded, not to perpetuate what is failing. Therefore, Cohesion Policy must itself be creative and innovative, and take advantage of the knowledge and experiences of local authorities, cities and regions and to inform our learning for now as well as the future;

18.   understands that innovation and creativity are not wholly owned by leading companies or higher education institutions. Local and regional authorities also need to create and innovate, and enable creativity and innovation. Structural Funds are a tool to help them to do this. However, more flexibility is needed to enable the use of these funds to be speedily allocated and to focus not just on high growth, or higher level skills, but on encouraging entrepreneurship across a range of areas. This will enable local people who see an opportunity to create a new business, to access the advice and guidance needed to make the next step;

19.   acknowledges the progress of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, yet sees it as a tool mainly for leading companies and research institutions. As innovation and creativity need to be encouraged across the EU by all levels of governance and by EU citizens, the CoR recommends that the European Commission look into setting up and is willing to a Virtual Network of Creativity and is willing to be involved in shaping its content. This would - like many EU Open Learning Networks - be open to all, with advice, support and access both to venture capital and technical services. All relevant local and regional authorities beside central public bodies, as well as the private sector, all ordinary men and women, with ideas, experience and imagination will have the opportunity and ability to put their ideas to a wider network;

20.   recognises that innovators and inventors need to feed off similar people and groups and get encouragement from them. A Virtual Network of Creativity would help develop that - producing 'innovation champions’ as well as providing mentoring and expertise. The benefit of the virtual nature is that it would enable those in island, outermost, rural, mountainous and sparsely populated areas, which may be far from university campuses, to benefit from access to expert advice, education and knowledge; access also to entrepreneurial support and financial guidance; to develop as a virtual, if not actual, community;

21.   believes that creativity and innovation is also needed in the current programme to best meet the challenges of sustainability and Climate Change. Energy efficiency drives at local and regional level, not only have the potential to reduce emissions, but also to create new ‘green collar’ jobs and businesses, providing secure, long term employment and enhancing skills, which EU Cohesion Policy should support. Some regions have carbon reduction targets already established in their programmes and the good practice of this can be rolled out for the remainder of this programming period;

22.   considers that what is required is a partnership of equals representing public or private sector; an approach that encourages regional and local innovation and participation that is inclusive, not exclusive. The place of partnership, whether public/private, or public/public, both within the same governance level as well as between the governance levels, cannot be overstated in this regard; local and regional authorities and their partners are the potential solutions to the innovation gap if supported to be so;

23.   declares that now is the time to be innovative and creative and allow local and regional authorities the opportunity to put their expertise and knowledge to the fore. For examples culture and tourism, are by their essence driven locally and regionally, with the potential to generate employment and investment. Whether as European Capitals of Culture, or as cultural centres in their own right, many European cities and regions have demonstrated the efficacy of these policy sectors in developing an attractive and distinctive image and fresh employment potential, which can also draw in new investment;

Simplifying management to improve effectiveness and control

24.   welcomes the simplification measures taken to date and encourages further discussion with stakeholders to see where other adjustments can be made for this programming period. CoR believes that excess financial management and control cripples Cohesion Policy and can make it counter-productive, as project sponsors move away from the policy because of the heavy financial compliance and control burdens. Although the CoR recognises the importance of stringent financial control of public money, it should not force regional and local authorities to become risk adverse, avoiding innovative and creative programmes for fear of failure or claw back. Management must also be simplified, preventing reinvention and ensuring, through clear, precise provisions, a stable, precise legal framework for each programming period;

25.   believes that funding that is unspent due to N+2 should not be returned to the Commission and then repatriated to the Member State, but instead those monies could be used for regionally based Venture Capital or Seed Capital Funds, or the Commission's European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Another suggestion is a European Climate Change Adjustment Fund to help finance local projects designed to enable the various economic sectors to adapt to current or future environmental constraints. These adaptation measures might include reskilling projects or schemes to help the affected workers move into environmentally sustainable occupations. They might also include restructuring programmes for environmentally unviable businesses. The monies allocated to the Venture Capital Fund via the EIB could offer SMEs, social enterprises and community-based initiatives access to finance for both the short term and growth, which, in the current economic situation has become difficult to obtain. In any case, the N+2 rule should be made more flexible, in view of the objectives pursued by cohesion policy and the effects of cyclical economic changes on public finances and private investment;

26.   also maintains that an additional simplification will be achieved through the Commission analysing Member State's audit procedures and seeing if ‘contracts of confidence’ can be reached to avoid duplication in auditing procedures. This should not be a question of strengthening monitoring, but first and foremost a question of avoiding mistakes, prevention and assessing outcomes. The principle of proportionality of regulations on small projects should be applied to reduce burdens;

Greater and better knowledge; a look to the future ...

27.   acknowledges the pilot schemes that will be put in place by the Commission, beginning in 2011, for introducing additional indicators that go beyond GDP. The CoR has argued in various Opinions for the development of new indicators to make it possible to take better account of territorial disparities in public policy in general and cohesion policy in particular;

28.   encourages the exchange of experience between European regions and the development of clusters for innovation and eco-innovation, which could significantly help to prevent these activities from being concentrated only in certain regions and to reduce the gaps between regions;

29.   recognises that there is too little sharing of this information and building on what has already been successful. This is why the CoR has successfully launched the European Entrepreneurial Region aiming at sharing good practices and awarding the best strategy for the economic development of an Entrepreneurial Region in the EU. The CoR also welcomes initiatives like InfoRegio and RegioStars awards; however a more user-friendly database of projects, preferably going wider than Regional Policy funds, would enable learning to take place. An interactive database, inspired by some commercial website or social networking tools would be beneficial to all;

30.   recognises that the lack of data now, where data in relation to the financial situation and its effect on local and regional authorities is two or more years old, will affect the delivery of the programmes, slow flexibility of response and limit needed changes to internal regulations;

31.   believes that the allocation of Structural Funds solely on the basis of GDP masks the real economic picture in the regions and ignores the increase in pockets of deprivation in Member States where GDP is high;

32.   believes that further simplification of combining ERDF, ESF and rural development programmes should be looked at. A one-stop-shop approach could be the starting point to consider this. This could enable regions to take better advantage of funding opportunities and to programme needs based services i.e. the combination of ERDF & ESF to up-skill and provide work for potential employees;

33.   believes that the future Cohesion Policy must apply a more flexible approach allowing cities and regions to develop programmes based on their needs of their regions and local communities, instead of attempting to fit needs to top-down frameworks. This means programmes should be built on regional strategies which have been widely consulted with all stakeholders;

34.   believes that the development of strategies at macro level, e.g. the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, must contribute to enhancing the role of the local and regional level in the implementation of EU policy more generally; the Committee also proposes that development of new strategies be continued in other geographical areas, with sufficient backing from the countries involved and the European institutions;

35.   proposes that the drive for energy efficiency of buildings and transport should become an essential part of cohesion funding, as a required pillar of permitted EU funded development;

Recommendations

36.   The CoR suggests that a White Paper on Territorial Cohesion could be a useful approach and asks the European Commission what they plan to do with the 400 responses to the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion in order to support the concept and implementation of territorial Cohesion in the future policies of the EU;

37.   reiterates the need for cohesion policy to continue beyond 2013 as an instrument for European Union development that is ever more vital, not least following the severe economic crisis that has hit Europe. Demands, to this end, that the fifth Cohesion Report reaffirm its support for an ambitious Cohesion Policy with a strong place-based approach that in accordance with article 174 of the Lisbon Treaty should be geared towards promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, and that is available not only to regions that are lagging behind but to all EU territories to address existing economic and social disadvantages and to exploit its territorial assets;

38.   requests the European Commission to put in place a user-friendly database of best practice across different areas of public policy (e.g. support for innovation, support for inclusion, climate measures). This is a key area of technical assistance across all EU funded programmes to enable real exchange and building on best practice;

39.   points out that some regions are promoting innovative and environmental initiatives which actively promote enterprise whilst acknowledging the need for programmes to be sustainable both socially and environmental. Furthermore, it is essential to enable local and regional authorities to learn best practice from other Member States (1);

40.   accepts that consideration should be given to the use of alternative indicators other than GDP, but notes that these have not yet been agreed at EU level and are not available for the NUTS-II level. The CoR therefore supports the European Commission's proposal in its Communication GDP and beyond to produce a report on the further development of European indicator models in 2012 at the latest;

41.   calls upon the European Commission to continue to look at how implementation can be better simplified and facilitated. This may be in ways of internal working and may not always require changes to the regulations. Simple measures to provide clear interpretation and unambiguous guidance to all managing authorities would help to avoid unnecessary delays and difficulties in implementing the programmes. Publishing the implementation guidance notes that are agreed within the Commission-Member States Coordination Committees would also be useful in that regard; in any case, it would be very useful if regulatory texts used the same terminology and provisions relating to management in the different periods, as it is natural and logical for these not to change;

42.   recommends that any unspent N+2 and N+3 from a region be retained for regionally-based venture capital of seed capital funds for the express purpose of setting up SME support projects for innovation and development, or for the Commission's European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, or a future Climate Change Adjustment Fund;

43.   recommends that all programmes should have access to current good practice in reducing the carbon footprint of implementing ERDF, ESF and Rural Development programmes so that others can build this into their programmes to address our common climate change challenge. Future programming will need to look at how Structural Funds are moving not only to current Lisbon targets but to a Europe-wide Low Carbon Economy, with best practice in zero-carbon programmes;

44.   recommends that the European Commission look into setting up a Virtual Network of Creativity and is willing to be involved in shaping its content;

45.   recommends that Cohesion Policy is remodelled, so that the subsidiarity principle applies at local and regional level, not simply at Member State level;

46.   invites the Commission to apply proportionality to administrative procedures as well in its next programming period, so that the documentation it requests is commensurate with the sums provided, in order to cut red tape.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  The CoR notes with interest the following projects: www.train2000.org.uk/wiced - A world leading example of enterprise and innovation. The Women's International Centre for Economic Development (W.I.C.E.D) The project provides support to and promotes female entrepreneurship in Liverpool. http://www.deaca.dk/ - Danish example: Enterprise and the environment. Regional Centres for Business Development invested roughly EUR 42 million in 2007 to support 28 projects. These span from supporting the development of sustainable energy, bio fuel and biomasses to supporting hands-on energy saving projects. Examples of energy saving projects are intelligent energy management in growth houses in South Denmark Region whereby energy consumption in test growth house has been cut by 50 %. http://www.nwdacarboncalculator.com - Environmental sustainability – ‘the Carbon calculator’ enables programme coordinators in the North West Region of England to identify the impact of their initiative has upon the environment, specifically the level of CO2 emissions. http://www.goeast.gov.uk/goeast/european_funding/project_case_studies/ - Environmental sustainability - The East of England region encourages the identification and dissemination of innovative forms of project design and delivery. http://www.em-lyon.com/english/emlyon/who/index.aspx - Entrepreneurship - EMLYON (France) is a European Business School devoted to lifelong learning for entrepreneurial and international management.

1

2

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/10

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on contributing to Sustainable Development: the role of Fair Trade and non-governmental trade-related sustainability assurance schemes

(2010/C 175/03)

I.   GENERAL REMARKS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

1.   expressly welcomes the Commission's communication of 5 May 2009 entitled Contributing to Sustainable Development: The role of Fair Trade and non-governmental trade-related sustainability assurance schemes, The European Commission Communication examines the current situation of Fair Trade and other non-governmental (i.e. private) trade-related sustainability assurance schemes;

2.   notes that the market for Fair Trade products has experienced a rapid boom in recent years. Today, consumers in the EU buy certified Fair Trade products to a value of around EUR 1,5 billion a year – seventy times more than in 1999, when the Commission presented its first communication on this matter;

3.   considers a clear definition of Fair Trade indispensable in order to avoid well-intentioned consumers being faced with a plethora of labels and certifications all claiming to represent only items produced under fair, ethical and alternative conditions. In the communication of 5 May 2009, it refers to the Fair Trade criteria as defined by the Fair Trade movement and recalled by the European Parliament Resolution on Fair Trade and development of 6 June 2006. The term ‘Fair Trade’ is used in conformity with standards established by the international standards and compliance bodies in the ISEAL Alliance and used by the Fair Trade organisations;

4.   finds it significant that the consumer recognition level for the Fair Trade mark in the UK was above 70 % in 2008 (compared to 12 % in 2000) and in France 74 % in 2005 (compared to 9 % in 2000). In a survey in Germany in 2009, the Fair Trade label came out top among 407 brands and non-profit organisations;

5.   is gratified that worldwide sales of certified Fair Trade goods exceeded EUR 2.3 billion by the end of 2007 (though this is still far behind organic food sales and still less than 1 % of total trade). Europe is the home of Fair Trade, with between 60 % and 70 % of global sales. Nevertheless, there are large variations between its fastest growing market, Sweden, and newer Member States, where the concept is still relatively unknown.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Particular features of Fair Trade

6.   stresses that one of the particular features of Fair Trade and other sustainability assurance schemes is that it is an essentially voluntary, dynamic mechanism that develops along with societal and consumer awareness and demands;

7.   highlights the Commission's belief that setting ranking or regulating criteria for private trade-related sustainability assurance schemes would not be helpful to sustainable development objectives. Indeed, it would hobble the dynamic element of private initiatives in this field and could stand in the way of the further development of Fair Trade;

8.   calls for full public transparency in the use of the Fair Trade label and for every stage in the production chain to satisfy clear criteria;

9.   maintains that sustainable development can be served by schemes that link environmental, social and economic elements. It is important for good market functioning that consumers and producers have access to reliable information on the schemes. It is helpful to have independent labels and certification that consumers can trust and that are monitored by independent bodies;

Public procurement

10.   expressly welcomes the EU directives of 2004. These are the basis for numerous procurement laws in the Member States and enable social and environmental criteria to be included in procurement;

11.   notes that public authorities spend the equivalent of 16 % of EU GDP and therefore constitute a key strategic market. By taking sustainable development and Fair Trade into account in public procurement, local and regional authorities can make a decisive contribution not only to the medium- and long-term profitability and efficiency of their services, but also to social justice and sustainable development;

12.   stresses that Fair Trade products offer consumers and public sector procurement suitable opportunities to use their purchasing power to reconcile trade policy and development policy goals;

13.   stresses that local and regional authorities are responsible for a major part of public procurement expenditure. Given this important role, they should be drafted into promoting sustainable development and Fair Trade measures all over Europe. Local and regional authorities must take into account not only the economic, technical and legal aspects of Fair Trade, but also the political aspects;

14.   has pointed out in the past that the current procurement regulations are already complicated enough and many local and regional authorities are hard pressed to implement them properly. With this in mind, it requests that the Commission in future set out clear and detailed guidelines for social procurement that can be used by local and regional authorities when issuing tenders for Fair Trade products;

15.   is interested to note that, in order to better respond to the contracting authorities’ need for guidance to implement sustainable public procurement, the Commission has recently adopted a Communication on public procurement for a better environment (complementing the Commission's Green Procurement Guide) and is currently working on publishing a parallel guide on social procurement. Together, these guides constitute a comprehensive guide to sustainable environmental and social public procurement;

16.   welcomes the announcement of a second guide and asks the Commission to ensure its prompt publication, given the rapid pace of developments in this area;

17.   itself proposes to act as a multiplier by using its network of contacts to disseminate appropriate guidelines and at the same time to work with the Commission to implement exchange of information between local and regional authorities. Local and regional authorities (especially those with similar requirements) could set up their own networks for good practice to deal with Fair Trade products;

18.   wonders whether a new project for the exchange of information between them could prove useful. The European Commission and the CoR are setting up a ‘decentralised cooperation stock exchange [bourse]’ with a view to facilitating and coordinating more effectively the development of decentralised cooperation activities conducted by EU local and regional authorities and their counterparts in developing countries. This ‘decentralised cooperation stock exchange’ will be an online service matching support needs and applications with corresponding expressions of interest or offers. CoR Members are asked to use this electronic instrument (scheduled for 2010) to share relevant information. This will considerably facilitate the exchange of information between European local and regional authorities involved in development cooperation and make it possible to align the projects of EU local and regional authorities with those in the developing countries;

19.   in this respect, decentralised cooperation projects could be used to help the development of Fair Trade products, gather impact studies and support small producers in the South;

20.   in addition to stimulating Fair Trade public procurement, points to potential gains of promoting private procurement in line with Fair Trade standards. It encourages therefore local and regional authorities to develop incentives that stimulate Fair Trade procurement in business, such as contests inspired by existing competitions like ‘Fair Trade Capitals’ and ‘Fair Trade Towns’;

Commission support

21.   welcomes the Commission's engagement to further support Fair Trade and other trade-related sustainability assurance schemes in view of their potential contribution to sustainable development;

22.   thinks it is vital to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the desire for trade, investment and economic growth as part of an agenda based on liberalisation and globalisation and, on the other hand, respect for the principles of sustainable development, the need for transparent and fair trading conditions and a clear recognition by the wealthier industrialised countries of the pressing problems faced by less developed countries in trade negotiations. Various Fair Trade organisations are convinced that trade can be an effective instrument for promoting sustainable development and reducing poverty if it is conducted in a fair and responsible manner. Achieving this goal, however, requires a fundamental shift in the shape of trade policy. The market-based approach that currently prevails will not be able to redress the existing imbalance in the bargaining power between multinational corporations and small producers. The only thing that can help sweep away the injustices engendered by the current trade setup is the systematic involvement of marginalised small producers in poor countries in shaping trade policy;

23.   is pleased that the Commission has provided financial support for Fair Trade and other sustainable trade-related activities, essentially through its development cooperation instruments. Between 2007 and 2008, EUR 19,466 million were allocated for various actions. This went in the main to raising awareness within the European Union. Additional funding of EUR 1 million was made available for each of the years 2008 and 2009;

24.   asks the Commission, however, in view of the rapid pace of development in the area of Fair Trade in some Member States, to examine whether additional funds might not have to be provided for those Member States that are not yet so involved;

25.   endorses the Commission's intention to initiate impact assessments and market transparency efforts, as well as to pay more attention to assessing difficulties in implementing schemes and obtaining certification. This could be further supported by similar action by EU Member States to finance studies on the impact of Fair Trade;

Involvement of local and regional authorities in development policy

26.   expressly welcomes the recognition of the important role of local and regional authorities in trade policy with Fair Trade products. However, the involvement of local and regional authorities in development policy is nothing new. Many European regions, as well as local and regional authorities, have been running Fair Trade projects with their partners in developing countries for many years. Partnerships must be based on mutual trust between the partners and transparency in their dealings with one another. Agreements concluded on a Fair Trade basis must observe the principles of equal treatment, mutual recognition and proportionality;

27.   also notes that local and regional authorities are becoming increasingly professional in their approach to Fair Trade as decentralisation proceeds. Local and regional authorities can draw on valuable knowledge in areas that are crucially important for developing countries and for the attainment of the Millennium Goals. They are therefore to be regarded as important players in a Fair Trade policy;

28.   welcomes the Commission's desire to maintain the non-governmental nature throughout the EU of Fair Trade and other similar sustainability schemes. Public regulation could interfere with the development or workings of dynamic private schemes;

29.   takes the view, nevertheless, that certain legal standards are needed in the public procurement area – and specifically for invitations to tender – to give those offering Fair Trade products the chance to participate;

Raising awareness

30.   is delighted with the development of Fair Trade and the growing readiness of Europe's municipalities and regions to introduce environmental and social criteria into public procurement. This readiness is all the more important in the current financial and economic crisis. When Fair Trade began in the 1970s, criticism of the unfair organisation of world trade was very much to the fore. Launched originally as a movement to raise awareness, Fair Trade now attracts attention in narrower trade policy terms thanks to increases in turnover;

31.   notes that decentralised European organisations involved in raising awareness, as well as consumer protection organisations, should be seen as important partners in Fair Trade and systematically involved in development policy goals. At the same time, support should be given to tackling the unfair world trade system, especially European trade and agriculture policy, by enabling individuals to ‘buy fair’. Raising awareness is an instrument with which to counter poverty, underdevelopment, exploitation, hunger and destruction of the environment;

32.   is pleased to note that in recent years the local and regional authorities of the European Union – the tier closest to the public – have established themselves and their credentials in Fair Trade and fair procurement. Fair Trade towns and universities have made it much easier for many thousands of people to get involved and created real opportunities for them to support Fair Trade. Great Britain has had Fair Trade cities since 2001 and Germany since 2008. Great Britain is also in second place worldwide in per capita Fair Trade consumption. There are more than 700 Fair Trade Towns in 12 EU Member States, and many more candidates for the title of Fair Trade Town;

33.   points out the need to bolster consumer power through information and awareness-raising involving the local and interregional press and, increasingly, the electronic media. Collaboration with consumer protection organisations is a way of tapping additional potential;

34.   welcomes the recent initiatives by the Fair Trade Advocacy Office to stimulate MEPs to take a Fair Trade pledge in support of marginalised producers and poor workers in the South. It believes such initiatives could be extended to other levels of government;

35.   stresses that the challenges of globalisation reached Europe's municipalities and regions long ago. A local and forward-looking reaction to this requires further training, professionalisation and networking of local, regional and national players. This work is only just beginning in Europe and urgently needs to be extended in a systematic way;

Support for municipalities and regions

36.   is interested to see that Germany, for example, has since 2001 built up a service point for ‘Communities in One World’ which now works with 2 600 German municipalities and also, often, with their international partners (including twinned towns). Supported by the federal government, most Länder, the associations of local authorities and the NGO umbrella organisation, the service point has done a great deal to bolster the development policy commitment of German municipalities to promoting Fair Trade and environmental and social procurement;

37.   proposes recommendations for local and regional authorities to 1) provide systematic support to strengthen and network their potential in order to meet the growing global challenges inherent in a sustainable development that will overcome poverty and combat environmental degradation, and 2) to particularly facilitate the exchange between old and new EU Member States. The exchange of information should be encouraged through the CoR Portal on Decentralised Cooperation in order to share experiences and create benchmarking to help Southern and Eastern European countries to develop ideas on supporting Fair Trade in the context of their sustainable development and climate change adaptation strategies;

38.   sees the EUR 19 million support mentioned in the communication and the planned EUR 1 million increase to boost Fair Trade as an impressive start, but points out that additional resources will be needed given both the scale of the problems and the opportunities for strengthening available potential that present themselves;

39.   points out that local and regional authorities can also contribute directly to the success of Fair Trade by:

| — | providing only Fair Trade coffee and tea at their meetings and in their offices and canteens; |
| --- | --- |

—

providing only Fair Trade coffee and tea at their meetings and in their offices and canteens;

| — | town and city councils supporting campaigns in this area; |
| --- | --- |

—

town and city councils supporting campaigns in this area;

| — | municipalities recognising the work of the One World shops; |
| --- | --- |

—

municipalities recognising the work of the One World shops;

| — | as many cities as possible striving to earn the title of Fair Trade Town; |
| --- | --- |

—

as many cities as possible striving to earn the title of Fair Trade Town;

Working on a European Fair Trade Strategy

40.   calls for a common European Fair Trade Strategy for Local and Regional Authorities to be drafted, accompanied by an action programme that fulfils environmental and social criteria, in order to support Fair Trade and environmental and social procurement. This strategy could first be prepared at national and interregional level and then further elaborated in workshops and conferences involving those affected and interested parties from politics, government, NGOs and the private sector;

41.   takes the view that the strategy could be adopted at a conference organised by either the CoR or the presidency of the day and discussed and presented in Brussels as part of the ‘Open Days’, which the CoR has developed and which have been such a success;

42.   intends that this process should also bear in mind and involve the key players from the countries of the south and seek to keep awareness of the consequences of globalisation alive in the light of the financial and economic crisis and impending climate disasters. The strengthening of Fair Trade structures and the significance of environmental and social procurement at local and regional levels are no less important for this than a tighter networking with partners in producer countries;

43.   points out that the overall beneficial effects of Fair Trade and environmental and social procurement have so far been overwhelmingly concentrated on agricultural produce from small farmers in ‘developing countries’. The prospect in future is for an extension of the Fair Trade product range and services based on present experience and criteria and the further development of these to strengthen legal certainty. Efforts must be made and supported to further foster the link between producers and end consumers. By extended product range we mean craft and industrial products from all countries of origin, as well as the provision of fair trade services, such as ‘Fair Tourism’. By the further development of structures we mean primarily the assessment of how far environmental and social criteria and ILO minimum standards are respected, as well as transport and sales issues;

44.   points out that, in treatment of the issue to date, not enough attention has been given to the Commission's 2008 directives on strengthening the rights of people with disabilities. International partnerships between municipalities have furnished encouraging experience in the increased involvement of people with disabilities in Fair Trade and environmental and social procurement. The Committee calls for this subject to be addressed and explored more deeply in the proposed strategy and in preparations for this at national and interregional level;

45.   is conscious of the fact that Fair Trade makes up less than 1 % of total trade turnover in Europe. However, those countries in the vanguard with more than a 10 % share – such as Switzerland, Britain, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Austria and Luxembourg – are setting a fine example for more involvement, especially in the south and east of Europe. The often excellent cooperation between NGOs, municipalities and local business – along with partners in the south – has furnished some impressive models of responsibility for the whole of Europe. They are a spur to all of Europe's municipalities and regions, which, by following them, could also make an important contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by 2015.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/15

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the quality of agricultural products

(2010/C 175/04)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

General points

1.   welcomes and commends the Commission's opinion insofar as it demonstrates the Commission's interest in quality agricultural products and, above all, in developing an appropriate framework to support and boost quality agricultural production in the EU and improve its acceptance by consumers;

2.   believes that the production of quality agricultural produce is particularly important for sustainable development in the rural context and, in the long term, helps to preserve regional landscapes and identities, which are shaped by the production methods used by farmers and livestock breeders, contributing to regional development in the future;

3.   stresses the clear benefit of these products, which makes them worthy of a support framework ensuring their long-term stability and the profitability of investments, through market-focused measures including legislation on the possibility of introducing country of farming labelling and promoting EU production standards, particularly in the areas of food safety, protection of the environment and traditional production techniques;

4.   welcomes the Commission's acknowledgement that agricultural quality is intrinsically linked to regional traditions, development and sustainability, but these need to be enhanced and protected through schemes such as Geographical Indication schemes (GIs) and their intellectual property respected internationally;

5.   reminds the Commission that it should be the first to employ concrete measures to inform consumers, particularly Europeans, of the specific features of geographical indications, their characteristics and their particular link to the sustainable development of the rural environment;

6.   agrees with the Commission that the three main issues to be addressed in developing an appropriate quality policy must be information, coherence and (avoiding) complexity;

7.   considers that guidelines should be developed to ensure that the certification scheme model runs smoothly, making sure to harmonise key aspects such as minimum control requirements so as to prevent any clashes between similar schemes;

8.   accepts that in the case of labelling measures, EU marketing standards should be established, although they should also be simplified;

9.   strongly believes that an ambitious agri-foods quality policy is key to achieving the significant development of a sustainable European agricultural industry able to meet the needs of European society and win market share outside the EU;

10.   also believes that fair recognition should be given, before European society as a whole, to the efforts by European farmers and livestock breeders to adapt to stringent environmental, food safety and animal welfare requirements;

With regard to EU farming requirements

11.   believes that it could be worthwhile to consider introducing voluntary labelling indicating the place of farming (place of harvest of crop products, place of birth/raising of livestock, place of milking for dairy cows, etc.). It could also be useful to consider a place of origin requirement (in a processed product, this refers to the place in which the last major processing operation took place), after assessing the pros and cons of this measure, which is already mandatory for some products. These terms would make it possible for European producers to stand out, and would help to provide consumers with comprehensive, specific information;

12.   supports the proposals to develop both animal welfare and carbon footprint labelling; also suggests that detailed rules on integrated production should be developed at European level;

With regard to marketing standards

13.   recognises the importance of marketing standards, which should continue to be mandatory but should be reviewed in depth with a view to eliminating any unnecessary aspects and leaving only those aspects that are truly important for the marketing of each product. This review should be carried out in close cooperation with operators, by setting up a review mechanism that would enable changes to be introduced quickly and flexibly. In any case, the sector-specific features of marketing standards must be maintained so that they are easy to understand and apply;

14.   believes it would be helpful to study the feasibility of establishing optional reserved terms for traditional products and products of mountain farming, bearing in mind that regional administrations could have a major role in defining these;

With regard to geographical indications

15.   opposes the merging of the three existing schemes, in order to maintain the coherence of the system and the specific features of each product; therefore, advocates maintaining both instruments (Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)), as both have proved very useful and have been accepted well by producers; however, considers that information and promotion efforts concerning these schemes should be stepped up;

16.   considers it essential to simplify not only administrative procedures but also all the other aspects relating to registration, maintenance and management to which operators registered to the different schemes must adhere;

17.   supports these terms being used for processed products, provided that there is sufficient certainty about the origin of the ingredients used and that the producers of the relevant denomination have authorised its use;

18.   believes that it could be interesting to look into extending certification requirements for fresh produce to different players in the supply chain, following the example of organic products, with a view to enhancing any positive results;

19.   emphasises that many of those involved in the PGI and PDO schemes have expressed the need for instruments to regulate production, and stresses that if PGIs and PDOs are not provided with these instruments they could disappear or lose their intrinsic authenticity and quality, thus jeopardising the entire social and productive fabric of rural areas in many European regions;

20.   urges the European Commission to seek the necessary production management instruments for PGIs and PDOs, and to make these available to them. Endogenous regional development is often linked to sustainable rural development, and this will not be not possible if PGIs and PDOs do not have instruments to regulate production potential and thus obtain a reasonable balance between supply and demand, enabling production to grow in line with marketing;

21.   PGIs and PDOs are intellectual property rights and, as such, should be allowed the possibility of voluntary regulation, as afforded to any commercial brand, in both qualitative and quantitative terms; this regulation should be seen not as an end in itself, but as a means to ensure sustainability;

22.   recommends looking more closely into the protection of PDOs and PGIs. The industry and the regions believe that there should be a single level of international protection, and the Committee therefore calls on the European Commission to take the required steps to ensure maximum protection, whatever consequences the different PDOs and PGIs may initially have beyond the borders of the regions or the Member States;

23.   calls on the European Commission to step up its efforts to strengthen the rules in the context of the WTO, move forward with bilateral agreements with strategic countries, and insist on the protection of PDOs and PGIs in the context of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreements (ACTA);

With regard to organic farming

24.   welcomes the recent legislative changes in this field and the decision to use the new EU organic logo from 2010 onwards, and firmly believes that this measure, together with the major efforts by the European organic farming industry, will ensure that this extremely environmentally-friendly form of production is developed widely;

With regard to traditional specialities

25.   agrees with the Commission that this scheme has failed to reach its potential, and concurs that it could be useful to examine the feasibility of introducing the term ‘traditional product’, provided that it complies with well-defined, certifiable criteria;

26.   calls on the Commission to examine and implement the necessary specific support schemes for traditional products on the one hand, and mountain products on the other, in the event that these eventually replace the current TSGs;

With regard to the coherence of new EU schemes

27.   recommends that the Commission ensure the coherence of future EU agricultural product quality schemes and initiatives by proactively and pragmatically assessing their added value and advisability; considers, in this respect, that it is also important to take into account the requirements of consumers and the real benefits for them of implementing new schemes;

With regard to the guidelines for private and national food certification schemes

28.   supports the Commission in its initiative to draw up best practice guidelines for all systems relating to agricultural and agri-food product quality, and agrees with the decision not to draw up legislation to regulate private and national certification systems;

Final recommendations

29.   urges the Commission to make substantial efforts to provide information on and promote the European agricultural quality system, geared towards European consumers, with a view to strengthening the system, clarifying its various concepts and promoting the consumption of these products, so that European society as a whole can help to maintain the productive fabric of Europe's rural areas;

30.   calls on the Commission to give greater recognition to the strategic role of the European regions in quality agricultural and agri-food production, and to heed the requests of the regions in this field, which is so important for better regional socio-economic development.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/19

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on aid to farmers in areas with natural handicaps

(2010/C 175/05)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Agricultural and rural development comments

1.   Notes that the Communication of the European Commission clearly focuses on intermediate less-favoured areas, strongly supports the proposal of the EC to clarify the delimitation of intermediate LFA, and stresses that mountain areas are not directly concerned by this Communication and that the purpose is not to focus on links between the different categories of areas with natural handicaps;

2.   Welcomes the working method proposed by the Commission, which is in line with the Committee's recommendations in its draft White Paper on Multi-Level Governance (1);

3.   Points out that agriculture is a very important economic sector of the EU, providing employment for nearly 30 million people. The presence of farmers is essential in order to maintain the social fabric in rural areas and also to preserve the environment and landscape. It is also important to maintain agricultural production facilities throughout the EU in order to retain Europe's capacity to produce high quality food, a role which is becoming increasingly important, since climate change is reducing capacity in other parts of the world. The aid system supporting less favoured areas is vital in order to compensate disadvantages due to natural handicaps in certain areas and thus help to maintain farming there;

4.   Emphasises that local and regional authorities are directly concerned by this Communication, since areas with natural handicaps represented 31,2 % of Europe's utilised agricultural area (UAA) in 2005, where agriculture is an important part of the economy;

5.   Notes that since the beginning of 1975 the need for LFA measures has changed considerably. Appropriate land management in order to overcome the disadvantages due to natural handicaps has become a key priority. Agriculture in less-favoured areas also helps to maintain the attractiveness of a region, biodiversity and the cultural landscape;

6.   Stresses that compensation payments should remain an instrument to compensate for disadvantages due to natural handicaps or adverse production conditions and that they are not intended as agri-environmental measures;

7.   Underlines that the simulations requested must be intended as an exercise and not as a legal binding basis. In any case the CoR will re-examine the Commission's imminent proposals on the basis of an exhaustive and profound analysis of their expected impact;

8.   Takes into account the remarks raised in the Report of the Court of Auditors declaring that the Commission puts forward insufficient reasons for continuing to use the current LFA classification, which is detrimental to the efficient and effective implementation of the aid scheme (par. 76);

Concrete aspects of delimiting LFAs (criteria, fine tuning, etc.):

9.   Finds the decision to define bio-physical criteria in order to improve the identification of areas affected by natural handicaps to be an appropriate way of creating a more objective, coherent and comparable system which ensures that aid for these areas is distributed more equitably and efficiently;

10.   Calls for simple and manageable common criteria as well as clear eligibility criteria to guarantee the transparency and comparability of payments. In this way an efficient compensation system in favour of agricultural activity and production capacity in areas with natural handicaps should be ensured. It is absolutely essential to ensure that any system is comprehensible for farmers, enforceable in court and manageable for the administration;

11.   Proposes that the delimitation of areas affected by a single natural handicap should also be based on geographic and land-planning criteria, rather than only on bio-physical criteria, so as to take into account factors such as enclosure, access to infrastructure and the fragility of particular ecosystems;

12.   Notes that the Communication suggests that an area should be classified as an LFA if at least 66 % of its utilised agricultural land meets at least one of the eight criteria. Whereas the whole exercise of zonage aims to support areas where it is crucial for maintaining agriculture, the proposed limit should not be too high and lead to the potential exclusion of areas which suffer from considerable natural handicaps. Thus, the final definition of the percentage level for an area proposed as an LFA should be considered carefully and could be further discussed only after the simulations and maps are available;

13.   Suggests thinking about cumulative criteria or index systems in heterogeneous areas suffering simultaneously from multiple handicaps. The use of a composite indicator would allow the combination of several criteria, thus defining an area as an LFA even if individual criteria did not trigger such a classification;

14.   Also proposes to consider the use of additional criteria such as field capacity days (FCD) - a measure which indicates the ‘workability’ of the land and which measures the interaction between soil moisture and climate. The proportion of permanent grassland should also be included in the list of criteria, as areas that consist mainly of pasture have considerably fewer alternative uses than arable land;

15.   Asks that consideration be given to whether the new delimitation of so-called intermediate zones could also be done on the basis of smaller territorial units than LAU 2 (e.g. cadastral subdivisions or individual plots), provided that the necessary data are available. In this way, compensation payments could be made more appropriate, more easily understandable for farmers and more easily enforceable;

16.   Takes note of the suggestion of the European Commission that Member States should ‘fine tune’ the areas delimited under the bio-physical criteria by applying appropriate production-based indicators, i.e. systematically removing areas for which problems have been overcome by artificial intervention and where the relevant production-related indicators are comparable to the national average;

17.   Recommends, however, that regionally adapted criteria with appropriate cut-offs replace the ‘fine tuning’ proposed by the Commission. Member States and regions are better placed to identify suitable criteria and appropriate thresholds for delimiting the extent of LFAs in each region. In any case the application of either ‘fine tuning’ or of a regionally-adapted solution must be an optional tool and must not become an obligation;

Providing for a phasing-out

18.   Appreciates the objective of the Communication to introduce a more transparent, appropriate and comparable method for identifying agricultural areas affected by natural handicaps and therefore eligible for compensatory aid, and thus to address the remarks raised in the European Court of Auditors’ special report on this issue;

19.   Is, however, concerned about a possible loss of many regions by removing the socio-economic criteria or the tried and tested indexing systems currently used in delimiting the areas; nevertheless, it would be helpful to consider how to bring geographic and land planning criteria into the scheme for reclassifying areas with natural handicaps;

20.   Considers also the need to provide for a phasing-out for regions and/or municipalities no longer entitled to this classification. There should be an appropriate transitional period to allow farmers to adapt to the new support regime for LFAs. This process should also be considered when deciding on the policy line to be taken in the future CAP;

Subsidiarity

21.   Agrees that the use of series of common bio-physical criteria might indeed produce a more transparent, simplified and comparable method of classification, which would lead to a more efficient management of funds. Given the existing risk of divergences, the Community level - in line with the subsidiarity principle - appears to be the most appropriate at which to take action;

Better lawmaking

22.   Welcomes wholeheartedly the procedure followed in drawing up the Communication. The impact analysis takes into account various options and analyses them in detail. It is important to keep in mind the additional costs that the new model will involve, especially in the initial stages;

23.   Stresses, nevertheless, that a reform of the current system and transition to a system based on bio-physical criteria will have socio-economic consequences, which will have to be taken into account when implementing the new method;

24.   Strongly expects, lastly, that the definition of a set of common criteria for delimiting less-favoured areas should also simplify the implementation of the aid system for compensating natural handicaps at European level and thus guarantee greater transparency and efficiency.

Brussels, 10 February 2010.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 89/2009 fin.

1

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/22

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on a renewed European Strategy ‘Investing in Youth’

(2010/C 175/06)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General remarks

1.   Believes that young Europeans are the future of society. All young people should have the possibility to fully develop their talents and potential. Talent is not only developed in schools (education) but also in the family unit, in associations (sports, music and other cultural facilities), youth organisations, in non-formal young people's groups and in the local quarters (where the libraries, music schools, sports clubs and other facilities are found). Local and regional authorities (LRA) are closest to the young people's lives, and are therefore crucial in providing a framework for this development;

2.   states that it pays off to invest in youth and empower youth. Municipalities and regions that provide good formal and non-formal education, sports, cultural and leisure facilities to youth will be more economically prosperous and safer places in the future, with a strong social dimension that is characterised by tolerance and mutual respect;

3.   firmly believes that youth strategies should take a youth-centred approach, in which the individual, its talent and its needs to develop its full potential are the starting point;

4.   recognises that: young people are all too often one of the most vulnerable groups in society, especially in the current economic and financial crisis and that; in our ageing society youth should be regarded as a precious and critical resource to society, which can and must be mobilised to achieve social and economic goals (1);

5.   endorses the need for an active positive, cross-cutting youth policy, that addresses the potential of all youth by providing favourable conditions to develop their talents and skills to live, work, and actively participate in society, and not solely concentrate on youngsters who require special attention in view of their problems;

6.   draws particular attention to the importance of proactive and preventive measures (2) and; notes the importance of providing young people with better living conditions (1) and creating a society that is child-friendly and youth-friendly (3);

7.   welcomes: the present Communication from the European Commission on a renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities and; the approach proposed in this Communication to invest in youth and to empower young people;

8.   recognises that youth policy is inherently broad in scope, and therefore endorses the cross-cutting EU approach of mainstreaming youth affairs into a wide range of policies (in a cross-sector approach), while also developing more specific policies on youth work;

9.   recommends that the European Commission takes into account the experience and insights available within the local and regional level, and that future actions build upon existing initiatives, such as the European Youth Capital initiative, and frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;

10.   recalls that in many Member States, it is the LRA who are primarily competent and responsible for the development, execution and implementation of youth policy. This was demonstrated by the results from the Consultation (4) organised by the CoR Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in the framework of this opinion; recommends the Commission, in view of the important role of Local and Regional Authorities in the development and implementation of youth policy, to take into account special characteristics of region's such as geographical;

11.   calls for the opinion and contributions of local and regional authorities to be taken into account in the development of youth policies, owing to the relevant competences that these authorities possess in most Member States;

12.   draws attention to the key role of the LRA in the delivery of the proposed EU Strategy, and would have welcomed more explicit reference to the roles and competences of the LRA throughout the Communication; encourages LRA to contribute to the proposed EU Strategy in close cooperation with all stakeholders at all levels, involving young people and their representative organisations in particular;

Mainstreaming and cooperation

13.   endorses the EU approach of mainstreaming youth into a wide range of policies, so as to consistently take the concerns of young people into account in different policy areas;

14.   supports the flexible approach of a youth policy directed at three long-term overarching and interconnected goals, which are linked to fields of action that will be reviewed regularly; believes it is essential for the goals and related actions to be monitored effectively and consistently at all the levels that are responsible for one or more of the goals, and urges local and regional authorities to prepare to deal with selected key topics over a longer period of time in order to improve the scope for greater effectiveness;

15.   supports: the fields of action identified in the Communication and; the actions proposed for Member States and European Commission within their respective spheres of competence;

16.   believes that it is crucial that young people's needs and aspirations are taken into account in every EU reform, and recommends that youth be integrated as a target group within larger EU strategies, campaigns and activities, such as: the successor strategy to the Lisbon strategy; the EU Social Agenda; the thematic strategies and activities, which it hopes the EU (the EU institutions and future EU presidencies) will in the future plan and implement in close cooperation with local and regional authorities and the Committee of the Regions;

17.   recalls, in this regard, that young people represent a key factor for achieving the objectives of the new Lisbon strategy, and considers it essential that they be provided with better education, training, mobility, entry into employment, social inclusion and services for young families;

18.   calls for a medium-term European youth strategy which would take a longer-term view with the emphasis on quality, while focusing on a small number of priorities. The effort and resources invested should be combined in order to boost their chances of being effective;

19.   welcomes the designation of 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering; calls upon the European Commission to explicitly include children and youth as a focus group in its agenda and; strongly encourages LRA to actively participate;

Implementation and exchange of experience

20.   supports that an effective youth policy mandates cross-sectoral policy approaches at the EU national, regional and local levels to deliver results in areas such as child and family policy, education, gender equality, employment, housing and healthcare;

21.   is pleased that the Communication acknowledges that LRA are crucial for implementing cross-sectoral youth strategies, but recalls that in many Member States LRA are primarily competent and responsible for the development, execution and implementation of youth policy;

22.   believes, with the principle of subsidiarity in mind, that the European Commission should focus on inspiring, stimulating and supporting new and existing initiatives on youth policy in close collaboration with LRA;

23.   agrees with the importance of a structured dialogue with youth, on various levels of government and including all stakeholders;

24.   encourages active LRA participation in peer to peer learning for better policy making, as well as in conceiving, implementing and disseminating best-practice examples of policy for youth and together with youth. The CLIP (European Network of Cities for Local Integration Policies for Migrants) and ERY (European Regions for Youth) networks are a good examples of such an approach (5);

25.   believes that the choice of a renewed Open Method of Coordination (OMC) as a tool for the implementation of the strategy may be appropriate; it must be ensured here that the European level does not exceed its powers and that no additional bureaucratic mechanisms are created as a burden to the administrations of the Member States;

26.   stresses that LRA are the government level closest to children, youth, their caretakers, infrastructure for youth education, health and care, and to civil society and; subsequently emphasises the requirement for the direct inclusion and involvement of local and regional authorities as key actors in all stages of the proposed OMC to deliver the EU strategy;

27.   strengthening the means by which young people can participate in these institutions would help to achieve a more flexible, dynamic relationship and increase young people's ability to influence public decisions, thus ensuring that they are effectively included in the economic, social and political life of the regions;

28.   underlines that using the OMC must not lead to a subtraction of competences from lower tiers of administration in favour of States; stresses that this must not lead to harmonisation or encroach on the powers of the Member States by the development of indicators or further reporting obligations; draws attention to the previously published white paper by the CoR on multi-level governance (6);

29.   recalls the request to the European Commission raised by the CoR that the application of the OMC make sufficient use of the role of LRA, thereby respecting their remit and taking into account the initiatives that are already undertaken (7);

30.   calls on the Member States: to support the OMC through local or regional action plans and, conversely; to help ensure that local and regional plans are taken into account in national plans and are the subject of multilevel written arrangements;

31.   agrees upon the need for evidence-based policymaking, and endorses the proposal to make better use of existing tools to gather information;

32.   endorses the proposal to set up a Working Group to discuss possible ‘descriptors’ (light indicators) for evaluating the impact of policy actions in priority areas; recognises that LRA are vital for implementation on the ground and; strongly encourages their active involvement in this ‘descriptors’ working group;

33.   underlines that reporting should be simplified and should concentrate on key descriptors for priority areas and; stresses that reporting should not result in additional administrative burden;

34.   asks the European Commission: to ensure the accessibility of all relevant EU funds to stakeholders on the local and regional level and; to promote the visibility and attractiveness of these programmes by reducing the administrative burden related to EU funds such as the Youth in Action Programme;

35.   calls upon the Member States to allocate adequate funds to LRA and stakeholders for the implementation of common objectives for voluntary activities by young people and; encourages Member States to make use of EU funds and programmes offering support and guidance to national, local and regional voluntary organisations (such as the European Social Fund and the Youth in Action Programme) to enhance the quality of international voluntary projects (8); the tender and contract award procedures for support funding should be made more transparent and the workload involved in submitting applications, reporting and documentation should be reduced;

36.   agrees on the need for cooperation with other EU institutions and international organisations, so that activities can build upon each others’ strengths and mutually benefit from each other.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 334/2006.

1

(2)  CdR 337/2008.

2

(3)  CdR 255/2007.

3

(4)  Report on the Consultation of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network and EDUC commission members on the Communication on an EU strategy for youth, CdR 325/2009.

4

(5)  http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/populationandsociety/clipabout.htm

5

(6)  CdR 89/2009.

6

(7)  CdR 253/2005.

7

(8)  CdR 252/2008.

8

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/26

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on combating functional illiteracy — an ambitious European strategy for preventing exclusion and promoting personal fulfilment

(2010/C 175/07)

I.   POLITICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A.   Principles and general comments

Putting an end to confusion over the definition of functional illiteracy

1.   points out that illiteracy and functional illiteracy is a global problem afflicting some 960 million people. According to the 1958 UNESCO definition, being illiterate means never having learned to read and write. The term functional illiteracy, however, refers to the condition of those people who despite having been to school for a certain time, have not attained the reading, writing and arithmetical skills considered as fundamental in that educational system, and therefore have difficulties with the written word. Functional illiteracy means that a person has never attained a sufficient level in reading, writing and arithmetic to cope with everyday life under equal conditions;

2.   highlights the fact that – according to the PISA studies carried out by the OECD – the number of young people under-achieving in reading is on the rise in the EU; the proportion has increased from 21,3 % in 2000 to 24,1 % in 2006. In the light of this worrying finding, the EU institutions need to increase their efforts here;

3.   points out that the objectives set in the Education and Training 2010 work programme, which aimed at a 20 % reduction in the percentage of school goers with reading and writing difficulties, are far from being achieved and that a corresponding European benchmark was also laid down in the new strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’): the percentage of 15 year-olds underperforming in reading, maths and science should fall below 15 % by 2020; the Committee also calls for a European definition of illiteracy;

4.   points out that the local level is best suited assessing and seeking solutions to the problem of functional illiteracy, as local authorities are often the first point of contact for illiterate people;

5.   highlights the fact that the European Social Fund, which supports literacy programmes in most EU countries, and is indeed the appropriate financial instrument for this purpose, is incorrectly used or underutilised because a framework of strategic guidelines is lacking in this area;

6.   underlines that in the context of the economic and employment crisis, the mastery of key skills is more vital than ever to access the labour market. Reading and reading are the basic qualifications for the future, as demonstrated by a CEDEFOP study predicting that in 2015, 75 % of jobs will require high or medium qualifications;

7.   notes that application of the Lisbon strategy, aimed at making the European Union the leading knowledge-based economy in the world, has tended to target the best qualified; however, a knowledge- and innovation-based society cannot be founded only on a vanguard of highly-qualified professionals: the entire labour market must master the key skills enabling lifelong learning and training. Moreover, Lisbon's economic targets cannot be reached if pockets of quasi under-development persist within the EU. Combating functional illiteracy is thus also an economic imperative for the EU.

Overcoming received wisdom

8.   he Committee of the Regions and grassroots players, in view of both the desirability of mapping the profile of persons liable to be affected by functional illiteracy and the need to avoid possible stereotypes in this regard, would highlight the following points:

| — | this illiteracy problem is not the sole preserve of young people; it affects all age groups, particularly people over 45; |
| --- | --- |

—

this illiteracy problem is not the sole preserve of young people; it affects all age groups, particularly people over 45;

| — | the territorial spread of the problem is complex, making it difficult to generalise. However, the statistics reveal a strong presence in urban areas subject to exclusion and in rural areas with poor access to services; |
| --- | --- |

—

the territorial spread of the problem is complex, making it difficult to generalise. However, the statistics reveal a strong presence in urban areas subject to exclusion and in rural areas with poor access to services;

| — | functional illiteracy is not restricted to jobless people; it has been shown that half of all functionally illiterate people are in employment; and |
| --- | --- |

—

functional illiteracy is not restricted to jobless people; it has been shown that half of all functionally illiterate people are in employment; and

| — | illiteracy should not be seen as going hand in hand with immigration given that three quarters of functionally illiterate people speak only the language of their host country five years after their arrival. The drive to improve literacy should be considered separately from migrant language policy; combating illiteracy is a crucial element of lifelong learning; |
| --- | --- |

—

illiteracy should not be seen as going hand in hand with immigration given that three quarters of functionally illiterate people speak only the language of their host country five years after their arrival. The drive to improve literacy should be considered separately from migrant language policy; combating illiteracy is a crucial element of lifelong learning;

| — | functional illiteracy does not affect men and women equally across different age groups. In some cases, the gender aspect must be taken into account when framing an effective response to this issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

functional illiteracy does not affect men and women equally across different age groups. In some cases, the gender aspect must be taken into account when framing an effective response to this issue;

9.   recalls that Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which became legally binding with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, guarantees the right to education and access to vocational and continuing training. Since reading and writing are essential elements in any educational process, the European Union should supplement and coordinate the work of Member States so as to step up the fight against illiteracy and uphold the right to education;

10.   points out that evaluation of training needs within lifelong learning programmes, particularly in administrations and companies, should be prioritised in order to detect people affected by functional illiteracy and thus help them to attain key skills. Indeed, many employees who are functionally illiterate go to great pains to cover up their problem;

11.   functional illiteracy is a factor contributing to exclusion and poverty that hinders citizens’ labour activity, restricts their democratic and social participation and is seriously detrimental to personal fulfilment and the defence of their rights.

B.   Measures to consider

Prevention, youth employment and professional development

The Committee of the Regions advocates:

12.   promoting the exchange of good practice at EU level, including by facilitating exchanges between local authorities that have greatly developed literacy strategies. A register of good practices could be established by setting up a permanent best practice forum. In the case of strategies to be implemented with young people, it would be necessary to take account of the types of reading difficulty involved, in order to provide the right response to actual needs;

13.   integrating the drive to combat functional illiteracy among the horizontal objectives of the revised post-2010 Lisbon Strategy;

14.   supporting, via the European Social Fund, companies and administrations that establish training programmes for their staff affected by functional illiteracy, ensuring that these detection procedures are subject to the most stringent guarantees to protect the privacy and identity of workers;

15.   supporting adult training initiatives that meet the needs of functionally illiterate citizens who are not engaged in paid work;

16.   including combating functional illiteracy among the Community Strategic Guidelines governing the European Social Fund;

17.   drawing up a European definition of illiteracy, including functional illiteracy;

18.   considering local and regional levels as the best placed levels at which to coordinate resources, focusing on strategic objectives and action plans and setting up interregional and supraregional coordination machinery to ensure compatible approaches in applying these resources. Regional authorities must be supported at national and EU levels in drawing up programmes giving all people access to reading, writing and basic skills. Care should be taken above all to ensure that the relevant national authorities adopt a co-ordinated approach to tying in their strategic targets with their programmes. Basically, steps should be taken to ensure that the contribution of the State, local and regional authorities, economic players and civil society has a high profile;

19.   proposing that local and regional administrations set the example by launching training programmes, including appropriate detection procedures, for their staff affected by functional illiteracy, and set up training programmes for staff facing difficulties in their work. These programmes could receive financial support from the EU;

20.   fostering the development of efforts to prevent and overcome functional illiteracy in the workplace:

| — | companies:
  increasing awareness among company managers of contractual policy, sectoral agreements and inter-sectoral agreements on adjustment funds, enabling the establishment of training programmes, increasing career security, and facilitating the transfer of professional skills; |
| --- | --- |

—

companies:

increasing awareness among company managers of contractual policy, sectoral agreements and inter-sectoral agreements on adjustment funds, enabling the establishment of training programmes, increasing career security, and facilitating the transfer of professional skills;

| — | employees:
  informing employees of their personal right to training and enabling them to seek guidance from training advisors; |
| --- | --- |

—

employees:

informing employees of their personal right to training and enabling them to seek guidance from training advisors;

21.   incorporating the drive to combat functional illiteracy in the programme for the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion, given that this problem is an aggravating factor in social exclusion;

22.   facilitating access to the press – print and electronic – and fostering media literacy among young people in particular, as this will help them develop their critical faculties and familiarise them with written culture, so they can better adapt to the modern world;

23.   launching a European Union information campaign on this affliction. This initiative could help to remove the taboo surrounding illiteracy and encourage the people concerned to seek help;

24.   improving training mechanisms for citizens affected by functional illiteracy who, because they are not working, are not usually detected as such and may be excluded from training programmes. This concerns groups such as the long-term unemployed, those engaged in domestic work, etc.;

25.   improving lifelong learning for groups of self-employed workers, such as small farmers and small-holders, in order to enhance their key skills and eliminate functional illiteracy, which acts as a brake on the economic development of certain production sectors;

26.   focusing specific attention on the female population, especially mature women workers, who may display higher percentages of functional illiteracy as a result of various forms of exclusion;

27.   promoting a European system for assessing illiteracy, including common evaluation indicators and methodologies for the Member States of the European Union;

28.   promoting the integration and coordination of lifelong learning, regulated training and adult training efforts in order to achieve a joint strategy to reduce functional illiteracy.

C.   Conclusions from exchanges with grassroots players

29.   combating functional illiteracy is a key element of lifelong learning policy (initial training and in-service training). It should be treated separately from migrant language policy. It is about facilitating universal access to writing, arithmetic and basic skills;

30.   enhancing literacy improves the economic performance of a business and facilitates the career and personal development of employees. People who are more at ease at work will also be more at ease generally in life;

31.   basic training helps people anticipate change and forestall career interruptions. It strengthens the most vulnerable and mitigates the risk of exclusion;

32.   the policy of preventing and combating functional illiteracy should feature more and more in ordinary policies so that every public policy can directly or indirectly make a long-term contribution;

33.   more than ten years on from the launch of the Lisbon strategy, local and regional authorities have a role to play not only as providers of lifelong education but also as socio-economic players in the Member States, in their capacity as employers and service providers. The problem of functional illiteracy affects them directly as public service providers. Their attention should be drawn to the examples of good practice appended to this opinion; and they should be encouraged to engage in exchanges and dialogue with stakeholders, thus enabling the local and regional level to be involved in the design and implementation of initiatives at EU level.

II.   APPENDICES

Chart 2: Low achievers in reading (at age 15) on the PISA reading literacy scale in the EU and selected third countries 2000 and 2006 (Data source: OECD)

Image

Examples of good practice:

| — | telephone helpline providing reading and writing advice and initiatives; |
| --- | --- |

—

telephone helpline providing reading and writing advice and initiatives;

| — | adult education programmes targeting specific groups; |
| --- | --- |

—

adult education programmes targeting specific groups;

| — | awarding further education diplomas in partnership with universities; |
| --- | --- |

—

awarding further education diplomas in partnership with universities;

| — | family-focused educational, cultural and social initiatives to facilitate parents in supporting their children and reduce school drop-out; |
| --- | --- |

—

family-focused educational, cultural and social initiatives to facilitate parents in supporting their children and reduce school drop-out;

| — | implementing cultural activities aimed particularly at travelling families, as part of the family-focused programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

implementing cultural activities aimed particularly at travelling families, as part of the family-focused programmes;

| — | reading as a means of preventing functional illiteracy in rural areas; |
| --- | --- |

—

reading as a means of preventing functional illiteracy in rural areas;

| — | library-based educational and preventative initiatives targeting children, including pre-school children; |
| --- | --- |

—

library-based educational and preventative initiatives targeting children, including pre-school children;

| — | training of parents to help them support their children through school; |
| --- | --- |

—

training of parents to help them support their children through school;

| — | access to a basic learning culture for prisoners; |
| --- | --- |

—

access to a basic learning culture for prisoners;

| — | job-seeking support for young school-goers with serious difficulties in basic areas of learning; |
| --- | --- |

—

job-seeking support for young school-goers with serious difficulties in basic areas of learning;

| — | basic learning and integration through workshops involving digital media; |
| --- | --- |

—

basic learning and integration through workshops involving digital media;

| — | development of tailor-made basic training programmes for employees; |
| --- | --- |

—

development of tailor-made basic training programmes for employees;

| — | establishment of basic training programmes for local authority staff; |
| --- | --- |

—

establishment of basic training programmes for local authority staff;

| — | access to basic skills for farm workers with minimal qualifications; |
| --- | --- |

—

access to basic skills for farm workers with minimal qualifications;

| — | identification of employees’ basic training needs based on the workplace; |
| --- | --- |

—

identification of employees’ basic training needs based on the workplace;

| — | company-based basic skills training; |
| --- | --- |

—

company-based basic skills training;

| — | raising awareness among decision-makers; |
| --- | --- |

—

raising awareness among decision-makers;

| — | development of regional strategies and action plans with local players; |
| --- | --- |

—

development of regional strategies and action plans with local players;

| — | development of the right to training in companies; |
| --- | --- |

—

development of the right to training in companies;

| — | consolidation of apprentices’ basic skills as part of career development and the accreditation of experience; |
| --- | --- |

—

consolidation of apprentices’ basic skills as part of career development and the accreditation of experience;

| — | in-service basic training to increase career security; |
| --- | --- |

—

in-service basic training to increase career security;

| — | introduction of work experience schemes to smooth the transition from school to the workplace; |
| --- | --- |

—

introduction of work experience schemes to smooth the transition from school to the workplace;

| — | new ICT and Internet training; |
| --- | --- |

—

new ICT and Internet training;

| — | the introduction of public orientation points to help people use public transport; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the introduction of public orientation points to help people use public transport; and

| — | programmes to detect functional illiteracy in local and regional authorities. |
| --- | --- |

—

programmes to detect functional illiteracy in local and regional authorities.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/31

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Green Paper on promoting the learning mobility of young people

(2010/C 175/08)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.   welcomes the Commission's initiative in launching, with the Green Paper on Promoting the learning mobility of young people, a Europe-wide debate on the opportunities for improving the promotion of mobility, identifying obstacles to the cross-border ability of young people and highlighting the usefulness of the experience of mobility;

2.   reiterates its support for mobility within Europe and beyond, and concurs with the Council and the Commission that study periods abroad should gradually become the rule for young people in Europe rather than the exception;

3.   points out that promoting the mobility of teachers and students is a key feature of educational cooperation in Europe, specifically listed in the Treaty as one of the activities of the European Union in the field of education;

4.   considers that, against this background, the discussion of this question at European level offers significant European added value and can provide a major impetus for the shaping of European, national, regional and local programmes, instruments and initiatives promoting the cross-border learning mobility of young people;

5.   believes that much can be gained from developing the exchange of information and experience between the Member States and, in this context, attaches high priority to the dissemination of best practice in the Member States by the Commission;

6.   endorses the broad-based approach of the Green Paper, which focuses on the situation of all young people in different learning situations, covering all areas of formal, informal and non-formal learning;

7.   points to the important contribution of the regional and local authorities to promoting learning mobility, particularly with regard to information, advice and awareness-raising, as well as in most cases support measures ensuring quality and the availability of financing;

The growing importance of learning mobility

8.   shares the Commission's view that learning mobility – i.e. a period spent abroad for the purpose of acquiring new skills and competences – is one of the key ways in which young people can achieve personal development, obtain access to new knowledge, broaden their knowledge of languages, acquire intercultural skills and improve their employment chances;

9.   is convinced that, at a time of ever more rapid globalisation and cross-border networking of all areas of life and work, intercultural competences, language skills and international knowledge are continuing to grow in importance;

10.   agrees with the Commission that mobility encourages a deeper understanding of the European identity and a sense of European citizenship in young people, and helps to combat xenophobia. It also increases the dissemination of knowledge, which is the key to Europe's future as a knowledge-based society;

11.   concurs with the Commission that learning mobility should be a permanent feature of the European identity and an opportunity for all young people in Europe, thus helping to ensure the competitiveness of the European Union, the development of a knowledge-intensive society and promoting the objectives of the Lisbon strategy for growth and employment;

12.   shares the Commission's view that, overall, too few young people are going abroad for educational or training purposes, but points out that the Green Paper does not cover the many financial and organisational measures to promote mobility available outside the EU programmes in the Member States;

13.   stresses that the Member States, as well as the regional and local authorities, schools, educational institutions and other educational and youth organisations, firms, societies and associations promote a multiplicity of mobility measures which serve the purposes of formal, non-formal and informal learning;

14.   points out that it is often the small-scale mobility projects, adopted at local, regional or national level, which have a decisive impact and which contribute to strengthening the European way of thinking, and promote active Union citizenship and democracy;

The conditions for well-developed mobility among young people

15.   sees the availability of comprehensive, targeted and locally available information and informed, personal advice, tailored to individual needs, as central criteria for mobility and its success;

16.   considers that there is a need for additional information, particularly with regard to measures to promote mobility which do not fall under EU programmes, and, against this background, considers comparative summaries of programmes of this kind already existing in the Member States, e.g. in the form of handbooks, also in electronic form, to be useful;

17.   considers that, in addition to the quality, transparency, compatibility and general acceptance of foreign educational programmes and qualifications, it is above all institutional and social conditions and financial factors which affect the willingness of people to spend time abroad;

18.   considers it necessary to explain to young people the many advantages of a period of mobility, to publicise the existing support facilities and to convince them of the usefulness of time spent abroad;

19.   points out that some obstacles to mobility can be influenced from the outside only to a limited extent, and stresses its belief that increasing mobility will require a great deal of willingness, time, effort and openness from all concerned;

20.   therefore notes the lack in the Green Paper of any reference to the individual responsibility of young people for overcoming persistent obstacles to mobility by showing personal commitment and initiative, e.g. attempting to overcome existing barriers through participation in organised exchange schemes; draws attention in this context to the importance of measures which aim to encourage and promote the individual initiative of young people;

21.   also notes the lack in the Green Paper of any emphasis on the important role of the parental home, as the foundation of the willingness to go abroad for educational purposes needs to be laid early, in the family; this requires parents to be aware of the considerable advantages of time spent abroad; it requires them to motivate their children to go abroad and to support them, if possible, in the preparation and execution of their stay; against this background, reaching economically disadvantaged sections of the population with lower levels of education presents a major challenge;

22.   strongly advocates the greater involvement of economically or socially disadvantaged groups, people with special needs and young people from migration backgrounds in mobility programmes, who could possibly be offered a higher level of support, as it is often these very groups which face specific obstacles;

23.   despite the justified call for development of cross-border learning mobility, sounds a warning against the neglect of the other tasks and needs of schools, higher educational institutions, training institutions and other educational bodies – e.g. with regard to planning of the academic year or long-term organisation of curricula – to the detriment of the quality of education;

24.   advocates the continuation beyond 2013 of EU educational programs promoting mobility and calls on the Commission, Council and European Parliament to make early provision for sufficient funding in the context of the preparation of the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework;

25.   notes with satisfaction that the Green Paper repeatedly refers to the essential contribution of regional and local government to the promotion of mobility; and therefore calls on the Commission to take greater account of the fundamental role of the regional and local authorities in drawing up and carrying out mobility programmes, by constantly involving these authorities in the drawing up of programmes;

26.   calls for the Community lifelong learning programme to reflect the aspiration that young people's mobility should also be promoted in a cross-vocational way; thus for example students from all kinds of schools should be offered support for periods of practical training in firms or other non-academic institutions abroad;

27.   recommends that the burden of administration arising in connection with EU mobility measures should be significantly reduced and the voluminous application forms simplified;

28.   points out to the competent authorities at national, regional and local level that they could leave financial resources freed up by the falling birth rate in the EU Member States in the education sector and use them, inter alia, for quantitative and qualitative promotion of learning mobility;

29.   encourages Member States and the regional and local authorities to adopt rules in their areas of responsibility and competence supporting mobility and helping to reduce obstacles to mobility;

30.   considers that macroregions, which play an increasingly important role in a European Union of 27 Member States, also have an important contribution to make in promoting learning mobility;

31.   recommends that the regional and local authorities contribute to non-formal learning through mobility measures adopted in the context of regional or city partnerships;

32.   considers that, in an increasingly global knowledge society, there is a need to do more to bring home the relevance of international skills to teachers, trainers, employers and the general public;

A new partnership for mobility

33.   shares the Commission's view that, in order to achieve a significant increase in mobility opportunities for young people, coordinated action is needed in all areas, and that to that end a new partnership is required, with public bodies working together with civil society, firms and a whole variety of other actors in the education and youth spheres;

34.   calls for efforts in all areas and at all levels to exploit existing potential for mobility and to find new ways of promoting mobility;

35.   agrees with the Commission that multipliers - such as teachers, trainers, youth workers and former participants in mobility schemes - play a key role in promoting the mobility of young people, and therefore calls for the important function of multipliers to be given greater emphasis in future calls for tenders and programme generations;

36.   welcomes the new COMENIUS Regio action, which facilitates the involvement of non-academic bodies and aims to promote European school cooperation at regional and local level; the partners work together in areas of common interest, exchange experience and develop permanent cooperation structures;

37.   has reservations about the Commission's call for European, national and regional authorities to work together with educational institutions, civil society bodies and local authorities in order to combine financial resources, in view of the distribution of powers in the field of education and the heterogeneity of the actors in this area;

38.   points out that combining financial resources will not increase the total amount available and therefore rather advocates the qualitative development of the existing programmes and improved provision of information about existing facilities;

39.   calls on the local and regional authorities, in promoting learning mobility, not only to carry out projects in the framework of the lifelong learning programme, but also to consider to what extent mobility measures, e.g. in the framework of bilateral and multilateral regional vocational education partnerships, can be financed from European Structural Fund resources;

40.   encourages higher educational institutions to investigate new forms of cooperation between public bodies and the private sector with a view to promoting mobility;

41.   calls on firms to make their contribution to mobility, particularly in the field of initial and further vocational education and research, to support mobility schemes for apprentices despite the sometimes considerable structural differences in vocational education systems and to invest in knowledge, skills and competences even in these economically difficult times;

42.   points to its support for the pilot initiative for an Erasmus programme for local and regional elected representatives (1), offering them the opportunity to expand their knowledge, acquire new experience and exchange best practice;

43.   considers that virtual mobility can only accompany and cannot replace the experience of physical mobility, but is still convinced that it can make a valuable contribution to physical mobility, by significantly facilitating young people's preparations for the physical mobility phase and improving its quality in a lasting way;

Setting mobility objectives at European, regional and local level

44.   refers to the Council Conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training, in accordance with which the Commission has been asked to submit a proposal for reference levels for European average performance (benchmarks) by the end of 2010, taking account of both quantitative and qualitative aspects, and it awaits the results of this work with great interest;

45.   points out that the European benchmarks do not contain any national targets and do not pre-empt decisions which must be taken by the individual governments, although national measures adopted on the basis of national priorities contribute to the achievement of the benchmarks;

46.   points out, in view of the Commission's proposal that, in addition to the European benchmarks, separate benchmarks be laid down for the regions, higher educational institutions, schools, firms and associations, that the establishment of national or regional benchmarks is a matter for the Member States;

47.   further emphasises that the creation of new indicators and benchmarks could under certain circumstances result in a significant additional administrative and financial burden on national, regional and local government; in view of the Commission's efforts to reduce bureaucracy, such measures should therefore be put into effect only if the results of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis are positive;

48.   calls on the Commission, once the results of the consultation have been evaluated, to draw up an inventory of tried and tested procedures, with specific, practical approaches to solving existing problems with regard to promoting mobility, and to make this inventory available to the competent national, regional and local decision-makers.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  White Paper of the Committee of the Regions on Multilevel Governance, CdR 89/2009.

1

---

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/35

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Internet of Things and reuse of Public Sector Information

(2010/C 175/09)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.   welcomes the Commission's initiative to review the application of the Re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI) Directive and promote the action plan for the Internet of Things (IoT), as they have the potential to become valuable assets for citizens, businesses and administrations and could help to create jobs and improve the quality of public services;

2.   stresses the importance of re-using public sector information for both commercial and non-commercial purposes, and investing in research to support specific activities and the development of future applications to enhance the value of the IoT domain;

3.   stresses the importance of local and regional authorities in accordance with the i2010 strategy for a European information society, as they represent the engine of economic growth at local level and generate, use and own many digital information products and services; for this reason, local and regional authorities (LRAs) should be fully and effectively involved in the governance and development of IoT;

4.   points out that, at local and regional level, the Internet of Things can boost the quality of life and social and economic activity of citizens, stimulate regional development and local businesses and provide more efficient, tailor-made public services to citizens. There are several ways in which regions and cities can help to ensure this potential is fully reached; LRAs are amongst the main beneficiaries of the IoT governance principles, and are key drivers of development and implementation;

5.   calls for the identification of suitable solutions for the collection and management of public sector information, taking into account the cultural and administrative diversity among the Member States and between local and regional bodies;

6.   stresses the role of logistics needed to handle the large amount of data that will be used by the applications developed and run by the public administrations;

7.   welcomes the fact that the Re-use of PSI Directive attempts to minimise the additional administrative burden placed on public bodies by the availability of such information;

8.   emphasises the significance of and the need for common rules and practices governing the re-use and exploitation of public sector information to ensure that the same basic conditions are applied to all players in the European information market, conditions for re-using such information are more transparent, and distortions of the internal market are eliminated;

9.   highlights the need to promote e-Inclusion, meaning an inclusive, regionally and socially equitable information society, which uses ICT within the larger scope of IoT for increased competitiveness and better public services;

10.   advocates encouraging the development of laboratories in Europe with combined funding from universities and private companies, in order to amplify the impact of IT research activities in Europe;

11.   stresses that the access and re-use of public sector information have the potential to boost the applications of the Internet of Things. As the main repositories and content holders of PSI, the cities and regions play a key role in facilitating the creation of IoT;

Re-use of PSI Directive

12.   points out that, in order to develop a market for the re-use of PSI, it is necessary to do away with exclusive agreements by public sector bodies and private firms and to implement policies that apply licensing and charging models to facilitate and maximise the re-use of PSI (notably through the application of marginal costs); also, it is important to consider and clarify the type of mechanisms used for the production and management of public data;

13.   regarding the principle of a competitive PSI market, stresses that it is essential to ensure that private service providers face the same conditions as public institutions, to enable access to public data by private users, and to clearly point out the conditions under which these data can be used for commercial purposes;

14.   points out that it is essential to determine a way of measuring the economic value of the information, in an objective manner, due to the public nature of the information and its connection with the governmental institutions;

15.   proposes that a distinction be made between access and re-use of public information, in full compliance with data protection rules, in order to improve the benefits for the producer of the information, who might not entirely cover his expenses when generating this information, and to minimise the number of cases when limited access is granted to public information;

LRAs - key enablers and beneficiaries of PSI use

16.   calls for greater focus on raising awareness at regional at local level, owing to the lack of knowledge and/or mechanisms to identify the information available for re-use, and to help public bodies to be more transparent and promote the re-use of PSI;

17.   stresses that the full potential of PSI re-use could be reached with closer involvement of local and regional authorities, which could significantly contribute to promoting PSI re-use in order to increase competitiveness and create jobs;

18.   points out that it is crucial for public institutions at regional and local level to have adequate in-house capacities and sustainable financial resources for digitisation. Private-public partnerships and the development of e-learning markets do provide alternatives to finance content digitisation. Public sector information can develop self-sustaining revenue streams helping data creation and digitisation efforts. In addition, networks and interactive communities are also important because they allow cost reductions, for example in the case of open software development;

Internet of Things

19.   stresses that the development of IT is a crucial issue for our societies and Europe's single market, provided that the EU commits sufficient economic resources to innovation, basic research and R&D and political resources to governance for the future of the Internet;

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

21.   proposes that special attention be given to the Future of the Internet, which might evolve into a combination of the Internet of Things and high-quality content and services using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform. Its new pattern will redefine the place and role of pervasive networks in people's lives and economic growth which may lead to major social changes;

The governance of the Internet of Things, privacy and data security

22.   stresses that the development of IoT cannot be left only to the private sector, given the deep societal changes it will bring about. Only the involvement of EU policy-makers and public authorities, including LRAs, can ensure that the use of ICT will, inter alia, boost economic growth, address the challenges of the aging society and stimulate the efficient use of energy;

23.   highlights that the governance of IoT must be designed and exercised in a manner that is consistent with all public policy activities, as stated by the CoR in its White Paper on Multilevel Governance (1) which aims to reinforce the efficiency of Community action through coordinated actions by the European Union, the Member States and LRAs, based on partnership and with a view to drawing up and implementing EU policies;

24.   points out the need to successfully address a major strategic challenge like the IoT through the principles and mechanisms of multi-level governance, both vertically between ‘local and regional authorities - national government and European Union’ and horizontally between ‘local and regional authorities - civil society’, or experimenting with certain innovations at local and regional level;

25.   stresses that, while building the IoT infrastructure and developing the services it carries, it will be crucial to ensure that all security requirements at every level are met to ensure optimum levels of privacy and protection of personal data and prevent any unauthorised tracking of all kinds of personal information and profiling, including shopping preferences, medical status, health records, etc.;

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

27.   therefore, believes that special attention should be paid to developing guidelines and recommendations aimed at defining ICT strategies, rules, standards and common formats in order to increase data security and support privacy protection;

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

Socio-economic implications of the Internet of Things

29.   believes, as expressed in previous opinions (2), that local and regional authorities should participate in wide-ranging cooperation to improve interoperability in public administration and the effectiveness of public service delivery;

30.   highlights that LRAs can and do take the lead in boosting Europe's competitiveness, increasing business opportunities, improving public healthcare and using ICT for greater energy efficiency by sharing technological best practices, identifying project partners and allocating funding;

31.   emphasises that policies to bolster ICT will not on their own lead to stronger economic performance without the active support and participation of local and regional authorities. Civil society, LRAs and government should work together to ensure that a virtuous circle of human resource upgrading, organisational change, ICT and productivity is set in motion;

32.   stresses that actions aimed at enhancing basic literacy in ICT, building high-level ICT skills, lifelong learning in ICT and enhancing the managerial and networking skills needed for the effective use of ICT are particularly relevant and belong to the core competencies of the local and regional authorities;

Research, development and innovation

33.   praises the Commission for its commitment to further supporting research and technological development on IoT through FP7, beyond the current outstanding accomplishments, and endorses the use of the CIP programme as an excellent platform to promote the deployment of future IoT applications. In this regard, the local and regional scale could prove very beneficial for carrying out pilot projects, both in terms of ease of implementation and benefit/cost ratio;

34.   expresses its support for a stronger role for national and regional stakeholders in developing major new European initiatives like ERA-NETs or Joint Technology Initiatives (3). In this respect, the process of building up research and innovation potential in order to secure a sustainable competitive advantage in Europe, and hence achieve the goals of IoT faster, can only succeed with the involvement of those cities and regional authorities that are making research and innovation a top priority for public funding;

35.   calls for greater complementarity between existing policies and cooperation instruments, and for coordinated use of FP7, SF and CIP, which provide investment possibilities in line with the specific features of different research projects;

36.   emphasises the need to attract high-calibre academics from outside Europe and stresses the importance of the regions as the main providers of educational services, and the increasing need to strengthen regional investment in human resources; special focus should be placed on local innovation policies, technology centres, business incubators, science parks and venture capital;

International dialogue

37.   points out that, in the framework of international cooperation, the regions are particularly significant owing to supportive programming, structural and legislative framework conditions in the context of their research policies;

38.   stresses that even small institutions at regional and local level can produce knowledge of worldwide interest in restricted specialist areas, especially when they participate in global networks and collaborate with knowledge-based businesses;

39.   highlights, in this regard, that links and cooperation between regions both within and across countries are becoming increasingly important, especially for policies to support cluster, network and innovation ecosystems, while support for them is also evolving with a view to creating world-class ‘nodes’ to link to global innovation chains rather than geographically-bound clusters.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 89/2009 fin.

1

(2)  CdR 10/2009 fin.

2

(3)  CdR 83/2007 fin.

3

---

III Preparatory acts

Committee of the Regions

83rd plenary session held on 9-10 February 2010

| 1.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/40

---

83rd PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 9-10 FEBRUARY 2010

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Year of Volunteering (2011)

(2010/C 175/10)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.   welcomes the European Commission proposal to designate 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering and endorses the Commission's analysis of the multi-faceted contribution that volunteering makes to European society and the challenges and policy requirements that the sector faces;

2.   welcomes the recognition by the European Commission of voluntary activity as a key component of active citizenship at local, regional, national and EU-wide levels. For many individuals, voluntary activity is a personal manifestation of the concepts of social cohesion and social capital, and is, in its truest form, ‘active’ citizenship;

3.   emphasises the major role that is played by local authorities and regions in promoting, developing and supporting volunteer activities, evidenced by the amount of volunteering that is facilitated directly at these levels and welcomes the recognition of the role of local and regional authorities in the draft proposal;

4.   welcomes the understanding by the European Commission of the importance of volunteering with regard to employability and lifelong learning. While this is of heightened importance at the moment due to the economic crisis, it is also crucial in times of economic well-being as a means of encouraging social cohesion;

5.   highlights the economic contribution that volunteering makes to local, regional, national and the EU economies and as an influential factor in investment and job creation and considers that the European Year in 2011 provides an opportunity for a greater reflection of this contribution in the context of renewing the European Jobs and Growth (Lisbon) Strategy and the National Reform Programme process;

6.   stresses, however, that volunteering must not be used as a substitute or replacement for employed staff in any environment; public authorities within their competencies should ensure that neither they, nor their contract partners engage in such practices;

Legal Base and Title of the European Year

7.   accepts re-titling 2011 as the ‘European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship’ on the grounds of the legal base used to make the draft proposal but considers that the original title should continue to be used as the public title to help engender support, recognition and understanding of the European Year and to avoid diluting its central theme, which is volunteering;

8.   furthermore, requests that lengthy discussion on the legal base be avoided and that a decision on the Proposal should be finalised as quickly as possible in order to allow sufficient time for preparatory actions to be undertaken in 2010;

9.   recognises that volunteering is a key dimension of active citizenship and democracy but underlines that this is just one facet and that the European Year must also promote the broad contribution that voluntary activity makes to European society;

Better Synergies between European Years

10.   considers that the designation of 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering should build on some of the activities of the European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2010, given the role that volunteering plays in this regard and also suggests that the European Year should support complementary actions to the UN's ‘International Year of Volunteers +10’;

11.   advocates, furthermore, that outcomes from the 2011 European Year of Volunteering be utilised in the planning and implementation of actions related to future relevant European Years such as Active Aging (in 2012) and Citizenship (proposed for 2013);

12.   recommends that the European Commission should develop better synergies between the European Years in general rather than they being seen as ‘one-off’ events, as this would provide greater added-value and strengthen capitalisation on the European Years’ activities and outcomes;

13.   suggests, in this regard, that there needs to be a wider engagement and more horizontal coordination of different services in the European Commission, and a greater commitment from the Member States, as well as greater efforts to involve sub-national levels of governance, to ensure that the follow-up on 2011 is effective and builds on results achieved;

Objectives of the European Year in 2011

14.   welcomes the European Commission's four objectives for the European Year of Volunteering, as they are a practical and clear breakdown of the processes involved in volunteering both for individuals and volunteer-involving organisations;

15.   draws attention to the varied forms, spheres and traditions of volunteering among the Member States and underlines that there is a need for an understanding and flexible approach during 2010 and 2011 and considers that the European Year of Volunteering provides a unique opportunity to catalogue and create appropriate forums to share experiences and best practices between national, regional and local levels from across the European Union;

16.   advocates the consideration of the development of a common approach among Member States to quantify voluntary activity as a key theme under Objective 3 - Reward and recognise volunteering activities;

17.   emphasises the need to utilise the European Year of Volunteering to improve the conditions for volunteering in the European Union, with particular regard to the provision of well-resourced, efficient and visible infrastructure to enable easy access for the public to volunteering opportunities;

18.   advocates that a specific day towards the end of the 2011 be nominated as the European Union wide day of volunteering, bearing in mind the various traditions of volunteering that exist within Member States. This day could be utilised every year to create a sense of solidarity among EU citizens who volunteer and promote volunteering to the general public in a coherent and innovative fashion;

19.   furthermore, suggests that in light of the role public policy can play at local/regional level in promoting and facilitating voluntary activity, a biennial award for the most volunteer-friendly city, local or regional authority should be established at Community and individual Member State levels during 2011 and would, furthermore, support volunteer of the year awards to recognise the commitment and achievement of individuals in the area of volunteering;

20.   draws attention to the need to involve members of the general public (with a particular emphasis on those from socially excluded groups) already engaged in voluntary activity in relevant communication messages to promote engagement in voluntary activity to all EU citizens;

21.   emphasises that communication actions should focus on themes including local voluntary activity, cross-border EU voluntary activity, and voluntary activity in the developing world;

Outputs of the European Year in 2011

22.   underlines that for the European Year to be successful in achieving its objectives a critical mass of initiatives that will have an enduring impact on volunteering across the European Union, is required. In particular, the European Year for Volunteering must work towards achieving political commitment on:

| (a) | addressing the lack of a legal status for volunteers, compatible across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

addressing the lack of a legal status for volunteers, compatible across the EU;

| (b) | a more systematic data collection on volunteers and the services they provide to accurately assess the economic value of the sector; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a more systematic data collection on volunteers and the services they provide to accurately assess the economic value of the sector; and

| (c) | addressing the various barriers that prevent people wishing to volunteer, (such as the lack of a systematic police clearance process for those wishing to work with children and vulnerable adults, across the EU or the threat of withdrawing benefits from unemployed persons wishing to engage in voluntary activity, etc.); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

addressing the various barriers that prevent people wishing to volunteer, (such as the lack of a systematic police clearance process for those wishing to work with children and vulnerable adults, across the EU or the threat of withdrawing benefits from unemployed persons wishing to engage in voluntary activity, etc.);

23.   suggests that the European Year of Volunteering lays the foundations for the formulation of an Action Plan for Volunteering which should provide for a better recognition and support for volunteering in various EU policy areas and programmes and considers that the planned Thematic Conferences for 2011 be utilised to identify the key elements and priorities of this Action Plan;

24.   considers that the European Year could also facilitate a discussion on adequate policies at national level to stimulate and promote voluntary activities and build on the initiatives and achievements of 2011;

25.   also suggests that further consideration must be given to broader recognition of the monetary equivalent of volunteering as match funding in EU funded programmes, post 2013 and considers that this requires a stronger reference in the Financial Regulations and a wide Inter-Services consultation across the relevant Directorates-General;

Financial Resources

26.   regrets the relatively low level of funding being allocated for the European Year of Volunteering (especially in comparison to the EUR 17 million provided in 2010). There is a danger that with this amount of funding, the objectives of the Year may not be fully realised and the activities envisaged may not permeate through the various structures to the general public;

27.   suggests, therefore, that the EUR 6 million provided in the draft Proposal be seen as a minimum and that additional resources be allocated to the European Year in 2011, as available, and would like the European Commission to articulate more clearly the range of other funding possibilities under relevant Community Programmes that could be deployed to achieve the Year's objectives;

Committee of the Regions’ Role

28.   pledges to actively promote the objectives of the European Year of Volunteering and to be associated with its activities, as appropriate, and offers to work with the European Commission and Member States to give practical effect to the European Year of Volunteering.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Proposed amendment to the Proposal for a Council Decision on the European Year of Volunteering

Article 4

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Each Member State shall appoint a body responsible for organising its participation in the European Year (hereinafter referred to as national coordinating body). It shall inform the Commission of that appointment within one month of the adoption of this Decision.
  Each Member State shall ensure that the aforementioned body properly involves a wide range of stakeholders at national, regional and local level.
  The national coordinating body shall be responsible for drafting the national programme/actions and priorities of the Year in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 2 and according to the specifications of the Annex. | Each Member State shall appoint a body responsible for organising its participation in the European Year (hereinafter referred to as national coordinating body). It shall inform the Commission of that appointment within one month of the adoption of this Decision.
  Each Member State shall ensure that the aforementioned body properly involves a wide range of stakeholders at national, regional and local level.
  The national coordinating body shall be responsible for drafting the national programme/actions and priorities of the Year in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 2 and according to the specifications of the Annex. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Each Member State shall appoint a body responsible for organising its participation in the European Year (hereinafter referred to as national coordinating body). It shall inform the Commission of that appointment within one month of the adoption of this Decision.

Each Member State shall ensure that the aforementioned body properly involves a wide range of stakeholders at national, regional and local level.

The national coordinating body shall be responsible for drafting the national programme/actions and priorities of the Year in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 2 and according to the specifications of the Annex.

Each Member State shall appoint a body responsible for organising its participation in the European Year (hereinafter referred to as national coordinating body). It shall inform the Commission of that appointment within one month of the adoption of this Decision.

Each Member State shall ensure that the aforementioned body properly involves a wide range of stakeholders at national, regional and local level.

The national coordinating body shall be responsible for drafting the national programme/actions and priorities of the Year in accordance with the objectives listed in Article 2 and according to the specifications of the Annex.

Reason

There is a need for a process of consultation with stakeholders in drawing-up the national programmes and setting the priorities.

Amendment 2

Proposed amendment to the Proposal for a Council Decision on the European Year of Volunteering

Article 7.1

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The budget for implementing this Decision for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 is EUR 6 000 000. | The budget for implementing this Decision for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 is EUR 6 000 000, . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

The budget for implementing this Decision for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 is EUR 6 000 000.

The budget for implementing this Decision for the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 is EUR 6 000 000, .

Reason

In order to achieve tangible results, the budget for the European Year needs to be increased and the current proposal must be seen as a minimum.

Amendment 3

Proposed amendment to the Proposal for a Council Decision on the European Year of Volunteering

Article 9

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission together with the Member States shall ensure that the measures provided for in this Decision are consistent with other Community, national and regional schemes and initiatives that help attain the objectives of the European Year. | The Commission together with the Member States shall ensure that the measures provided for in this Decision are consistent with other Community, national, and regional schemes and initiatives that help attain the objectives of the European Year. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission together with the Member States shall ensure that the measures provided for in this Decision are consistent with other Community, national and regional schemes and initiatives that help attain the objectives of the European Year.

The Commission together with the Member States shall ensure that the measures provided for in this Decision are consistent with other Community, national, and regional schemes and initiatives that help attain the objectives of the European Year.

Reason

There is also a need to include consistency with local initiatives.

Brussels, 10 February 2010

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---