# Official Journal C 157/3 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 157 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 663 May 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 157

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 663 May 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023 |
| 2023/C 157/01 | Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions on the Cities and Regions responding to the energy crisis: towards a real European Energy Union | 1 |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023 |
| 2023/C 157/02 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on progress in the implementation of SDGs | 6 |
| 2023/C 157/03 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Review Report on the Implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility | 12 |
| 2023/C 157/04 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions | 18 |
| 2023/C 157/05 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on creating an enabling environment for the social economy — the local and regional perspective | 23 |
| 2023/C 157/06 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the European care strategy | 28 |
| 2023/C 157/07 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on adequate minimum income for social inclusion: the local and regional perspective | 33 |
| 2023/C 157/08 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the EU Nature Restoration Law | 38 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Committee of the Regions

153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023

2023/C 157/01

Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions on the Cities and Regions responding to the energy crisis: towards a real European Energy Union

1

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023

2023/C 157/02

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on progress in the implementation of SDGs

6

2023/C 157/03

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Review Report on the Implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility

12

2023/C 157/04

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions

18

2023/C 157/05

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on creating an enabling environment for the social economy — the local and regional perspective

23

2023/C 157/06

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the European care strategy

28

2023/C 157/07

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on adequate minimum income for social inclusion: the local and regional perspective

33

2023/C 157/08

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the EU Nature Restoration Law

38

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023 |
| 2023/C 157/09 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on Regional adaptation strategies for low carbon agriculture | 58 |
| 2023/C 157/10 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the European Health Data Space | 64 |
| 2023/C 157/11 | Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Single Market Emergency Instrument | 82 |

III   Preparatory acts

Committee of the Regions

153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023

2023/C 157/09

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on Regional adaptation strategies for low carbon agriculture

58

2023/C 157/10

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the European Health Data Space

64

2023/C 157/11

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Single Market Emergency Instrument

82

---

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Committee of the Regions

153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/1

---

Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions on the Cities and Regions responding to the energy crisis: towards a real European Energy Union

(2023/C 157/01)

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| — | having regard to the European Commission REPowerEU Plan of 18 May 2022 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the European Commission REPowerEU Plan of 18 May 2022 (1);

| — | having regard to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) 2022/1032 of 29 June 2022 amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1938 and (EC) No 715/2009 with regard to gas storage (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) 2022/1032 of 29 June 2022 amending Regulations (EU) 2017/1938 and (EC) No 715/2009 with regard to gas storage (2);

| — | having regard to the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1369 of 5 August 2022 on coordinated demand-reduction measures for gas (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1369 of 5 August 2022 on coordinated demand-reduction measures for gas (3);

| — | having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (4); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (4);

| — | having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on enhancing solidarity through better coordination of gas purchases, exchanges of gas across borders and reliable price benchmarks (5); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on enhancing solidarity through better coordination of gas purchases, exchanges of gas across borders and reliable price benchmarks (5);

| — | having regard to the conclusions adopted by the European Council on 15 December 2022 (6); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the conclusions adopted by the European Council on 15 December 2022 (6);

| — | having regard to the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 of 22 December 2022 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy (7); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2577 of 22 December 2022 laying down a framework to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy (7);

| — | having regard to the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2578 of 22 December 2022 establishing a market correction mechanism to protect citizens and the economy against excessively high prices (8); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2578 of 22 December 2022 establishing a market correction mechanism to protect citizens and the economy against excessively high prices (8);

| — | having regard to the European Parliament’s Resolution of 5 October 2022 on the EU response to the increase in energy prices in Europe (9). |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the European Parliament’s Resolution of 5 October 2022 on the EU response to the increase in energy prices in Europe (9).

EU cities and regions protagonists of the energy crisis

| 1. | Underlines the legal responsibilities and the role played by the 1,2 million EU local and regional leaders from 90 000 towns and villages, 900 cities and 280 regions in addressing the energy crisis by providing economic and social relief to vulnerable households and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Notwithstanding skyrocketing energy prices and high inflation, local and regional authorities (LRAs) have continued to provide essential services and have taken measures to ensure energy saving, energy business continuity and contingency plans with the aim to strengthen energy resilience; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Acknowledges the unprecedented efforts made by the European Commission and the European Parliament (EP) in setting up urgent measures, notes however, that the current initiatives are not providing LRAs with the immediate support needed; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Calls on the Swedish Presidency to build on the exemplary efforts of the Czech Presidency and accelerate the adoption of the remaining legislative proposals of the Fit for 55 package and to ensure that EU legislation is fit for purpose to address the energy crisis, taking into account the relevant CoR opinions (10); |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Underlines that many cities and regions have adopted more ambitious targets than their national governments in their national energy and climate plans (NECPs); calls on all Member States to actively involve LRAs in the revision and update of the NECPs in 2023 in compliance with Article 11 of the Governance Regulation (11); |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Calls for the different EU energy and climate initiatives (12) to be better harmonised and simplified, and to provide the necessary financial and technical support to LRAs; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Accelerating the clean energy transition in cities and regions in view of a real European Energy Union

| 6. | Is deeply concerned that the outcome of the UNFCCC COP27 falls short of increasing and accelerating the reduction of GHG emissions worldwide and failed to introduce a call to phase down all fossil fuels. Stresses that while it is important to accelerate the clean energy transition and end our dependence on fossil fuels, low-carbon energy sources still help to provide stable and affordable energy, in line with Member States’ own energy mix; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | Calls for an establishment of a real European Energy Union with a fully integrated and well interconnected market across the EU, with a well-functioning governance system at its core. Full integration requires the Member States to shoulder their responsibility for ensuring an adequate and robust energy supply, to avoid a situation where production shortfalls and high prices also impact other Member States; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | Reiterates the paramount importance of the ‘energy efficiency first’ principle and welcomes the effort being made to promote energy saving measures at all levels across the EU. Notes that, while some Member States have not yet introduced any measures to reduce gas and electricity consumption in households, businesses or public bodies (13), many cities across the EU have joined the Cities Energy Saving Sprint introducing energy saving measures on heating, lighting, mobility, and awareness-raising, among others; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | Considers that these measures should not be limited to the current crisis and calls on the European Commission to come forward with an energy sufficiency proposal to streamline energy savings across all policy areas; calls for significant behavioural changes to be promoted and adequately rewarded; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | Reiterates its call on the European Commission and Member States to support the creation of one-stop-shops at regional and local levels to accelerate investments in energy-efficient construction, retrofitting of buildings and energy saving projects taking into account the New European Bauhaus principles. Calls on the Member States to dedicate REPowerEU funds to this purpose, and implement them in cooperation with the European Investment Bank; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | Welcomes the agreement on faster permitting procedures for renewable energy projects and calls on Members States to fully engage with LRAs and local communities in order to ensure the protection of the environment and to foster social acceptance. Notes the urgent need to develop rapid administrative procedures and eliminate bureaucratic obstacles to the installation of renewables in rural homes. Underlines that rural areas hold great potential for renewable energy production, including the sustainable use of forest biomass as renewable energy, and can gain from increased connectivity to the grid and new employment opportunities, especially for younger people and women; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | Welcomes the agreement for a ban on fossil fuel internal combustion engines for new passenger cars and vans as of 2035. Underlines the need for alternative, affordable and accessible fuels and the corresponding refuelling and recharging stations across all EU regions. Stresses the CoR’s Automotive Regions Alliance demand for a just transition mechanism to support the socioeconomic fabric of regions with strong presence of automotive and automotive supply industry; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | Urges the European Commission and the Member States to facilitate the development of international and interregional electricity transmission infrastructure, making it possible to share the electricity generated from various renewable resources, which are concentrated in different regions due to their climate and characteristics. When electricity available in remote areas can be transmitted from one area to another, it reduces periods of unavailability and makes it easier to manage electricity systems, paving the way for 100 % renewable electricity generation; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | Recalls the urgent need to develop and decarbonise urban and rural mobility and calls for strong measures to promote safe infrastructure and reallocation of public space in urban areas; underlines that regions and cities need a flexible framework, particularly concerning the revision of the public service obligation guidelines; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | In this context, calls on the European Commission to launch a joint public procurement pilot project to provide a number of EU cities and their surroundings with hydrogen buses, to be further expanded in a second phase, to other cities and regions across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | Underlines how clean energy solutions are often still expensive and that investment procedures for clean energy projects are often time-consuming and very bureaucratic. Calls for more ambitious proposals to make renewable energy solutions the easiest and cheapest options on the market and therefore accessible also to low-income households; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to dedicate part of the REPowerEU funds to develop support facilities on the model of the European City Facility (EUCF) (14), to provide direct funds for LRAs to develop market-proof investment plans especially small and medium-sized ones and those that face structural barriers to their energy transition and support energy-efficient construction and housing renovation especially in rural areas. Calls also for generous grants for vulnerable households that cannot cover up-front costs; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | Warns against further proposals to transfer resources from the ESIF to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) to finance the REPowerEU plan, and objects to any attempt to take resources away from regions as this goes against the EU’s principles, notably that of active subsidiarity, and the agreements in place on shared management; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | Calls for LRAs to be involved in the drafting of the new REPowerEU chapters of the RRF plans to ensure that these new chapters finance strategic projects developed by and with LRAs, as well as new cross-border infrastructures; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | Acknowledges the first immediate positive impact that the energy solidarity measures have had on energy prices, and expresses its support to strengthening the EU Energy Platform; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | Looks forward to the revision of the directive on the electricity market design, and expects it to contain the measures to reduce the link between gas and electricity prices to a level proportionate to the extent to which gas is used in electricity generation; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | Invites the European Commission to recognise the right for energy communities, prosumers and local authorities to engage in local renewable electricity supply without becoming a fully-regulated retail supplier, and to ensure that these non-professional market actors have equal access rights to the grid; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | Stresses that any short-term actions, such as increased LNG imports, must be temporary and should not create additional lock-in situations. Underlines that infrastructural investments should be ‘green gas ready’, to prepare for climate neutrality with renewable hydrogen and other renewable fuels; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | Reiterates its call on the European Commission and co-legislators to increase investments in research and innovation including in climate-neutral solutions in the upcoming revision of the multi annual financial framework, such as the EU Missions on ‘Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities’ and ‘Adaptation to Climate Change’ and the Partnerships for Regional Innovation, and to develop new funding lines to facilitate public-private consortia for buildings and district level climate-neutral solutions, according to the New European Bauhaus principles; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | Highlights that the current energy crisis also represents an opportunity to significantly increase electrification and the production of renewable hydrogen as well as to further support the development of innovative technologies such as CCUS as clean solutions to decarbonise our economy; calls on the European Commission to support LRAs’ investments in renewable hydrogen infrastructures via the upcoming hydrogen bank, capitalising on existing best practices at regional and local level and by promoting their replication across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | Points out that investments in skills development and upskilling of LRAs’ staff are essential to accelerate the green and digital transitions; calls on the European Commission and the Member States to launch a specific initiative with this scope in the frame of the European Year of Skills 2023; |
| --- | --- |

26.

Tackling energy and mobility poverty without leaving any region, any city and any citizen behind

| 27. | Deplores the social impacts of the energy and food crises on citizens and SMEs. Calls on all Member States to set a clear objective for energy poverty reduction in their NECP. Invites the Member States to develop integrated measures across energy and social policies to tackle energy poverty and eradicate it, also building on the experience gathered with the EU Energy Poverty Observatory and the Energy Poverty Advisory Hub; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | Calls on the European Commission and co-legislators to ensure that new and existing policy instruments are accompanied by a robust social package and fair redistribution measures to lay the ground for a just energy transition, especially for vulnerable households and young people. The implementation of energy transition policies, such as energy efficient renovations or the deployment of renewable energies, shall be accompanied by adequately targeted financial, technical and social assistance to facilitate the inclusivity of these measures; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | Underlines that the energy crisis has a proportionally higher impact on women and calls on the European Commission to gender-proof its support mechanisms to ensure that they do not lead to further gender inequality; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | Welcomes in this regard the establishment of temporary solidarity contributions to redistribute the energy sector’s surplus revenues to final customers and calls on Member States to provide targeted funds to LRAs to address energy and mobility poverty at the local level; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | Underlines that the energy crisis has a proportionally higher impact on low-income households in rural areas that need to use their cars to access essential services; highlights that public transport developments should decrease spatial inequalities and mobility poverty; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | Calls on the European Commission to offer urgent solutions to LRAs in case of insufficient support from national governments and urges for the exemption of targeted investments related to the energy crisis from the calculation of the deficit within the fiscal rules; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | Calls on the European Commission to weaken the ties between energy and agriculture markets in order to reduce the energy intensity of agricultural production; calls on the European Commission to carry out a deep and structural overhaul of the food system that stops speculation on international markets, increases regulation and further protects the farmers’ revenues; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | Calls on the European Commission to promote composting as the preferred use of biomass in order to produce organic fertiliser and thus reduce dependence on synthetic fertilisers from natural gas and oil, provided that the technology chosen does not have a negative impact on air quality. Urges the European Commission to promote production models that are more energy efficient, such as sustainable conservation agriculture, while highlighting the dual role of biomass producers as potential biomass users who can meet their own energy needs; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | Highlights that greater demand for biofuels may aggravate the food crisis; therefore, encourages the European Commission and the Member States to prioritise food use of agricultural products; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | Believes that the Union’s existing financial instruments and practices should be further developed and adapted to different situations, so that synergies between the different programmes can be found (15). In this regard draws attention to the particular challenges faced by rural regions and regions with geographical handicaps; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | Welcomes the EC proposal made in the context of the Green Deal Industry Plan to transform the State Aid Temporary Crisis Framework into a Temporary Crisis and Transition Framework, which would boost investments for a faster roll-out of renewable energies. This would include incentivising investments leading to a significant reduction of emissions by foreseeing higher aid ceilings and simplified aid calculations, as well as to support the decarbonisation of the industry and the production of equipment necessary to reach climate neutrality by 2050. The CoR generally supports the approach to give Member States and subnational authorities more flexibility to support measures in key sectors for the transition to a decarbonised economy, such as renewable hydrogen, energy performance of buildings, carbon capture and storage and zero-emission vehicles; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | Highlights, however, that distortions caused by relaxed state aid rules must be avoided as much as possible and that the European Commission must endeavour to balance out the different demands from Member States. Otherwise, the Single Market could suffer from further fragmentation, due to Member States’ differing financial capacity to support their businesses, so further exacerbating territorial differences; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | Stands ready to continue supporting the dissemination and replication of best practices and the implementation of energy measures through the CoR Green Deal Going Local initiative and in particular through the continuous development of Green Deal Going Local Handbooks; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | Commits to reinforce cooperation on energy security and affordability with its neighbours at the local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | Reiterates its call on the Commission to include the CoR as institutional partner within the Energy Poverty and Vulnerable Consumers Coordination Group and stands ready to contribute to this interinstitutional cooperation through its Working Group Green Deal Going Local; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Swedish and Spanish Presidencies of the Council of the EU and the President of the European Council. |
| --- | --- |

42.

Brussels, 9 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  COM(2022) 230 final.

1

(2)  OJ L 173, 30.6.2022, p. 17.

2

(3)  OJ L 206, 8.8.2022, p. 1.

3

(4)  COM (2022) 473 final.

4

(5)  COM (2022) 549 final.

5

(6)  https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/60872/2022-12-15-euco-conclusions-en.pdf

6

(7)  OJ L 335, 29.12.2022, p. 36.

7

(8)  OJ L 335, 29.12.2022, p. 45.

8

(9)  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0347_EN.html

9

(10)  See: the CoR opinions on the revisions of the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the EU framework to decarbonise gas markets.

10

(11)  Article 11 of the Governance Regulation states that each Member State shall establish a multilevel climate and energy dialogue, in which local authorities and other relevant stakeholders can engage and discuss the achievement of the Union’s climate-neutrality objective set out in Article 2 of the Regulation.

11

(12)  Such as the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, the European Missions on ‘Climate Neutral and Smart Cities’ and ‘Adaptation to Climate Change’, the European Climate Pact, the Clean Energy for EU Islands, and others.

12

(13)  Saving-Energy-for-Europe-Ex.Summary.pdf (eeb.org).

13

(14)  EUCF — Home (eucityfacility.eu).

14

(15)  See: CoR opinion Just and Sustainable Transition in the context of the coal and energy intensive regions (OJ C 498, 30.12.2022, p. 36).

15

Just and Sustainable Transition in the context of the coal and energy intensive regions

---

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/6

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on progress in the implementation of SDGs

(2023/C 157/02)

| Rapporteur: | Ricardo RIO (PT/EPP), Mayor of Braga |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Ricardo RIO (PT/EPP), Mayor of Braga

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

1.

underlines the commitment of regions and cities to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a universal concept to achieve a fairer and more just, inclusive, sustainable and resilient world, and their importance for a sustainable European recovery and long-term sustainable growth;

2.

highlights the active role it plays at European level in the SDGs. The adoption of the CoR Opinion on Delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 last year was an important step, aligned with the Council Conclusions adopted in June 2021, and must be followed with further actions;

3.

stresses that the 2030 Agenda is approaching the halfway point of its implementation phase, and underlines its belief in the usefulness of the SDGs, specifically for promoting policy coherence and inclusiveness at all levels of governance;

4.

finds it regrettable that the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, rising inflation, the energy crisis in Europe and other recent trends have contributed to a setback in progress towards achieving the SDGs, stresses its concern about the slowing pace of climate action and the increasing risk of poverty, especially among vulnerable groups, people with a migrant background and refugees; reiterates, however, its support for maintaining focus on the SDGs at EU, national, regional and local level, in line with their respective levels of competence;

5.

considers, indeed, that all efforts and initiatives to resolve crises should also be seen as an opportunity to help implement the SDGs and give the process fresh impetus;

6.

affirms that the SDGs are potentially the only holistic blueprint for the future, which could balance out the multiplication of frameworks at all levels — Paris Agreement, National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs) under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the EU Green Deal, the new Urban Agenda, etc.; stresses, furthermore, the holistic nature and universality of the SDGs, encompassing science, the economy, politics, civil society and all citizens at every level of governance;

7.

calls for stronger EU engagement and for an overall strategy for implementation of the SDGs; draws attention to the role and resources of local and regional authorities (LRAs) and to the unfortunate absence of references to the SDGs and to the territorial dimension in the NRRPs;

8.

highlights that an increasing number of cities and regions in Europe are using SDGs to support their overall strategy for growth/recovery, and that this territorial dimension must be included in the EU's contribution to the UN SDG Summit in September 2023; believes that new strategies to implement the SDGs should be based on a bottom-up approach, as local and regional levels can adopt a more inclusive stance, not least with regard to the involvement of the various stakeholders on the ground;

9.

stresses the need to improve coordination of the SDG Summit with other relevant processes, such as Our Common Agenda, the Transforming Education Summit, the Summit of the Future, the mid-term review of the Sendai Framework, and the High-Level Dialogue on Financing for Development also planned for September 2023;

10.

considers it advisable for LRAs to draft Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs)/Voluntary Subnational Reviews (VSRs) that feed into the Voluntary National Reviews: there is a need for a true multilevel governance coordination approach, capacity building and sharing of best practices, as is already in the case with the URBACT project — Global Goals for Cities and where the Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities is applied;

11.

points out that there is an opportunity to be seized to engage in a stronger EU inter-institutional dialogue, well in advance of the Summit, to advocate for a renewed interest in the SDGs within the EU, integrating them more effectively into the European Semester exercise and the RRF, and working on issues of inclusiveness, multi-level governance, targets and policy coherence; therefore calls on other EU institutions to engage with the CoR in this regard and, in this context, welcomes the creation of the SDG Alliance, a cross-parliamentary, informal group within the European Parliament;

12.

welcomes the European Commission’s commitment to the SDGs as the guiding line and shared compass for all its actions, including via its 2023 Work Programme and the drafting of the first EU Voluntary Review to report to the United Nations this year;

13.

congratulates the European Commission on its work to integrate the SDGs within the European Semester and to mainstream them in Better Regulation tools;

14.

notes however that these are ongoing processes and calls for further efforts, as well as greater visibility for the SDGs in all EU tools, including in the implementation of the RRF;

15.

expresses its deeply held concern about the lack of integration of the SDGs in the NRRPs. The majority of Member States merely implicitly mention the SDGs. Very few Member States explicitly link NRRP components to the SDGs, as revealed by a CoR study (1). Furthermore, the overall level of integration of the SDGs in NRRPs is rather low, with the highest score (still below 50 %) reached in economic SDGs (2);

16.

points out that SDGs should be mainstreamed in European Semester documents, and calls for leadership at the highest level in the European Commission and Council to rationalise and simplify a renewed European Semester, recognise the role of local and regional authorities in the Semester and to focus on ‘competitive sustainability’;

17.

recommends giving more visibility to the SDGs within the Annual Sustainable Growth Survey and explicitly quoting the SDGs within the recitals of the Country Specific Recommendations, making it clear that the recommendations aim to implement the SDGs;

18.

repeats its call for the swift adoption of a European Code of Conduct to involve LRAs in European Semester governance, and stresses that the European Commission should lead by example by creating a structured dialogue with stakeholders on the European Semester, especially in view of the gap left by the non-renewal of the EU high-level multi-stakeholders platform on the SDGs;

Local and regional contribution

Local and regional contribution

| 19. | reaffirms that implementation of the Green Deal can only be a success if it is carried out within the framework of the SDGs, which requires bridges between SDG localisation and Local Green Deals; in this light, emphasises the important contribution made by the CoR's own Green Deal Going Local Working Group in sharing best practices in particular; |
| --- | --- |

19.

reaffirms that implementation of the Green Deal can only be a success if it is carried out within the framework of the SDGs, which requires bridges between SDG localisation and Local Green Deals; in this light, emphasises the important contribution made by the CoR's own Green Deal Going Local Working Group in sharing best practices in particular;

| 20. | notes that available data shows that, since the SDGs were adopted by the UN in 2015, LRAs have been engaged to a varying degree in implementing them. The latest CoR-OECD survey on SDGs as a Framework for COVID-19 Recovery in Cities and Regions (3) confirms this engagement at a time when some countries are re-evaluating their engagement, setting recovery in opposition to the SDGs. On the contrary, LRAs consider SDGs as an ideal framework for long-term recovery from the pandemic; |
| --- | --- |

20.

notes that available data shows that, since the SDGs were adopted by the UN in 2015, LRAs have been engaged to a varying degree in implementing them. The latest CoR-OECD survey on SDGs as a Framework for COVID-19 Recovery in Cities and Regions

3

| 21. | stresses that multi-level governance is one of the SDGs’ core values and highlights the key role of regions and cities, with the OECD estimating that 65 % of the targets under the SDGs cannot be reached without the coordination or involvement of local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

21.

stresses that multi-level governance is one of the SDGs’ core values and highlights the key role of regions and cities, with the OECD estimating that 65 % of the targets under the SDGs cannot be reached without the coordination or involvement of local and regional authorities;

| 22. | values the key contribution made by local and regional authorities to implementing the SDGs, and calls on other EU institutions to recognise this with a view to strengthening the intra-EU coordination, including at a decentralised level amongst regions and cities. According to an OECD report based on a survey carried out jointly with the CoR, 40 % of the responding 145 local and regional authorities were already using the SDGs before the pandemic and have started to use them to shape the recovery phase. Another 44 % of them have not yet started to use the SDGs in the recovery but are planning to do so in the future. 68 % of responding regions and cities use the SDGs to shape new plans, policies and strategies or to adapt existing ones to the 2030 Agenda (4); |
| --- | --- |

22.

values the key contribution made by local and regional authorities to implementing the SDGs, and calls on other EU institutions to recognise this with a view to strengthening the intra-EU coordination, including at a decentralised level amongst regions and cities. According to an OECD report based on a survey carried out jointly with the CoR, 40 % of the responding 145 local and regional authorities were already using the SDGs before the pandemic and have started to use them to shape the recovery phase. Another 44 % of them have not yet started to use the SDGs in the recovery but are planning to do so in the future. 68 % of responding regions and cities use the SDGs to shape new plans, policies and strategies or to adapt existing ones to the 2030 Agenda (4

| 23. | praises the work of associations of LRAs at national and European level in supporting regions and cities in localising the SDGs, such as CEMR and Platforma with its publications, manuals and guides, as well as numerous reports, training courses, tools and workshops on SDG localisation, Eurocities with its Working Group on SDGs and Regions4, and its community of practice on SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

23.

praises the work of associations of LRAs at national and European level in supporting regions and cities in localising the SDGs, such as CEMR and Platforma with its publications, manuals and guides, as well as numerous reports, training courses, tools and workshops on SDG localisation, Eurocities with its Working Group on SDGs and Regions4, and its community of practice on SDGs;

| 24. | welcomes the work of the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) to support cities in reporting on SDGs through their own Voluntary Local Reviews, as well as the new project REGIONS2030, supported by the European Parliament (5); |
| --- | --- |

24.

welcomes the work of the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) to support cities in reporting on SDGs through their own Voluntary Local Reviews, as well as the new project REGIONS2030, supported by the European Parliament (5

| 25. | strongly supports the key contributions constantly being made by the OECD, via its pilot project and its toolkit for a territorial approach to SDGs, policy dialogue roundtables, surveys and reports with the support of the CoR, to help regions and cities implement the SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

25.

strongly supports the key contributions constantly being made by the OECD, via its pilot project and its toolkit for a territorial approach to SDGs, policy dialogue roundtables, surveys and reports with the support of the CoR, to help regions and cities implement the SDGs;

| 26. | takes the view that the efforts of UN institutions such as UNECE, UN Habitat and UN DESA to promote and support SDG localisation throughout the world are very important and should be better aligned with EU policies and initiatives; |
| --- | --- |

26.

takes the view that the efforts of UN institutions such as UNECE, UN Habitat and UN DESA to promote and support SDG localisation throughout the world are very important and should be better aligned with EU policies and initiatives;

| 27. | argues that these efforts are bearing fruit and should be reflected in more consistent and structured EU implementation of the SDGs, potentially with an overall strategy and a stakeholders’ platform to co-design and encourage actions by all stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

27.

argues that these efforts are bearing fruit and should be reflected in more consistent and structured EU implementation of the SDGs, potentially with an overall strategy and a stakeholders’ platform to co-design and encourage actions by all stakeholders;

| 28. | makes itself available to coordinate the establishment of an EU platform for dialogue and exchange to enable cities and regions to learn from each other and benefit from additional capacity-building and peer-learning activities in the EU and beyond, between organisations and initiatives and also external networks; |
| --- | --- |

28.

makes itself available to coordinate the establishment of an EU platform for dialogue and exchange to enable cities and regions to learn from each other and benefit from additional capacity-building and peer-learning activities in the EU and beyond, between organisations and initiatives and also external networks;

Monitoring, reporting and better policy alignment

Monitoring, reporting and better policy alignment

| 29. | welcomes the integration of Eurostat’s annual SDG monitoring report in the European Semester Spring Package as well as in the EU VR; |
| --- | --- |

29.

welcomes the integration of Eurostat’s annual SDG monitoring report in the European Semester Spring Package as well as in the EU VR;

| 30. | is concerned that the monitoring report is not based on measurable, time-bound targets and therefore cannot truly monitor the implementation of the SDGs in the EU. A strategy and action plan would have made it possible to set targets and measure progress. As an alternative, regular EU VRs could help assess progress towards relevant targets where appropriate and in line with the different levels of legal competences, and identify gaps; |
| --- | --- |

30.

is concerned that the monitoring report is not based on measurable, time-bound targets and therefore cannot truly monitor the implementation of the SDGs in the EU. A strategy and action plan would have made it possible to set targets and measure progress. As an alternative, regular EU VRs could help assess progress towards relevant targets where appropriate and in line with the different levels of legal competences, and identify gaps;

| 31. | stresses the need for economic/social impact analysis tools to be adopted and used routinely by both central and local/regional public administrations, also with a view to facilitating communication with stakeholders and citizens; |
| --- | --- |

31.

stresses the need for economic/social impact analysis tools to be adopted and used routinely by both central and local/regional public administrations, also with a view to facilitating communication with stakeholders and citizens;

| 32. | is further concerned by the fact that the results of this report are being used to assess the implementation of the SDGs in each Member States in the Country Reports. Given the aforementioned limitations, scores are based on the EU average and are often misleading. It is therefore impossible to measure the extent of progress towards the SDGs when comparing results to the EU average; |
| --- | --- |

32.

is further concerned by the fact that the results of this report are being used to assess the implementation of the SDGs in each Member States in the Country Reports. Given the aforementioned limitations, scores are based on the EU average and are often misleading. It is therefore impossible to measure the extent of progress towards the SDGs when comparing results to the EU average;

| 33. | is also concerned that the indicators used to assess SDGs are all national level. For medium-sized and large countries, these assessments do not reflect reality on the ground, as there are large disparities within countries. While Eurostat’s commitment to high-quality data is to be praised, and it is largely dependent on the data made available by national statistics institutes, it is of the utmost importance for Eurostat’s annual SDG monitoring report to contain NUTS-2-level data as well as illustrative good practices at regional and local level and to highlight where there is still room for improvement; |
| --- | --- |

33.

is also concerned that the indicators used to assess SDGs are all national level. For medium-sized and large countries, these assessments do not reflect reality on the ground, as there are large disparities within countries. While Eurostat’s commitment to high-quality data is to be praised, and it is largely dependent on the data made available by national statistics institutes, it is of the utmost importance for Eurostat’s annual SDG monitoring report to contain NUTS-2-level data as well as illustrative good practices at regional and local level and to highlight where there is still room for improvement;

| 34. | stresses that regional and local data are also a condition for evidence-based policies. Less than half of LRAs use indicators and measurement systems to track progress towards the SDGs. Local and regional authorities need support from higher levels of government to monitor SDGs. The OECD localised indicator framework for measuring the distance to achieving the SDGs in cities and regions could be a starting point for LRAs to use a local SDG indicator framework (6); |
| --- | --- |

34.

stresses that regional and local data are also a condition for evidence-based policies. Less than half of LRAs use indicators and measurement systems to track progress towards the SDGs. Local and regional authorities need support from higher levels of government to monitor SDGs. The OECD localised indicator framework for measuring the distance to achieving the SDGs in cities and regions could be a starting point for LRAs to use a local SDG indicator framework (6

| 35. | stresses that the CoR, local and regional authorities and their associations are important collectors of data and can make a practical contribution to enriching the EU SDG monitoring report; |
| --- | --- |

35.

stresses that the CoR, local and regional authorities and their associations are important collectors of data and can make a practical contribution to enriching the EU SDG monitoring report;

| 36. | welcomes the work of the JRC to identify suitable indicators to monitor SDGs at regional level, and calls for the rapid integration of this work in the EU SDG monitoring report; |
| --- | --- |

36.

welcomes the work of the JRC to identify suitable indicators to monitor SDGs at regional level, and calls for the rapid integration of this work in the EU SDG monitoring report;

| 37. | encourages the EU and all Member States to support this trend, especially those who will present a VNR this year; |
| --- | --- |

37.

encourages the EU and all Member States to support this trend, especially those who will present a VNR this year;

| 38. | urges the European Commission and the Council Working Party on the 2030 Agenda to make sure these efforts are reflected in the EU VR and relevant VNRs, helping to better align policies at all levels and demonstrate the full extent of the European Union’s effort (at large) on SDGs. There is significant potential for improvement, given that half of cities and regions report that they were not involved in the drafting of VNRs in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

38.

urges the European Commission and the Council Working Party on the 2030 Agenda to make sure these efforts are reflected in the EU VR and relevant VNRs, helping to better align policies at all levels and demonstrate the full extent of the European Union’s effort (at large) on SDGs. There is significant potential for improvement, given that half of cities and regions report that they were not involved in the drafting of VNRs in the EU;

| 39. | welcomes the European Commission’s efforts to work with regions and cities, as well as civil society, on the EU VR, and calls for the CoR's contribution to be incorporated in the VR document, with adequate space for multi-level governance; |
| --- | --- |

39.

welcomes the European Commission’s efforts to work with regions and cities, as well as civil society, on the EU VR, and calls for the CoR's contribution to be incorporated in the VR document, with adequate space for multi-level governance;

| 40. | calls for the EU VR to be officially presented at the UN, with representatives of all EU institutions, to reflect the multi-level governance approach to the SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

40.

calls for the EU VR to be officially presented at the UN, with representatives of all EU institutions, to reflect the multi-level governance approach to the SDGs;

| 41. | urges the Council leadership to ensure that the EU does not relax its efforts on SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

41.

urges the Council leadership to ensure that the EU does not relax its efforts on SDGs;

| 42. | urges the future Spanish Presidency to organise a high-level debate on the boost needed at EU level to implement the SDGs on time. This debate should be in the General Affairs Council at ministerial level and send a clear signal to the European Commission on the importance of SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

42.

urges the future Spanish Presidency to organise a high-level debate on the boost needed at EU level to implement the SDGs on time. This debate should be in the General Affairs Council at ministerial level and send a clear signal to the European Commission on the importance of SDGs;

Challenges and ways forward

Challenges and ways forward

| 43. | highlights the need for better linkages between SDGs and NRRPs, as funding is the main obstacle for 47 % of cities and regions in the implementation of the SDGs (7) and there is still EUR 225 billion available for Member States from the RRF; |
| --- | --- |

43.

highlights the need for better linkages between SDGs and NRRPs, as funding is the main obstacle for 47 % of cities and regions in the implementation of the SDGs (7

| 44. | also encourages all levels of government to mainstream the SDGs in their budget and financial tools to address the funding gap; |
| --- | --- |

44.

also encourages all levels of government to mainstream the SDGs in their budget and financial tools to address the funding gap;

| 45. | stresses the importance of EU support to develop training and capacity-building activities, as capacity in terms of both skills and staff is a challenge for 44 % of cities and regions (8); |
| --- | --- |

45.

stresses the importance of EU support to develop training and capacity-building activities, as capacity in terms of both skills and staff is a challenge for 44 % of cities and regions (8

| 46. | calls on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to develop and implement sustainability strategies in their businesses, as only 24 % of them currently have specific plans to reduce their carbon footprints (9); stresses the need to support SMEs in this process and to step up the corresponding measures at European, national, regional and local level; |
| --- | --- |

46.

calls on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to develop and implement sustainability strategies in their businesses, as only 24 % of them currently have specific plans to reduce their carbon footprints (9

| 47. | calls for better and more structured coordination between levels of government with the EU leading by example, including through more inclusive governance of the European Semester and a structured dialogue with stakeholders on the SDGs; |
| --- | --- |

47.

calls for better and more structured coordination between levels of government with the EU leading by example, including through more inclusive governance of the European Semester and a structured dialogue with stakeholders on the SDGs;

| 48. | calls for more leadership from the EU institutions in communicating about the SDGs. Not all stakeholders are familiar with the framework, and prioritising the SDGs at EU and national level could help strengthen political commitment at all levels and further raise awareness about SDGs on the ground; |
| --- | --- |

48.

calls for more leadership from the EU institutions in communicating about the SDGs. Not all stakeholders are familiar with the framework, and prioritising the SDGs at EU and national level could help strengthen political commitment at all levels and further raise awareness about SDGs on the ground;

| 49. | recommends, based on OECD recommendations, using the SDGs to prioritise implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights and enhancing social and community services for socially disadvantaged groups, incentivise the decarbonisation of buildings; expand sustainable infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians and electric vehicles, and enhance stakeholders’ participation in the localisation of SDGs for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

49.

recommends, based on OECD recommendations, using the SDGs to prioritise implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights and enhancing social and community services for socially disadvantaged groups, incentivise the decarbonisation of buildings; expand sustainable infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians and electric vehicles, and enhance stakeholders’ participation in the localisation of SDGs for recovery;

| 50. | considers that, in order to complement the green taxonomy and help implement the Green Deal, the Commission should urgently put forward a proposal to establish a social taxonomy. Without a social taxonomy, investors and undertakings lack clear guidance as to which investments provide added value from a social point of view. This makes it difficult to finance socially motivated activities in healthcare, social housing and social services, among other areas; |
| --- | --- |

50.

considers that, in order to complement the green taxonomy and help implement the Green Deal, the Commission should urgently put forward a proposal to establish a social taxonomy. Without a social taxonomy, investors and undertakings lack clear guidance as to which investments provide added value from a social point of view. This makes it difficult to finance socially motivated activities in healthcare, social housing and social services, among other areas;

| 51. | proposes that the EU institutions and Member States should support and finance the launch of training and education initiatives to promote capacity building in public entities and private organisations in the design and implementation of SDG reports and strategic plans; |
| --- | --- |

51.

proposes that the EU institutions and Member States should support and finance the launch of training and education initiatives to promote capacity building in public entities and private organisations in the design and implementation of SDG reports and strategic plans;

| 52. | stresses that education is a fundamental right, irrespective of financial means, and further suggests to the levels of government responsible for education delivery that more sustainable development concepts could be introduced in educational curricula, from nursery to university level; |
| --- | --- |

52.

stresses that education is a fundamental right, irrespective of financial means, and further suggests to the levels of government responsible for education delivery that more sustainable development concepts could be introduced in educational curricula, from nursery to university level;

| 53. | proposes the launch of an EU inter-institutional communication campaign that clearly links the fulfilment of the SDGs with improvements to the quality of life of citizens in all territories; |
| --- | --- |

53.

proposes the launch of an EU inter-institutional communication campaign that clearly links the fulfilment of the SDGs with improvements to the quality of life of citizens in all territories;

| 54. | suggests creating an inter-continental platform for exchange of best practices in the development of VLRs or VSRs, between European cities and cities from other locations, promoting Europe as a strong partner on this topic; such a platform can count on the coordination of the CoR; |
| --- | --- |

54.

suggests creating an inter-continental platform for exchange of best practices in the development of VLRs or VSRs, between European cities and cities from other locations, promoting Europe as a strong partner on this topic; such a platform can count on the coordination of the CoR;

| 55. | calls for much more effective dissemination of information concerning financing opportunities that may be available from institutions like the European Investment Bank to support the implementation of SDG strategic plans at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

55.

calls for much more effective dissemination of information concerning financing opportunities that may be available from institutions like the European Investment Bank to support the implementation of SDG strategic plans at local and regional level;

| 56. | hereby launches a collective discussion on the importance of keeping sustainable development in Europe at the centre of all political actions even post-2030, stressing the opportunity to establish a true well-being economy, centred on people and the planet and working towards a sustainable EU in the long term; |
| --- | --- |

56.

hereby launches a collective discussion on the importance of keeping sustainable development in Europe at the centre of all political actions even post-2030, stressing the opportunity to establish a true well-being economy, centred on people and the planet and working towards a sustainable EU in the long term;

| 57. | finally, calls on the EU institutions, bodies and agencies, as well as national, regional and local administrations, to consider how they themselves can become more sustainable; this applies in particular to the development of renewable energy, energy renovation of buildings and more sustainable canteens, as well as the promotion of climate-friendly transport and accommodation and the development of hybrid events and meetings in their office buildings, but also the fight against poverty and hunger; engagement to achieve gender equality and fight inequality, promote innovation and improve infrastructure, balance consumption, production and land use and to contribute to peace, justice and strong institutions in Europe and the world. |
| --- | --- |

57.

finally, calls on the EU institutions, bodies and agencies, as well as national, regional and local administrations, to consider how they themselves can become more sustainable; this applies in particular to the development of renewable energy, energy renovation of buildings and more sustainable canteens, as well as the promotion of climate-friendly transport and accommodation and the development of hybrid events and meetings in their office buildings, but also the fight against poverty and hunger; engagement to achieve gender equality and fight inequality, promote innovation and improve infrastructure, balance consumption, production and land use and to contribute to peace, justice and strong institutions in Europe and the world.

Brussels, 8 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  CoR (2022) Synergies between the Sustainable Development Goals and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — Best practices from local and regional authorities, page 16.

1

Synergies between the Sustainable Development Goals and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — Best practices from local and regional authorities

(2)  CoR (2022) Synergies between the Sustainable Development Goals and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — Best practices from local and regional authorities, page 17.

2

Synergies between the Sustainable Development Goals and the National Recovery and Resilience Plans — Best practices from local and regional authorities

(3)  The latest survey results are in the OECD report: https://doi.org/10.1787/6d25b59b-en

3

(4)  The latest survey results are in the OECD report: https://doi.org/10.1787/6d25b59b-en

4

(5)  SDG localisation at various levels of governments has led to an increase in VLRs and VSRs: in the region of North-Rhine Westphalia alone 11 cities have produced a local sustainability report and Bonn and Düsseldorf have presented their own VLR at the UN. The largest cities in Finland (Espoo, Helsinki, Tampere, Turku and Vantaa) have also drafted a VLR. Globally, there are 126 VLRs, one third of which are located in Europe.

5

(6)  OECD (2022) ‘The Sustainable Development Goals as a framework for COVID-19 recovery in cities and regions’, OECD Regional Development Papers, No 26, OECD Publishing, Paris.

6

OECD Regional Development Papers

(7)  OECD (2022) ‘The Sustainable Development Goals as a framework for COVID-19 recovery in cities and regions’, OECD Regional Development Papers, No 26, OECD Publishing, Paris.

7

OECD Regional Development Papers

(8)  OECD (2022) ‘The Sustainable Development Goals as a framework for COVID-19 recovery in cities and regions’, OECD Regional Development Papers, No 26, OECD Publishing, Paris.

8

OECD Regional Development Papers

(9)  European Commission, 2022: Eurobarometer: EU SMEs working towards sustainability:

9

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/news/eurobarometer-eu-smes-working-towards-sustainability-2022-03-28_en

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/12

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Review Report on the Implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility

(2023/C 157/03)

| Rapporteur: | Rob JONKMAN (NL/EPP) Alderman of the municipality of Opsterland |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document: | European Commission Communication: Review report on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility
  COM(2022) 383 final |

Rapporteur:

Rob JONKMAN (NL/EPP) Alderman of the municipality of Opsterland

Reference document:

European Commission Communication: Review report on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility

COM(2022) 383 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

General comments

| 1. | Welcomes the review report, which provides a useful update and overall assessment on the state of play of the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) and fulfilling the obligations of the Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), but notices the report lacks critical, more in-depth information needed to get a better picture on the actual implementation at the local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Considers it a missed opportunity, the requirements of Article 16 of the Regulation notwithstanding, that no qualitative analyses are included in the review report. It is therefore unclear how the European Commission (EC) will monitor the progress being made at the qualitative level of the RRF investments and the long-term national reforms and how Local and Regional Authorities (LRAs) will be involved in this process; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Moreover, regrets that the review report does not analyse a number of points which are crucial for a sound implementation of the RRF, such as:






  — | the governance of the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs) and related processes; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

—

the governance of the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs) and related processes;

| — | the true additionality of the projects supported; |
| --- | --- |

—

the true additionality of the projects supported;

| — | the synergies and risks of overlaps with other sources of EU funding; |
| --- | --- |

—

the synergies and risks of overlaps with other sources of EU funding;

| — | the RRF’s effective contribution to cohesion, despite this being the RRF’s legal basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

the RRF’s effective contribution to cohesion, despite this being the RRF’s legal basis;

| — | involvement of LRAs; |
| --- | --- |

—

involvement of LRAs;

| 4. | Agrees with the EC that the success of the RRF depends on the close involvement of social partners, civil society, LRAs, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Only mentioning them collectively, often under the umbrella term ‘stakeholders’, is not enough. A cost-efficient and democratic implementation should go hand in hand with the full application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality which are anchored in the Treaty on European Union (2); |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | As stated in the review report, agrees that the RRF can help Member States to tackle inequalities between women and men through measures specifically focusing on gender equality and by supporting equality mainstreaming across the six policy pillars (3); |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | Asks the European Commission to assess the involvement of LRAs in the implementation phase and to ensure that data about this is collected efficiently as part of the performance reporting system that is the recovery and resilience scoreboard and by making use of the research and studies that have been conducted so far by the European Committee of the Regions (CoR), the European Policy Centre (EPC), political foundations and the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR); |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | Points out that the general regime of Conditionality fully applies to the RRF, and urges the Commission to carefully monitor in all Member States when the sound financial management of the Union budget and the protection of financial interests of the EU are affected in a sufficiently direct way, by breaches of the principles of the rule of law, and to take action when necessary; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Role of the LRAs in the implementation and execution of the RRF

| 8. | Underlines that LRAs have been at the forefront of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and its socioeconomic consequences from the start, both with their own policy actions in many fields and through implementing the decisions of national governments; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | Underlines that LRAs provide the majority of public services to their residents and businesses and invest in policy areas covered by the NRRPs, especially in the field of economic and social recovery, as well as the green and digital transitions. If LRAs — the political level closest to the public — are left out, the milestones and targets set in the NRRPs risk not being achieved; points out that the same problem exists in the European Semester due to the lack of recognition of the role of local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | Reiterates that LRAs are most aware of the specific needs and challenges of citizens and businesses. As most of the NRRPs and objectives are formulated centrally without the local and regional level being consulted, they are often not in line with local, regional, place-based needs and their unique assets; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | Argues that the ways in which the NRRPs have been drawn up and the LRAs have been involved are not conducive to promoting ownership of the recovery plans at local and regional level. The experience from the European Semester clearly shows that the insufficient implementation of country-specific recommendations (CSR) was partly due to a lack of local and regional ownership and ability to contribute to the CSR; points out that the ‘structural reforms’ that the European Commission is calling for under the European Semester must be examined from the point of view of subsidiarity, so that they only cover issues that actually fall within the EU’s remit; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | States that LRAs have, in the execution of many RRF projects and programmes, legislative powers that are key for a successful implementation of the RRF. Therefore, it is essential that local and regional authorities are directly involved in the implementation of the NRRPs in line with the degree of economic, fiscal and financial autonomy provided by their national legal framework and the subsidiarity principle; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | Recalls that LRAs account for one third of all public expenditure and more than half of public investment in the EU, much of which is in policy areas crucial to the RRF. The active engagement of LRAs is required throughout the process in order to ensure successful implementation; points here to competences such as: building renovation, sustainable urban mobility, healthcare systems resilience, sustainable energy production, education and more efficient public administration reform; |
| --- | --- |

13.

Territorial dimension neglected in the monitoring of the RRF implementation

| 14. | The consultations carried out in 2021 (4) and 2022 (5) by the CoR and the CEMR and the 2022 benchmark study (6) shed light on the very limited involvement of local and regional governments in the design, preparation and implementation of the NRRPs. Despite some good examples, these represent more the exception than the rule, and most of the respondents consider that the multilevel governance and subsidiarity principles have not been respected; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | Stresses that only one in ten local or regional authorities was either fully involved (1 %) or partially involved (9 %) in the drafting of the National Recovery and Resilience Plans, as highlighted by the results of the CoR survey of local and regional politicians in the EU (7), a dismal finding echoed by other analyses and consultations carried out by the CoR, the EPC, political foundations and the CPMR among others; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | Regrets that the proposal in recital 34 of the RRF Regulation underlining the importance of involving LRAs has been neglected in most EU countries, even though LRAs are responsible for 53 % of public investment in the EU and have key remits to implement policies related to the six pillars of the NRRPs; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | Recalls, as stated in the review report, that the RRF Regulation (recital 34) recognises the fact that local and regional authorities ‘can be important partners in the implementation of reforms and investments’ and should therefore ‘be appropriately consulted and involved, in accordance with the national legal framework’, and that Article 18 requires the NRRPs to include a summary of the consultation process with LRAs (among others) and how their input is reflected in the plan; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | Highlights that, in most Member States, preparing the NRRPs has been a top-down process, which carries the risk of centralising important public investment and has an impact on the ultimate success of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. This is at odds with the importance of multilevel governance, the principle of subsidiarity and the process of decentralisation that has taken place in many Member States in recent decades, not least with regard to the programmes under the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF); |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | Points out that the centralised approach leads to territorial differences being overlooked in the review report, both in terms of challenges and opportunities. As a result, NRRPs may be less efficient and have less impact than desired. This puts regions that were already lagging behind in their development before the outbreak of the pandemic at risk of an even greater development gap, be it in employment, educational attainment, business support, digitalisation, mobility or other key policy areas; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | Also stresses that, in particular due to the large number of European programmes and financial subsidy opportunities, administrative capacity should be strengthened in many local and regional authorities. In this context, invites the European Commission to actively support local and regional authorities, which have already had problems absorbing EU funds in the past, to improve their absorption capacity so that the implementation of all future EU funding programmes can be improved; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | Cautions that an unexpected dichotomy has arisen, leading to two different categories of participating LRAs. A first, small group of LRAs that were involved by the central government since the beginning and now in the implementation phase and thus address territorial specificities and needs and a second, larger group of LRAs that were not properly involved from the beginning of the design and later in the implementation of the RFF. As a consequence, existing problems produced by their exclusion have worsened (8); this cannot be an objective of the RRF and undermines the territorial dimension of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | Stresses that the European Semester is an over-centralised, top-down exercise mostly lacking the involvement of LRAs. It should be reformed and developed when used to prioritise future (regional) funds, investments or programmes as it currently neglects the principles of good governance and multi-level partnership and fails to recognise the role of local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

22.

Synergies with other EU funds and programmes

| 23. | Asks the European Commission for the purpose of sound monitoring to clarify in which way the requirements mentioned in Article 28 of the RRF Regulation to ensure complementarity and synergy between funds and financial instruments are met at national level; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | Welcomes that, according to the review report, Member States have included a significant number of measures to support social and territorial cohesion (9). As in most Member States LRAs are the principal executors and accountable for cohesion policy but in most cases not properly involved in the preparation of the RRF, the Committee fears that the territorial cohesion objectives (under pillar 4) will not be met; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | Points out that it is essential to avoid greenwashing and stresses that the ‘do no significant harm’ principle is a cornerstone of the trust of EU citizens in the RRF implementation. The detailed requirements in the RRF regulation related to the application of the ‘do no significant harm’ principle and the categorisation of green investments should be followed by Member States in order to prevent the potential breach of the 37 % spending requirement for green investments; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | Regrets that the review report does not clearly demonstrate how the RRF effectively aligns with regional/local planning and operational programmes for cohesion. The CoR regrets the RRF’s centralised character, lack of regional dimension and absence of consultations with regional and local bodies when it comes to its implementation and governance; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | States that in terms of synergies between RRF and other EU funding, given their different functioning, timing and governance, the main issue is the risk of overlaps. Therefore, in terms of strategic orientation and implementation, continued interaction and coordination are needed between cohesion policy, other EU funding and the RRF; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | Regrets that the inclusion of REPowerEU in the RRF allows for the transfer of cohesion policy funds despite the necessity to use them at local and regional level for the economic recovery, green transition and the reduction of divergences within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | Urges the European Commission to provide further information and guidance to Member States on how to involve LRAs. In this respect, advises the European Commission to urge Member States to communicate directly with LRAs on the implementation and monitoring of the RRF. Regions and cities are the closest administration to citizens, hold most of the competences to achieve territorial goals, and are the core actors of European cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | States that there is a need, in line with Article 22 of the RRF Regulation, to implement a strong monitoring system that requires no additional administrative burden at the local and regional level, as LRAs need clearer rules for the execution of funds. Moreover, there is a demand for common guidelines and tools as Member States need to ensure they collect data and access is provided to the European Commission to the official database of beneficiaries to avoid double funding; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | Urges the EC to ensure that fundamental principles such as multilevel governance and subsidiarity are consistently respected and implemented. In this regard, cohesion policy should not stand alone but interact and coordinate with new instruments including the RRF; |
| --- | --- |

31.

What is needed?

| 32. | Points out that the vital role of LRAs is not limited solely to implementation of the NRRPs, but also to the further planning and evaluation of the execution of the NRRPs, for which economic economic/social impact analysis tools, covering the local and regional level, are needed; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | Therefore calls for the Commission’s annual reports, as defined in Article 31 of the Regulation, and for the independent evaluation report on the implementation of the Facility to be delivered by 20 February 2024 as foreseen by Article 32 of the RRF Regulation, that the CoR be involved in the preparation and that a section be included on LRA involvement, building on the content of the RRF Regulation’s Recital 34 and Article 18, in order to obtain a better overall view on the implementation processes in the EU Member States; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | Emphasises that the available administrative capacity of Member States and LRAs should be used efficiently and strengthened in order to ensure proper implementation and monitoring of the NRRP and an adequate take up of RRF funds at the local and regional level, in line with the objectives of the Technical Support Instrument; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | Expresses its concern regarding the growing trend in the paradigm shift from Structural Funds, regionally managed, towards larger centralised allocations and coordination mechanisms like the European Semester, which are programmed and implemented at national level; whereas RRF is one example, the same applies to the Just Transition Fund and the Brexit Adjustment Reserve; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | Therefore calls upon the need to reflect on how to stronger anchor the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance in the EU treaties and how to more efficiently monitor its applications in practice. Stresses the importance of raising this issue in light of the eventual constitutional convention to reform the EU treaties; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | Appreciates the active role and work done so far by the European Parliament (EP) in the scrutiny and oversight of the RRF implementation. Appreciates that the CoR has been invited several times to participate in the joint ECON-BUDG working group on the scrutiny of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF WG); |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | Regrets that the European Parliament’s resolution on implementation and, especially, its reference to the involvement of LRAs has not been taken into account. Asks the Parliament to consider, in line with Article 26(2) of the RRF Regulation to draft a resolution on the effects and impact of the centralised allocations of EU funds based on experiences from the implementation of the RRF at the local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | Urges the Member States and the European Commission to take the necessary measures to change the current centralised narrative into a multi-level implementation approach of the RRF by setting-up on a structural basis and together with LRAs e.g. multi-level platforms, information sessions and events in accordance with Article 34 of the RRF Regulation and multi-level working groups; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | Urges the European Commission to present stricter guidance to Member States and to encourage them to report in detail in their annual national reform programmes (NRPs) on the consultations with LRAs and stakeholders, in the spirit of Article 18(4)(q) of the RRF Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | Highlights that the scoreboard on measuring the progress of implementation of the NRRPs defined in Article 30 of the Regulation could be further developed to ensure that the ‘territorial dimension’ is properly reflected. We need to assure an integrated monitoring process, with the involvement of LRAs and an objective approach to implementation; this should not lead to an excessive administrative burden for LRAs; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | States that the reforms and investments covered by the NRRPs should be in line with the country-specific recommendations under the European Semester framework. A reform of the European Semester is necessary to embed the territorial dimension. The local and regional dimension should be taken into account not only in the light of the current lessons learned with implementing the NRRPs, but also in the context of future EU programmes and the EU’s long-term objectives, be it the Fit for 55 package, the digital transition, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, or achieving climate neutrality by 2050; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | Reiterates, therefore, its call issued in previous opinions (10) for a code of conduct for the involvement of local and regional authorities in the context of the European Semester. The European Semester should become more transparent, inclusive and democratic by involving local and regional authorities; this increases the ownership at local and regional level, thus improving the overall implementation of the desired reforms and RRF in the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

43.

Brussels, 8 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  Article 16 of the Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17).

1

(2)  Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

2

(3)  COM(2022) 383 final, 129 measures of the 25 NRRPs adopted as of 30 June 2022 are considered to have a focus on gender equality.

3

(4)  CoR-CEMR The involvement of municipalities, cities and regions in the preparation of the national Recovery and Resilience Plans: Results of the COR-CEMR targeted consultation, January 2021.

4

The involvement of municipalities, cities and regions in the preparation of the national Recovery and Resilience Plans: Results of the COR-CEMR targeted consultation

(5)  CoR-CEMR Implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility: The Perspective of Local and Regional Authorities — Results of the COR-CEMR targeted consultation, April 2022.

5

Implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility: The Perspective of Local and Regional Authorities — Results of the COR-CEMR targeted consultation

(6)  Regions for EU Recovery, Benchmark study on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility at the regional level — Main results, June 2022.

6

Benchmark study on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility at the regional level — Main results

(7)  Survey based on 2 698 interviews with local and regional politicians in the EU completed between 25 July and 11 September 2022. See: Committee of the Regions: Regional and Local Barometer. (October, 2022) available online at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/EURegionalBarometer-Survey-2022.aspx

7

2 698 interviews

(8)  Survey based on 2 698 interviews with local and regional politicians in the EU completed between 25 July and 11 September 2022. See: Committee of the Regions: Regional and Local Barometer. (October, 2022) available online at https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/EURegionalBarometer-Survey-2022.aspx, p. 4.

8

(9)  RRF Regulation, Article 3(d), 4th pillar.

9

(10)  CoR Opinion: Recovery plan for Europe in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Recovery and Resilience Facility and Technical Support Instrument (OJ C 440, 18.12.2020, p. 160).

10

CoR Opinion: The European semester and cohesion policy: aligning structural reforms with long-term investments (OJ C 275, 14.8.2019, p. 1).

CoR Opinion: Improving the governance of the European semester: a Code of Conduct for the involvement of local and regional authorities (OJ C 306, 15.9.2017, p. 24).

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/18

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions

(2023/C 157/04)

| Rapporteur: | Pedro DE FARIA E CASTRO (PT/EPP), Regional Under Secretary of the Presidency of the Regional Government of the Azores |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document: | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions
  COM(2022) 198 final |

Rapporteur:

Pedro DE FARIA E CASTRO (PT/EPP), Regional Under Secretary of the Presidency of the Regional Government of the Azores

Reference document:

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions

COM(2022) 198 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| 1. | highlights the permanent structural constraints faced by the outermost regions, as identified in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | recognises that the EU’s strategy for the outermost regions has proved its worth in deepening measures to safeguard the specific nature of these regions within the EU framework. However, the situation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the urgent need to address current and future economic, social, cultural and environmental challenges, has highlighted the need for the 2017 strategy entitled A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU’s outermost regions to be thoroughly revamped; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | welcomes the fact that the European Commission follows the CoR’s recommendation to adapt the EU strategy for the outermost regions in view of the severe consequences of the pandemic, as proposed in the CoR Opinion on the European Commission’s report on the implementation of the renewed strategic partnership with the EU’s outermost regions, rapporteur Ángel Víctor Torres Pérez (1), and in the European Parliament’s report Towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions (2); |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | notes the various initiatives by the outermost regions to breathe new life into the European Commission’s strategy, highlighting the political declaration of the presidents of the outermost regions adopted at the mid-term meeting of the Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions on 3 May 2021 in the Azores; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | highlights the strengthening of the partnership between the Commission, the Member States and the Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions in the process of drawing up this strategy, which has led to a fruitful ongoing dialogue through specific platforms and working groups; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | welcomes the European Commission Communication entitled Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions, which follows on from the positions expressed by the Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions, both in the final declaration of 18 November 2021 (Ponta Delgada, Azores) and in the contribution of 19 January 2022, adopted jointly with France, Spain and Portugal; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | welcomes the Commission’s commitment to strengthening dialogue and providing tailored support to these regions so that they can fully benefit from EU policies and harness their potential, thus helping to strengthen the EU’s presence in the zones of influence of these regions; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | recognises the importance of this new communication and stresses the need for coordinated action by supranational, national, regional and local authorities and for swift implementation of the proposed measures. Given the multiple crises, stresses the urgent need for immediate, effective responses to ensure these regions’ economic, social and sustainable recovery; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | regrets that the new Commission communication fails to address some of the policies essential to the development of the outermost regions adequately; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | underlines that the vulnerabilities of these regions, recognised in Article 349 of the TFEU, are being further accentuated by a succession of natural disasters, which are becoming increasingly frequent due to global warming, and the growing scale and intensity of which in the outermost regions remain a cause for serious concern; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | notes that the war in Ukraine is putting additional pressure on these already vulnerable regions and is undermining post-health crisis recovery. The purchasing power of families is now seriously affected and the different business sectors are suffering as a result of the significant new costs alongside the additional structural costs arising from the structural constraints faced by these regions; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | welcomes the conclusions of the Council of the European Union of 21 June 2022 on this Commission communication of 3 May and stresses its importance for the implementation of this new strategy for the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | urges the concerned Member States to support their outermost regions in building administrative capacity and in boosting skills development to fully benefit from EU programmes; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | welcomes the Commission communication’s observation that the outermost regions do not resemble, either in fact or in law, other European regions with specific geographical characteristics, such as islands, mountain areas or regions with low population density; |
| --- | --- |

14.

Addressing people’s needs

| 15. | welcomes the Commission’s focus on the needs of people living in the outermost regions, on economic recovery and on sustainable and inclusive growth that meets these needs; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | draws attention to the urgent need to address the significant social and economic inequalities of the outermost regions compared to mainland Europe and calls on the European Commission to support these regions in the process of convergence with the rest of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | welcomes the European Commission’s emphasis on the importance of supporting the specific needs of the outermost regions in implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights and in achieving the 2030 targets of the Porto Social Summit on employment, skills and reducing poverty; |
| --- | --- |

17.

Attending to the challenge of migration

| 18. | calls for strong, resolute support from the European institutions to face migration crises, especially in the EU’s external border regions, which bear sole responsibility for receiving unaccompanied minors arriving there and providing them with access to basic services, as well as for supporting their passage into adulthood; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | recalls the importance of adequate funding under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF), ensuring that they are regionalised in order to facilitate access to funds, especially in crisis situations, such as those experienced regularly by some outermost regions, such as the Canary Islands, Guiana or Mayotte, and welcomes the commitment given on this matter by the Commission in its new strategy; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | looks forward to further progress on the Migration and Asylum Pact, in the light of lessons learned following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, exploring the possibility of triggering Council Directive 2001/55/EC (3) for migrants from other conflict zones having a major impact on the EU, along with the new measures introduced by the CARE Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), in order to achieve ensure genuine solidarity and a fair sharing of the migration burden among all Member States; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Green transition

| 21. | welcomes the Commission’s acknowledgement of the outermost regions’ need for particular measures to adapt to climate change, as they are particularly exposed to its impact, including extreme weather events; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | underlines the Commission’s commitment to continue to take due account of the outermost regions when implementing the EU Solidarity Fund, as well as its commitment to support risk prevention and resilience measures with regard to natural disasters and to promote the exchange of knowledge between the outermost regions and their neighbours; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | calls for account to be taken of the impact of the Fit for 55 legislative package, which will have a major impact on the competitiveness and connections of the outermost regions, systematically and comprehensively applying Article 349 TFEU, following the drafting of impact assessment studies. On the basis of these studies, solutions must be adopted that are tailored to the outermost regions, adapting legislation where necessary, with a view to ensuring fair treatment for communities already facing extra costs due to their remoteness and securing access for households and businesses in these highly vulnerable regions to the Social Climate Fund and the Modernisation Fund and access to funding for small-scale projects under the Innovation Fund; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | warns, in this regard, of the greater vulnerability of these regions due to their remoteness and isolation from the European mainland and, consequently, of the impact that meeting the new targets on emissions and fuel taxation arising from the Fit for 55 package will have on them; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | points out that the outermost regions are isolated energy systems which cannot be connected to the mainland, and calls on the European institutions to promote the energy autonomy of these regions through support and promotion policies that allow an appropriate, affordable transition to be made from the current dependence on fossil fuels to sustainable systems; |
| --- | --- |

25.

Reducing the accessibility gap

| 26. | highlights the outermost regions’ total dependence on reliable and affordable air and sea transport for the mobility of their inhabitants and for the supply of essential goods, in the absence of land-based transport alternatives, which places a heavy financial burden on residents and is inherently detrimental to local economies and the public interest; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | considers that it is impossible to promote equality, inclusion and development in the outermost regions without a strategy to reduce their remoteness and isolation. This must involve additional measures to compensate for accessibility handicaps and to close the digital divide, in order to develop the outermost regions and give greater prominence to their economies and the permanent structural problems of remoteness. Highlights the importance of the single market emergency instrument taking the outermost regions into account in order to secure supply chains in times of crisis; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | as recommended by the European Parliament in its Report Towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions, calls on the Commission to assess the need to provide support for the transport sector as an additional instrument to offset the disadvantages and losses arising from the costs of passenger and freight transport; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | calls for support for projects to make the outermost regions more connected. In this regard, draws attention to the issue of support for underwater cables, which is still a key challenge for the security of data flows, and also for quality of service and affordability. For example, Réunion and the Autonomous Region of the Azores will soon be faced with the obsolescence of their submarine electronic communications cables. Satellite technology should also be considered for certain territories, such as French Guiana, as fibre cannot be installed in all inhabited areas; |
| --- | --- |

29.

Agriculture and rural development

| 30. | stresses the importance of the agricultural sector for the economy, the environment, spatial planning and employment in the outermost regions, as recognised by the EU as it introduces specific treatment through the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) scheme and provides for specific derogations in the common agricultural policy (CAP), and calls for these provisions to be maintained; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | is pleased to note that the state aid instruments for aid to support agriculture, forestry and rural areas allow higher maximum aid intensity rates for investments in the outermost regions and operating aid, and that the Commission has proposed to continue providing special conditions for these regions in the ongoing review of these instruments; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | stresses, however, the importance of specific provisions for the outermost regions regarding de minimis aid in view of the extra costs affecting any undertaking operating in the sector of primary production of agricultural products in the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | considers, with regard to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), that opting for centralised management of strategic plans runs counter to the desired simplification, effectiveness and efficiency objectives, and hopes that the negative impact of this can be minimised by making procedures sufficiently flexible and decentralised, with regard to the implementation of strategic plans in the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | calls for close interinstitutional cooperation to ensure that the POSEI budget, an essential instrument for supporting the sustainability of local production and for adapting the CAP to the specific characteristics of the outermost regions, can be increased in response to evidence of its chronic under-budgeting and the real needs of the outermost regions, so that the programme can keep pace with developments in the agricultural sectors of these regions and can continue to meet its objectives; |
| --- | --- |

34.

Blue economy and fisheries

| 35. | points out that the outermost regions strengthen the maritime dimension of the European Union, making it the world’s largest maritime area, forming an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of more than 25 million km2 and offering major economic opportunities; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | welcomes the importance attached to the outermost regions with regard to the traditional fisheries sector and blue economy strategies for the coming years, as well as the Commission’s commitment to review the reporting procedure requirements and the provisions allowing state aid for the renewal of the fishing fleet in these regions, taking into account their specific characteristics and supporting those working in the fishing industry while ensuring sustainable fisheries; |
| --- | --- |

36.

State aid

| 37. | welcomes the commitment given by the Commission in its communication to continue taking into account these regions’ specificities in the revision of state aid regulations and guidelines across sectors, based on the existing provisions for these regions in EU state aid legislation; calls for State aid schemes to be more flexible; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | stresses that particular attention should be paid to the state aid rules that strengthen and encourage the connections of the outermost regions, specifically when it comes to revision of the Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines and aid for maritime transport, as well as to the ongoing revision of the state aid regulations for environmental protection, where an investment aid category should be added to enable businesses in the outermost regions to comply with the environmental standards set by the EU; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | calls for the creation of a forum for the outermost regions and the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to reflect on the concept of aid with a ‘purely local impact’, bearing in mind that over 90 % of companies located in the outermost regions are micro- and small enterprises with limited financial means and that aid to these regions cannot affect competition on the internal market, as it targets purely local activities; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | stresses, furthermore, the importance of ensuring the continuity of all tax systems in the outermost regions, as any break could seriously destabilise the economies and jobs in those regions; |
| --- | --- |

40.

Tourism

| 41. | draws attention to the key role played by the tourism sector in the development of the outermost regions, as it is a cross-cutting economic activity that has a huge effect on economic growth, employment and regional development; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | points to the substantial impact of the COVID-19 health crisis on this sector, which caused an unprecedented downturn in its activity; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | stresses the sector’s vulnerability, which is highly exposed to geopolitical, health and climate externalities and is dependent on air and sea links; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | highlights the need to promote investments that are innovative, sustainable and resilient to support the sustainable development of this strategic sector; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | calls on the European Commission to further develop a European tourism policy in order to include the creation of a European Tourism Agency, to support the dual transition of European tourist destinations and to speed up the recovery of this sector, which is key for these regions; endorses the European Parliament’s warning on the need to take into account the special characteristics and additional constraints of these regions when formulating and evaluating this policy, ensuring adequate funding to safeguard their accessibility and their climate and digital transitions; |
| --- | --- |

45.

External dimension

| 46. | recognises that the outermost regions’ triple level of belonging (European, national and regional) entails, firstly, taking greater advantage of the benefits of the internal market and, secondly, integrating better into the immediate environment by strengthening relations with neighbouring third countries and partners, while always taking into account the outermost regions’ concerns in trade negotiations and agreements; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | stresses that the different geographical areas in which the outermost regions are located have distinct characteristics, challenges and opportunities, and that it is therefore essential to build together a strategy for each of these areas, based on a prior diagnosis, in order to identify the main common challenges and exploit the full potential of deeper cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | emphasises that this preliminary assessment must be based on a two-fold approach: consideration, on the one hand, of the challenges facing the EU in these areas, and, on the other, of the effects of these challenges on the European territories located in these areas, as well as the responses that can be provided by the EU; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | welcomes the commitment given by the European Commission in its communication to identify regional cooperation opportunities and the challenges facing the outermost regions, to identify the main areas for cooperation, to develop opportunities and support collaboration and to promote exchanges between the outermost regions. It furthermore urges the concerned Member States to promote cooperation in these areas between the outermost regions and overseas countries and territories, as well as with third countries. It encourages the other Member States to promote cooperation and exchanges between their regions and the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | calls on the Commission to take into account the role and specific situations of the outermost regions when reviewing geographical strategies and to include the outermost regions in the consultation mechanisms; |
| --- | --- |

50.

Conclusions

| 51. | calls for pragmatic and tailored solutions to be adopted as a matter of urgency, systematically applying Article 349 of the TFEU, in order to avoid the objective of economic, social and sustainable recovery being undermined; |
| --- | --- |

51.

| 52. | draws attention to the need to effectively boost the promotion of competitiveness and prior assessment of the impact of EU policies on the outermost regions, with place-based approaches, guaranteeing the protection of their citizens’ incomes; |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | calls on the European Commission to draw up an operational roadmap and a timetable jointly with the outermost regions and their Member States. |
| --- | --- |

53.

Brussels, 8 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  OJ C 37. 2.2.2021, p. 57.

1

(2)  Report — Towards a stronger partnership with the EU outermost regions.

2

(3)  Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12).

3

(4)  Regulation (EU) 2022/562 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 April 2022 amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 223/2014 as regards Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE) (OJ L 109, 8.4.2022, p. 1).

4

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/23

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on creating an enabling environment for the social economy — the local and regional perspective

(2023/C 157/05)

| Rapporteur: | Ricardo RIO (PT/EPP), Mayor of Braga |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur:

Ricardo RIO (PT/EPP), Mayor of Braga

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| 1. | endorses the European Commission’s Action plan for the social economy (2021) and considers it was very important to address the vital challenges of the sector; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | recognises the cross-sectoral nature of the social economy and the fact that it covers different types of entities and meanings in different countries. There are important challenges for public authorities, especially at the local and regional level, making it difficult to develop an effective approach; for this reason, stresses the added value of involving the European Committee of the Regions in dialogues and cooperation on the social economy with the European Commission and other relevant stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | welcomes the Social Economy Action Plan and the announcement in the Commission Work Programme for 2023 of a subsequent Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation on developing social economy framework conditions. The present opinion represents the CoR’s and local and regional contribution to these initiatives and reflects the crucial role of LRAs in supporting social economy organisations in the territories; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | stresses that the ongoing climate emergency, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the current record inflation rates make a just transition to a more resilient and sustainable economy even more pressing, and in this context, the interest in the social economy has increased given the need to foster policies and new models for sustainable and sustained development. In other words, innovation is needed not just for support policies, but also various social and regulatory policies; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | points out that it is time to boost the visibility of and obtain new data on the social economy, including at local and regional level, as well as to promote these data, best practices and existing initiatives among new audiences, including young people; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | suggests the creation of a formal Observatory for the Social Economy in Europe, which can engage different stakeholders, monitor the evolution of the social economy sector and suggest initiatives to improve the framework of development of the social economy organisations participating in the co-construction of public policy at national, regional and local levels; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | enhances the importance of vibrant social economy ecosystems which can build on supportive legal frameworks and policies on financing, taxation and public procurement, but also the creation of an institutional setup that involves a subsidiarity approach between the European, national, regional and local levels of government; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | challenges the EU institutions, the Member States and the LRAs to develop a joint Plan for the Promotion of the social economy, translating into practice the subsidiarity vision; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | stresses the priority investment in both institutional capacity building and human resources training, to strengthen the adaptability and resilience of the sector; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | supports enhancing education and communication campaigns on social economy entrepreneurship, including on financing and on the EU support available for the sector. This should be carried out in cooperation with all levels of government and in collaboration with related stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | calls for an ‘operational concept’ of social economy, respecting the diversity of already existing systems and including all businesses that meet certain organisational and operational criteria, in order not to exclude them from crucial support for developing this sector. This would allow for more coherence and convergence in policies at European, national and regional levels and would ease mutual recognition (capacity to operate cross-border) and visibility of the social economy model; |
| --- | --- |

11.

The Social Economy in Europe and the Member States

| 12. | stresses the need to tackle the diversity of definitions and legal frameworks, as well as different methods of data collection, which make any country-based and regional comparisons of the weight and contribution of the sector difficult; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | reiterates its call to the European Commission ‘to develop a suitable European legal framework for the social economy, which provides for a common definition, and for the organisation and inclusion of businesses that meet certain organisational and operational criteria,’ (1) in order not to exclude them from crucial support for developing this sector; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | urges national, regional and local authorities to better tap into the potential of current rules on the specific provisions for services of general economic interest (SGEI) to make full use of the possibility to recognise social economy entities carrying out an economic activity as an SGEI where relevant; also calls for full advantage to be taken of the potential of social economy entities for developing and improving public services by involving them in managing said services; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | acknowledges the positive effect of the EU Social Business Initiative (SBI) and its follow-up activities on the regulatory and institutional operating environments of the social economy and social enterprises, but regrets that single and clear entry points in public administrations need further development; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | appeals to all levels of government to create long-term and well-financed strategies to promote the social economy, developed in dialogue with the sector and in coherence with the EU Action Plan for the Social Economy and its definition of the social economy; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | stresses that there is a need to create more informal and simple support systems for the social economy, as — where they exist — they are often highly formalised, and overload social economy organisations with an administrative burden; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | considers a good practice for Member States to officially introduce the concept of the social economy into public language, adopting a definition that reflects the main values and principles expressed in the EU definition; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | pleads for the nomination of ‘national and regional ambassadors’ for the social economy to boost the sector. There is a need to facilitate experimentation, piloting and capacity building within the social economy; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | stresses the role of social entrepreneurship and the need to promote it as a valuable alternative to both for-profit and non-profit business; and highlights the role and utility of such entrepreneurship in strengthening social cohesion in disadvantaged and less developed areas, in the considerable impact that these structures have in terms of combating depopulation and the rural exodus, and in fulfilling missions of general interest, particularly where public support is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | pushes for the implementation of strategies strengthening the capacities of social economy organisations for the digital and green transitions, providing support with resources and skills so that they can transform and improve their performance; |
| --- | --- |

21.

Creating the right framework for the social economy

| 22. | stresses the urgency of establishing modern and effective social economy policies and legal frameworks which facilitate access to finance and markets to achieve the upwards convergence among regions and Member States, and the need to mobilise public and private funding tailored to the needs of the social economy; in this context, emphasises the need for enabling frameworks for the sector to develop cross-border cooperation and internationalisation. Against this background, the CoR welcomes the announcement by the Commission that a legislative initiative on a statute for European cross-border associations and non-profit organisations will be presented in 2023; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | highlights the additional obstacles preventing social economy actors from operating transnationally in the Single Market, stemming from the diversity — and sometimes the lack thereof — of comprehensive legal frameworks covering all legal forms within the social economy such as cooperatives, worker-owned companies, mutual societies, associations, foundations and social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | finds that the social economy is transversal and should be considered in several areas. A good example of this multiverse approach are policies around the Internal Market and enterprise policy, where small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups can be helped to grow, expand and thus create employment and contribute to cooperation, collaboration and the competitiveness of EU economy; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | appeals for integration within a more or less homogeneous statute at European level of the different statutes or labels that exist within the Member States to characterise companies that pursue a profit-making purpose while having a positive social and environmental impact; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | recognises the need to improve the data related to the social economy, suggesting that the EU introduce appropriate indicators for evaluating social economy investments; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | highlights how public authorities and beneficiaries could better benefit from existing possibilities offered by flexibility with regard to State Aid in support of the social economy; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | calls for the promotion of alliances and joint work processes between the third sector, public sector and private sector to address social, economic, educational, environmental and ecological challenges by providing skills, resources and know-how to meet a common goal; |
| --- | --- |

28.

Best practices of the role of local and regional governments

| 29. | ponders on the fact that actors in the social economy have a strong local anchorage — and consequently great potential to unite the territory in a cohesive way, reducing inequalities on the one hand and revitalising the economy on the other — and calls for the national authorities to allow local and regional entities to implement the means best suited to the local context to support the development of the social economy on their territory. Stresses therefore that cities and regions should be granted accessible, transparent, comparable, and stable financing schemes regarding the social economy; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | considers that local and regional authorities should have a coordinating function to create regional meeting platforms or external collaboration structures for the social economy. In particular, they should promote the creation of a public-private network that would support the establishment and consolidation of social economy in the area, coordinating public and private entities, in particular educational institutions based in the area and committed to its economic development and social cohesion. Such a function should also coordinate the development and experiences of regional and municipal policy development in the area; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | pleads for the enhanced participation of social economy organisations in the local economic decision-making process. LRAs should develop socially responsible public procurement processes and standards, paying sufficient attention to economic actors that present a social inclusion perspective and to environmental concerns; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | suggests the institutionalisation of regional mechanisms of dialogue and support between regional and local governments and social economy networks, to channel financial opportunities, establish capacity building opportunities and better support entities on the ground; to this end, considers that each Member State should have ministries/departments/agencies with a designated responsibility for the development of the social economy and a clear mandate to pursue related topics; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | asks for the establishment of training and capacity building opportunities for economic and social entities at local and regional level to shift and scale up their business model towards greater resilience, autonomy and attractiveness of careers in the social economy. Therefore, calls for specialised training on social entrepreneurship to be included in the various stages of formal education and vocational training, in universities, and throughout all levels of education; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | stresses that importance of continued and enhanced coordination between the local and regional levels of government, both within the same Member State and across the EU when it comes to the social economy and social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | suggests a mentoring approach through twinning between territories already experienced in developing local and regional ecosystems and related legal frameworks for the social economy and those having no or less experience; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | pushes for continuous knowledge development and coordination between municipalities and regions also within Member States when it comes to the social economy and social enterprises. National strategies could promote this cooperation — also through the promotion of related actions in existing networks of local authorities and regions at the national level; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | advocates the role of social entrepreneurship to facilitate the transition of the economy towards a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable model. To do this, LRAs must find means to increase the attractiveness of the recognition of the social economy, for example through widespread communication campaigns, strengthening the access of social economy players to public contracts, and through targeted financial support; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | calls for the establishment of the official title of European Capital of the Social Economy; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | supports the need to ensure that EU measures take the local and regional perspectives into account as well as the dissemination of successful pilot initiatives and good practices led by social economy stakeholders within government recommendations, and to promote their replication through social economy networks and public communication. This could be done with a specifically dedicated new social economy platform, with the active participation of the European Committee of the Regions and working together will all relevant stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | proposes the improvement of the access of local and regional governments to information on European funds and programmes, such as the European structural and investment funds, and the strengthening of the links between the EU and local/regional levels, as well as improving awareness of the role of the social economy sector in local and regional communities; |
| --- | --- |

40.

Better funding, taxation and access for markets

| 41. | welcomes the Commission’s proposal to set up an EU Social Economy Gateway, compiling an inventory of public policies and funding for the sector, and its proposal to increase the availability of public funding; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | identifies the lack of access to finance as one of the main obstacles preventing social entrepreneurship from prospering. It is therefore important to foster synergies among funding instruments and to continue mobilising private finance, patient capital and advisory support, tailored to the needs of social enterprises and social economy organisations; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | calls for the potential of the social economy to be explored in the areas of vocational training, universities and all levels of education, and in active employment policies, as well as skills and competencies development, therefore the Commission should support the training and life-long learning access of social economy workers in areas such as digitalisation, participatory leadership, resilience and the green transition, in order to support them to enter or remain in the labour market of social economy enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | considers that complementary to the green taxonomy as a contribution to the implementation of the Green Deal, the Commission should urgently make a proposal to establish a social taxonomy. A social taxonomy would provide potential investors and enterprises with a clear guidance as to what can be understood as ‘social investment’. The absence of a social taxonomy currently hampers possible private investments into the social economy; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | proposes the reduction of barriers preventing social economy actors from accessing national and EU funds, and better adaptation to local realities. For instance, EU and national financial support programs should be tailored to specific territorial needs and contexts and also should be a secure and predictable system of financing social services from the central level to local authorities. A good example was the social innovation funds promoted in the last European budget, which helped new social projects to emerge all across the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | embraces the advances in cohesion policy created by NextGenerationEU regarding the social economy and the new opportunities provided. However, there remains the need for cities and regions to have direct access to these funds; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | stresses the need to develop at EU and Member State level a fiscal framework for the social economy that would address unfair competition linked to the fact that social economy actors mainly rely on their own funds; |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | encourages Member States to mobilise resources from EU funding, including the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and establish, with the help of Invest EU, a ‘Guarantee fund for small and medium social economy entities’; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | encourages a tax policy which acknowledges functions that are in the general interest. For instance: implementation of real tax solutions to support the social economy sector (concessions, exemptions, both at the level of income tax and VAT), improving the financial benefits of being a social economy entity or social enterprise (both directly for social economy entities and for people/companies using services or buying certain goods from social economy entities). The CoR therefore requests the Commission to pay special attention to tax provisions for social economy entities in the legislative initiative Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT); |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | considers urgent the implementation of fiscal measures beneficial for the social economy sector, and guaranteeing better fiscal benefits (social security, personal income tax) in the hiring of people in situations of and/or at risk of vulnerability, with special support for business models that employ mostly these people (special employment centres and integration enterprises); |
| --- | --- |

50.

| 51. | supports the reserving and standardising conditions to guarantee access to the labour market for adults with some type of cognitive disability: the current regulation (2 % reservation quota) is not sufficient and not fulfilled in many cases. Targeted awareness-raising campaigns should be undertaken on this subject; |
| --- | --- |

51.

| 52. | considers that there is a special need for the creating of better and simple regulation to give access to credit for social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | calls for policies promoting socially responsible public procurement and the inclusion of social requirements in tenders as a means to help develop the social economy sector; |
| --- | --- |

53.

| 54. | asks for facilitation of access by the social economy to public procurement using opportunities provided already by the European Public Procurement Directive, and to promote capacity-building both in relation to civil servants and in relation to the social economy; |
| --- | --- |

54.

| 55. | asks for clearer rules regarding State Aid to social economy entities, and for their differentiation from other types of companies. In the same vein, social economy should be treated differently with regard to compatibility of State aid with the single market, in the application of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It would be important to have a specific State Aid regime for social economy actors and enterprises active in the social sector, when they act where there is a market failure. For instance, in France there is a savings fund that is converted into a social economy investment (10 %). The country also has a label for highly innovative, ecological companies that fulfil a social function, which gives tax benefits to investors, as these are companies with lower profitability; |
| --- | --- |

55.

| 56. | defends the idea that the European legal framework must allow recognised social enterprises to access European public markets without being placed in competition with conventional enterprises, in that they meet social needs or carry out public service missions while being mandated by government. This could be an asset for public authorities which put in place a legal framework for the social economy involving a system of approval and funding. |
| --- | --- |

56.

Brussels, 8 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  OJ C 440, 29.10.2021, p. 62.

1

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/28

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the European care strategy

(2023/C 157/06)

| Rapporteur: | Heinrich DORNER (AT/PES), Member of the State Government of Burgenland |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document: | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European care strategy
  COM(2022) 440 final |

Rapporteur:

Heinrich DORNER (AT/PES), Member of the State Government of Burgenland

Reference document:

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European care strategy

COM(2022) 440 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

Policy priorities

| 1. | recognises the need for high-quality care services in the field of early childhood education and care so that children can develop their cognitive, language and physical abilities and skills, maintain a healthy and active lifestyle and avoid poverty and social exclusion, as well as in the field of long-term care to help older people and/or people with disabilities maintain their autonomy and their dignity. They are also a way of addressing demographic change and the exponentially increasing demand for care services. Intervening at an early stage, promoting health and preventing disease can help people lead independent, healthy and active lives for longer and delay the need for care; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | thinks that high-quality care services must be affordable, accessible and available in order to meet the ever-increasing demand for early childhood education and care and to enable older people and/or people with disabilities to live independently, while at the same time supporting and easing the burden on their families; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | observes that care workers are not always properly appreciated, which in some areas is often reflected in low pay, low educational attainment, little prospect of career progression, a lack of training opportunities, a lack of psychological support and care, and sometimes job insecurity; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | stresses that women are disproportionately affected by the lack of care services, as they still carry out the lion’s share of additional or informal care responsibilities, affecting their ability to balance work and private life and take up paid work. Women make up 90 % of formal care workers, with jobs still all too often poorly paid and insecure. In the EU, 92 % of women carry out unpaid care work regularly, i.e. more than one day a week, and 81 % do so daily. Moreover, 7,7 million women in Europe are not gainfully employed due to care responsibilities (1); |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | notes that care systems in many countries were able to adapt quickly and to continue providing good care during the COVID-19 crisis. At the same time, the pandemic revealed a certain lack of resilience in care systems, and the CoR stresses that both jobs and continuity of care can be safeguarded by establishing crisis-resilient employer structures, particularly with regard to ownership structures and use of the profits generated; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | draws attention to the Europe-wide shortage of skilled care workers and its far-reaching social impact, particularly in areas affected by depopulation or regions lagging behind, where care for older and dependent people is less accessible, the enormous potential of the care sector for the labour market and, in this connection, the fact that there will potentially be 8 million jobs available in the health and social care sector over the next decade (2); |
| --- | --- |

6.

Principles

| 7. | acknowledges principle 9 of the European Pillar of Social Rights, which includes the right of parents and people with caring responsibilities to suitable leave, flexible working arrangements and access to care services; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | acknowledges principle 11 of the European Pillar of Social Rights, which includes children’s right to affordable early childhood education and care of good quality; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | is committed to principle 17 of the European Pillar of Social Rights and the right enshrined therein to inclusion for people with disabilities and their right to income support, a work environment adapted to their needs, and services that enable them to participate in the labour market and in society; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | acknowledges principle 18 of the European Pillar of Social Rights, which includes the right to affordable long-term care services of good quality, in particular home-care and community-based services; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | acknowledges the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which lays down older people’s right to live independently and with dignity and to take part in social and cultural life; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | acknowledges the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (3), which lays down the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | calls on the EU Member States, that have not yet done so to ratify and implement the relevant ILO conventions, particularly No. 189 concerning decent work for domestic workers, No. 190 on violence and harassment in the world of work and No. 149 on nursing personnel; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | supports the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the obligation enshrined therein to promote the training of professionals and staff working with persons with disabilities in the rights recognised in the Convention so as to better provide the assistance and services guaranteed by those rights; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | is committed to Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the right enshrined therein for persons with disabilities to have access to a range of in-home, residential and other services to support their way of life and inclusion in the community; |
| --- | --- |

15.

General observations

| 16. | is pleased that the Commission Communication on the European care strategy also refers to issues identified in a previous CoR own-initiative opinion (4) on care and partly addresses the solutions proposed therein, such as the establishment of an efficient system of comprehensive data collection and analysis; signals an urgent need to activate an interoperability system between sectors (in particular between the health and social sectors); |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | stresses the need for a joint strategy shared by all EU local and regional authorities responsible for health, care and education, and Member States, as well as the EU institutions, to provide accessible long-term care that meets the needs of both people in need of care and care workers, and to ensure high-quality, affordable and accessible childcare throughout the EU. This strategy must therefore also be integrated into the European Semester process. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, such a strategy must start from the principle that care and early childhood education are organised differently in different Member States; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | considers the European care strategy to be an important and positive first step towards achieving the European Pillar of Social Rights and improving the care system in Europe, with the potential to help improve long-term care and early childhood education and to boost gender equality and social fairness in care systems; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | recognises that social services such as early childhood education and care and long-term care are part of an important economic sector that meets care needs, creates jobs, helps reduce healthcare costs and thus has multiple benefits for society; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | welcomes the Commission’s proposals to coordinate and take joint action on matters of long-term care and childcare, with supportive measures (such as drawing up joint analyses, exchanging best practices and supporting reforms and investments using EU funds) at EU level and policy frameworks for reforms and investments at national, regional and local level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. The CoR also calls on the Commission to guide public investments in long term care services in the use of the EU’s programmes and financial instruments; complementarity between the EU funds of the various programmes is also becoming necessary, in order to ensure maximum impact; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | considers that complementary to the green taxonomy as a contribution to the implementation of the Green Deal, the Commission should urgently make a proposal to establish a social taxonomy. A social taxonomy would provide potential investors and enterprises with a clear guidance as to what can be understood as ‘social investment’. The absence of a social taxonomy currently impedes possible private investments into healthcare and social services; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | stresses that under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), 33 % of the social expenditure planned in the 25 National RRPs endorsed by the Commission and approved by the Council so far is dedicated to health and long-term care (around EUR 45 billion), another 33 % to education and childcare (EUR 45,7 billion), and 14 % to social policies (EUR 19,7 billion); |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | considers the creation of affordable, more accessible, available and high-quality care services to be an important step towards ensuring women’s participation in the labour market and thus gender equality; it is important to carry out analyses of existing services, identify complementarities, and reduce overlap or duplication in order to direct resources and boost the added value of multiprofessionalism; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | stresses the importance of local and regional SMEs and non-profit organisations as care service providers. Points out to this effect that the local and regional markets for care services should allow for SMEs and non-profit organisations to compete with larger service providers on equal terms. EU institutions, Member States and LRAs should work to empower the multitude of service providers and foster well-functioning local and regional markets on care services. Within the framework of socially responsible public procurement, the Committee calls on LRAs to consider, in their capacity as public buyers, the local/regional social impact of how the services are produced, sourced and delivered; |
| --- | --- |

24.

Observations on early childhood education and care

| 25. | thinks that the proposed revision of the Barcelona targets will be useful in extending access to childcare even further and that it complements the Council Recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee (5). With regard to children’s future prospects, it is in their best interest to encourage their participation in early childhood education and care in order to promote social inclusion; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | believes that including the time-intensity of participation in early childhood education and care when assessing the progress of early childhood education and care provision in the Member States is a useful addition as it enables a more accurate assessment of each Member State’s progress; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | recognises how important the working conditions, prestige and pay of workers, as well as their continuous vocational training and education in the early childhood education and care sector are in ensuring that care is as good as possible and provided by qualified staff and thus in achieving better development outcomes for all children; |
| --- | --- |

27.

Observations on long-term care

| 28. | stresses that the attractiveness of care professions is inextricably linked to better working conditions, adequate wages, education, vocational training, and upskilling and reskilling opportunities; in this regard, welcomes the fact that 2023 will be the European Year of Skills; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | recognises the importance of strong employee representation both in the continuous improvement of working conditions in the care sector and in social dialogue as a fundamental component of the European social model. Welcomes in this context that the European Commission has announced in January 2023 the setting up of a new sectoral social dialogue for social services at EU level, including the sub-sector of care services, in which the representation of local and regional authorities in their capacity of public sector employers will also be guaranteed; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | welcomes the quality principles for all long-term care providers set out in the proposal for a Council Recommendation on access to affordable and high-quality long-term care and stresses that, in the future, the long-term care sector must not revolve around achieving profits but around regularly investing in quality-enhancing measures and highly skilled staff. Against this background, the CoR supports the European Parliament call on the Commission to present a framework directive on long-term, formal and informal, care that would lay down fundamental principles and provide evidence-based criteria for accessible and integrated quality long-term care and support services across the EU (6); |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | stresses that, in relation to the call made on Member States to develop a quality framework for long-term care services (paragraph 6 of the respective Council Recommendation (7)), systems to secure the quality of care already often already exist at national or regional level and should therefore be duly considered, also in view of meeting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | believes that investment in care is part of a comprehensive approach that not only pursues social policy objectives, but also sees such investment as a positive economic incentive; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | draws attention to the importance of paying special attention to the psychological training of those providing care services; |
| --- | --- |

33.

Recommendations for early childhood education and care

| 34. | encourages standardised data collection at local and regional level and sustaining mutual learning practices to provide a basis for targeted support for regions, enable comparisons to be made across Europe at local and regional level and support national and regional authorities through indicators used to monitor the quality of childcare; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | recommends increasing and expanding financial support for the establishment and maintenance or modernisation of childcare facilities in order to address the different speeds at which EU regions and cities are developing; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | recommends expanding the range of personalised services available to include those that are most in demand and that facilitate independent living, such as personal assistance and home help; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | believes that improving working conditions and prestige, and ensuring adequate pay, for early childhood education and care staff is an integral part of the implementation of the care strategy; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | underlines the importance of closing gaps between the end of adequately paid or compensated maternity, paternity or parental leave and the start of early childhood education and care; to that end, recommends that Member States consider introducing a legal entitlement to early childhood education and care; |
| --- | --- |

38.

Recommendations for long-term care

| 39. | suggests considering whether there is a need for binding instruments and/or legislation and, accordingly, for increased cohesion funding to ensure universal, equal and effective access to high-quality care services for all people in need across Europe and to provide decent and healthy working conditions, professional support and decent wages for all care workers, safeguard high-quality jobs and make working in the care sector more attractive, reflecting the social and societal value of their work; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | recommends increasing and expanding financial support for the establishment and maintenance or modernisation of eldercare facilities in order to address the different speeds at which EU regions and cities are developing; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | recommends drawing up a comprehensive strategy on the future demand for skilled workers in the EU, particularly with a view to reducing brain drain in the bloc to a level that is manageable for the regions concerned, and laying down uniform conditions for the work of care workers and domestic workers from third countries; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | suggests setting targets and indicators similar to the Barcelona targets in the field of long-term care too and accordingly collecting data at local and regional level to provide a basis for targeted support for regions and enable comparisons across Europe at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | advocates the appointment of national long-term care coordinators or, depending on national circumstances, another suitable coordination mechanism to serve as a single point of contact to support the implementation of measures; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | considers it important to recognise the role that local and regional authorities play in active ageing in other areas of life, such as social inclusion, belonging to a community, and access to culture, education and housing; building on the Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, it is important to strengthen local and regional ecosystems that ensure input from all key policies and sectors; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | calls for a Europe-wide campaign to make care professions more attractive and achieve a gender balance in the relevant occupational sectors. |
| --- | --- |

45.

Brussels, 9 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  COM(2022) 440 final.

1

(2)  COM(2021) 50 final.

2

(3)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 389).

3

(4)  CoR opinion on a Future plan for care workers and care services — local and regional opportunities in the context of a European challenge (OJ C 440, 29.10.2021, p. 56).

4

Future plan for care workers and care services — local and regional opportunities in the context of a European challenge

(5)  Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1004 of 14 June 2021 establishing a European Child Guarantee (OJ L 223, 22.6.2021, p. 14).

5

(6)  European Parliament resolution of 5 July 2022 towards a common European action on care (2021/2253(INI)) (OJ C 47, 7.2.2023, p. 30), point 61.

6

(7)  Council Recommendation of 8 December 2022 on access to affordable high-quality long-term care (OJ C 476, 15.12.2022, p. 1).

7

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/33

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on adequate minimum income for social inclusion: the local and regional perspective

(2023/C 157/07)

| Rapporteur: | Anne KARJALAINEN (FI/PES), Member of Kerava Municipal Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document: | Proposal for a Council Recommendation on adequate minimum income ensuring active inclusion
  COM(2022) 490 final |

Rapporteur:

Anne KARJALAINEN (FI/PES), Member of Kerava Municipal Council

Reference document:

Proposal for a Council Recommendation on adequate minimum income ensuring active inclusion

COM(2022) 490 final

I.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Point 5

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| While safeguarding incentives to (re)integrate in the labour market for those who can work, income support should gradually increase the income of persons lacking sufficient resources, to a level which is
  at least equivalent to
  one of the following: | While safeguarding incentives to (re)integrate in the labour market for those who can work,
  in order to meaningfully lift people out of poverty or being at-risk-of-poverty,
  income support should gradually increase the income of persons lacking sufficient resources, to a level which is
  above
  one of the following: |
| (a) | the national-at-risk-of poverty threshold; or |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

While safeguarding incentives to (re)integrate in the labour market for those who can work, income support should gradually increase the income of persons lacking sufficient resources, to a level which is
  at least equivalent to
  one of the following:

While safeguarding incentives to (re)integrate in the labour market for those who can work,
  in order to meaningfully lift people out of poverty or being at-risk-of-poverty,
  income support should gradually increase the income of persons lacking sufficient resources, to a level which is
  above
  one of the following:

(a)

the national-at-risk-of poverty threshold; or

| (b) | the monetary value of necessary goods
  and services
  , including adequate nutrition,
  housing, healthcare
  and essential services, according to the national definitions; or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the monetary value of necessary goods
  and services
  , including adequate nutrition,
  housing, healthcare
  and essential services, according to the national definitions; or

| (c) | other levels comparable to the levels referred to in point (a) or (b), established by national law or practice. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

other levels comparable to the levels referred to in point (a) or (b), established by national law or practice.

| (a) | the national-at-risk-of poverty threshold; or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the national-at-risk-of poverty threshold; or

| (b) | the monetary value of necessary goods, including adequate nutrition, and
  of enabling and
  essential services, according to
  the definitions referred to in point (2) and as complemented by
  the national definitions; or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the monetary value of necessary goods, including adequate nutrition, and
  of enabling and
  essential services, according to
  the definitions referred to in point (2) and as complemented by
  the national definitions; or

| (c) | other levels comparable to the levels referred to in point (a) or (b), established by national law or practice. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

other levels comparable to the levels referred to in point (a) or (b), established by national law or practice.

Reason

To reach the headline target income support should increase the income of persons lacking sufficient resources above the poverty line, otherwise the target will not be met.

Moreover, national definitions of ‘enabling’ and ‘essential’ services should apply only when they cover more services than those included in the definitions proposed in the current Recommendation.

Amendment 2

Point 6

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States are recommended to achieve the adequate level of income support provided for in paragraph (5) by 31 December
  2030
  at the latest, while safeguarding the sustainability of public finances. | Member States are recommended to achieve the adequate level of income support provided for in paragraph (5) by 31 December
  2027
  at the latest, while safeguarding the sustainability of public finances. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Member States are recommended to achieve the adequate level of income support provided for in paragraph (5) by 31 December
  2030
  at the latest, while safeguarding the sustainability of public finances.

Member States are recommended to achieve the adequate level of income support provided for in paragraph (5) by 31 December
  2027
  at the latest, while safeguarding the sustainability of public finances.

Reason

The timeline for Member States to achieve an adequate level of income support should be shorter in order to leave enough time for evaluating the impact of this policy upon the reduction of poverty and for eventually revisiting the proposal to improve its effectiveness.

Amendment 3

Point 9(a)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| transparent and non-discriminatory eligibility criteria, safeguarding effective access to minimum income for young adults and regardless of the existence of permanent address, while ensuring that the length of legal residence
  is proportionate
  ; | transparent and non-discriminatory eligibility criteria, safeguarding effective access to minimum income for young adults and regardless of the existence of permanent address, while ensuring that the length of legal residence
  does not exceed the 5 years of uninterrupted legal stay required in order to obtain the status of long-term resident
  ; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

transparent and non-discriminatory eligibility criteria, safeguarding effective access to minimum income for young adults and regardless of the existence of permanent address, while ensuring that the length of legal residence
  is proportionate
  ;

transparent and non-discriminatory eligibility criteria, safeguarding effective access to minimum income for young adults and regardless of the existence of permanent address, while ensuring that the length of legal residence
  does not exceed the 5 years of uninterrupted legal stay required in order to obtain the status of long-term resident
  ;

Reason

Striking divergences in the requirements related to the minimum length of legal residence are acknowledged as important barriers to access to minimum income by non-nationals. Therefore, a rationalisation of such requirements is of paramount importance.

Amendment 4

Point 10(d)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| taking steps to combat stigmatisation and
  unconscious
  bias attached to poverty and social exclusion; | taking steps to combat stigmatisation and bias attached to poverty and social exclusion; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

taking steps to combat stigmatisation and
  unconscious
  bias attached to poverty and social exclusion;

taking steps to combat stigmatisation and bias attached to poverty and social exclusion;

Reason

Bias attached to poverty and social exclusion should be combatted no matter whether it is conscious or unconscious.

Amendment 5

Point 16(e)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| take stock of actions taken in response to this Recommendation, in particular with regard to its impact on reduction of poverty and social exclusion, increasing employment levels and improving participation in training, and report to the Council
  by 2032
  . | take stock of actions taken in response to this Recommendation, in particular with regard to its impact on reduction of poverty and social exclusion, increasing employment levels and improving participation in training, and report to the Council
  every four years, with a final report by 2030
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

take stock of actions taken in response to this Recommendation, in particular with regard to its impact on reduction of poverty and social exclusion, increasing employment levels and improving participation in training, and report to the Council
  by 2032
  .

take stock of actions taken in response to this Recommendation, in particular with regard to its impact on reduction of poverty and social exclusion, increasing employment levels and improving participation in training, and report to the Council
  every four years, with a final report by 2030
  .

Reason

Adjustment of the timeline for the Commission to report to the Council to the deadline for reaching the headline targets of the Porto Social Summit.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| 1. | welcomes the fact that the European Commission recognises the need for further action to combat poverty across the European Union, which requires a focus on the root causes of poverty and effective measures to combat and prevent it. In this regard, national income support schemes and related support services provide a bottom line for ensuring that people can live in dignity; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | stresses the need for Member States to fully commit to implementing the Council Recommendation in order to achieve the 2030 target of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. In the past (1), the CoR has stressed the need for adequate legislation to guarantee a minimum income at least above the poverty threshold; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | insists that this Recommendation should be accompanied by the swift full implementation of the directive on adequate minimum wages. Points out by the same token that, while the recommendation is a first step in the right direction, the acknowledgement of the urgent need for action to guarantee a minimum income across the EU begs further reflection as to the most effective regulatory framework to implement such action at European level; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | underlines the clear public support for a social Europe (2) and a common minimum income framework, as outlined at the Conference on the Future of Europe (3); |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | despite efforts, poverty and social exclusion have further worsened and more than 90 million Europeans were at risk of poverty and social exclusion in 2021. The urgency of the situation requires a stricter timetable for implementing the Recommendation, and the CoR therefore proposes that this be brought forward to 2027. The CoR calls on the European Commission to take a closer look in 2027 at the progress achieved so far, with Member States reporting on such progress to the Council every four years and drawing up a final report in 2030; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | is concerned about the lack of a rights-based approach in the Recommendation. Modern minimum income schemes can ensure that people live in dignity, strengthen their participation and inclusion in society and promote integration into the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | points out that poverty is a violation of human rights and that workable minimum income schemes and services have a stabilising effect on the overall economy, as eradicating poverty and reducing income inequalities is important not only to promote social justice but also to support economic growth. Reducing income inequality requires Member States to take well-targeted action across a number of policy areas; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | points out that women have an important role to play in breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty in families. Raising the employment rate of women and narrowing the pay gap will also improve women’s pensions and reduce the risk of poverty in retirement. In order to reduce child poverty, it is important for children to have access to comprehensive services, such as early childhood education and care, primary education, school meals, as well as access to leisure activities; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | suggests that the national poverty action plans focus on the development of minimum income schemes, including measures to achieve fair wages and decent work, ensure quality basic services and obtain adequate income support and individualised social services. In this regard, it is important when developing such social services schemes to take into consideration that these should ensure maximum outreach and encourage as well as empower those beneficiaries able to work to (re)enter the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | stresses that while the target of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion extends to 2030, the COVID-19 pandemic, the ongoing war in Ukraine, the hike in energy prices and rising inflation have hit low-income households hardest, increasing poverty and inequality. At the same time, this situation is of particular concern to vulnerable groups, especially persons with disabilities. Fresh thinking is therefore needed and measures should be brought forward, building on the lessons from past crises and revisiting the allocation of financial and human resources to attain this headline target on the basis of regular reviews of the number of people at risk of poverty; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | underlines that the green transition and the carbon-neutral economy must reflect the social dimension and support the upskilling of people at risk of unemployment, the unemployed or the economically inactive. Minimum income schemes should play a key role in providing support and incentives to reintegrate people into the labour market. By the same token, the CoR notes with interest the progress made on minimum wages, acknowledging ‘the fact that the Commission has brought about a fundamental shift [...], with adequate minimum wages seen as a fundamental right and prerequisite for a social, fair and sustainable market economy underpinning the European single market’ (4); |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | highlights that climate change will further increase the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion, especially those living in areas where the economy is unbalanced and vulnerable to climate change. Social security systems are confronted with the urgent need to adapt to climate change, with demands for help on the rise and new categories of people requiring support; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | calls on the European Union and the Member States, in cooperation with local and regional authorities, to seek out specific measures to reduce and eradicate homelessness and energy poverty. Rising energy prices make it difficult for vulnerable households to cope with energy costs; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | welcomes the fact that the European Commission recognises the need to involve all levels of government in the fight against poverty. Local and regional authorities have a crucial role to play in making a success of the Recommendation, particularly when it comes to providing quality social services. Local and regional authorities are best placed to actively reach out to people requiring support and identify the specific needs of individuals in order to develop people-centred pathways towards active inclusion in society; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | stresses the need for an updated, fully-fledged European benchmarking framework for minimum income schemes, based on a transparent approach and comparable data, which would facilitate a common understanding of the concept at European level and amongst Member States, better reflect the different sources of income and specific situations facing households and help people stay above the national poverty threshold, including through opportunities for those able to work to obtain gainful and non-precarious employment; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | underlines that, in order for the minimum income to meet its objective of combatting poverty and social exclusion, it must keep up with inflation, especially the rising cost of living for food and energy. Therefore, the Committee fully supports the proposed recommendation for an annual review at Member State level, considering this to be a key prerequisite for the efficient and effective implementation of the measure; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | believes it should also be possible to pay a minimum income to a single member of a household, something which promotes gender equality, the participation and inclusion of young adults and people with disabilities in society and integration into the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | stresses the need to introduce transparent and non-discriminatory eligibility criteria in the Member States. The CoR is concerned that the Recommendation does not spell out what ‘proportionate’ or ‘gradual’ action mean. At the same time, the Committee calls for a general framework to be set up for legal residence requirements; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | requests that the definitions of enabling and essential services set out in the Recommendation be complemented and not replaced by national definitions, so that this indicative list of services can be applied across the EU. This particularly applies to digital communications, which are not given the status of an essential service throughout the EU; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | suggests that means-testing thresholds be set in such a way that people are not excluded from minimum income support because the assessment gives too much weight to small assets, housing for one’s own personal use, essential means of transport or movable property. This especially applies to applicants experiencing an acute crisis or elderly people; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | highlights the need for quantitative and qualitative indicators at local, regional and EU level to monitor the coverage of minimum income schemes, paying attention to better digital accessibility, access to information technologies and digital skills; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | stresses that minimum income schemes must have effective, fair and individualised elements targeting different target groups and supporting employment, which remove obstacles to returning to and staying in work and ensure that work pays, while increasing social inclusion. In this context, special attention should be paid to the integration into the labour market of young people, including of those having left the child protection system. The Committee further points out that it is important to support measures that encourage the target groups to (re)enter the labour market locally, whenever possible, in order to minimize relocation challenges. Member States should collect data on barriers to employment for those receiving minimum income support, such as low levels of education, and find solutions to them, such as the creation of intermediate labour markets, wage subsidies and upskilling, reskilling and lifelong learning. |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | highlights the importance of distributing resources fairly, legitimately and efficiently. It therefore fully agrees with the European Commission on the need to review regularly the incentives and disincentives resulting from tax and benefit systems; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | considers that the right use of public procurement can contribute to the employment of the long-term unemployed and people at risk of social exclusion and poverty; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | calls for clarification as to which authority is responsible for drawing up individual plans to avoid duplication of measures. Special attention must also be given to data protection when exchanging information. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Brussels, 9 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion’ (OJ C 166, 7.6.2011, p. 18).

1

(2)  Eurobarometer survey on social issues, March 2021.

2

(3)  Final report 2022.

3

(4)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Adequate minimum wages in the European Union (COR-2020-05859) (OJ C 175, 7.5.2021, p. 89).

4

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/38

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the EU Nature Restoration Law

(2023/C 157/08)

| Rapporteur: | Roby BIWER (LU/PES), Member of the municipal council of Bettembourg (Luxembourg) |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document: | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration
  COM(2022) 304 final |

Rapporteur:

Roby BIWER (LU/PES), Member of the municipal council of Bettembourg (Luxembourg)

Reference document:

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration

COM(2022) 304 final

I.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital 25

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Building on Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC and in order to support the achievement of the objectives set out in those Directives, Member States should put in place restoration measures to ensure the recovery of protected habitats and species, including wild birds, across Union areas, also in areas that fall outside Natura 2000. | Building on Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC and in order to support the achievement of the objectives set out in those Directives, Member States should put in place restoration measures to ensure the recovery of protected habitats and species, including wild birds, across Union areas, also in areas that fall outside Natura 2000
  , taking into account economic, social and cultural requirements, as well as specific regional and local circumstances. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Building on Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC and in order to support the achievement of the objectives set out in those Directives, Member States should put in place restoration measures to ensure the recovery of protected habitats and species, including wild birds, across Union areas, also in areas that fall outside Natura 2000.

Building on Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC and in order to support the achievement of the objectives set out in those Directives, Member States should put in place restoration measures to ensure the recovery of protected habitats and species, including wild birds, across Union areas, also in areas that fall outside Natura 2000
  , taking into account economic, social and cultural requirements, as well as specific regional and local circumstances.

Reason

The assessment of what measures are necessary for nature restoration in a given area is a national matter. Space should be made here for local, societal and economic considerations without losing sight of the nature-related objectives.

Amendment 2

Recital 39

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In order to achieve the objective of continuous,
  long-term
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient nature, Member States should make full use of the possibilities provided under the common fisheries policy. Within the scope of the exclusive competence of the Union with regard to conservation of marine biological resources, Member States have the possibility to take non-discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks and the maintenance or improvement of the conservation status of marine ecosystems within the limit of 12 nautical miles. In addition, Member States that have a direct management interest have the possibility to agree to submit joint recommendations for conservation measures necessary for compliance with obligations under Union law on the environment. Such measures will be assessed and adopted according to the rules and procedures provided for under the common fisheries policy. | In order to achieve the objective of continuous,
  long-lasting
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient nature, Member States should make full use of the possibilities provided under the common fisheries policy. Within the scope of the exclusive competence of the Union with regard to conservation of marine biological resources, Member States have the possibility to take non-discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks and the maintenance or improvement of the conservation status of marine ecosystems within the limit of 12 nautical miles. In addition, Member States that have a direct management interest have the possibility to agree to submit joint recommendations for conservation measures necessary for compliance with obligations under Union law on the environment. Such measures will be assessed and adopted according to the rules and procedures provided for under the common fisheries policy. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

In order to achieve the objective of continuous,
  long-term
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient nature, Member States should make full use of the possibilities provided under the common fisheries policy. Within the scope of the exclusive competence of the Union with regard to conservation of marine biological resources, Member States have the possibility to take non-discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks and the maintenance or improvement of the conservation status of marine ecosystems within the limit of 12 nautical miles. In addition, Member States that have a direct management interest have the possibility to agree to submit joint recommendations for conservation measures necessary for compliance with obligations under Union law on the environment. Such measures will be assessed and adopted according to the rules and procedures provided for under the common fisheries policy.

In order to achieve the objective of continuous,
  long-lasting
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient nature, Member States should make full use of the possibilities provided under the common fisheries policy. Within the scope of the exclusive competence of the Union with regard to conservation of marine biological resources, Member States have the possibility to take non-discriminatory measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks and the maintenance or improvement of the conservation status of marine ecosystems within the limit of 12 nautical miles. In addition, Member States that have a direct management interest have the possibility to agree to submit joint recommendations for conservation measures necessary for compliance with obligations under Union law on the environment. Such measures will be assessed and adopted according to the rules and procedures provided for under the common fisheries policy.

Reason

The use of ‘long-term’ seems to suggest that restoration will be implemented over a long period of time. Thus, it is better to use the term ‘long-lasting’, the meaning of which is clear.

Amendment 3

Recital 44

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | | |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

Local authorities’ existing land use plans should be fully taken into account, as many towns and cities already include compensatory/complementary measures in these plans or other local tools for allocating spatial function.

Amendment 4

Recital 68

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In order to ensure an effective implementation of this Regulation, the Commission should support Member States upon request through the Technical Support Instrument, which provides tailor-made technical support to design
  and
  implement reforms. The technical support involves
  , for example,
  strengthening the administrative capacity, harmonising the legislative frameworks, and sharing relevant best practices. | In order to ensure an effective implementation of this Regulation, the Commission should, upon request, support Member States
  , implementing, managing authorities as well as local and regional authorities
  through the Technical Support Instrument, which provides tailor-made technical support to design
  , implement, evaluate and adapt
  reforms. The technical support involves
  capacity with regard to (cross-sectoral) decision-maker and stakeholder engagement mechanisms and multi-level governance instruments; with regard to attracting and streamlining public and private sector investment; tailored advice for technical, legal and financial expertise required for design, execution and monitoring of restoration measures; guidance
  on strengthening the administrative capacity, on harmonising the legislative frameworks, and sharing relevant best practices.
  The Technical Support Instrument should build on and be well integrated with existing local/regional/national knowledge platforms and services, which are already in use by different stakeholders. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

In order to ensure an effective implementation of this Regulation, the Commission should support Member States upon request through the Technical Support Instrument, which provides tailor-made technical support to design
  and
  implement reforms. The technical support involves
  , for example,
  strengthening the administrative capacity, harmonising the legislative frameworks, and sharing relevant best practices.

In order to ensure an effective implementation of this Regulation, the Commission should, upon request, support Member States
  , implementing, managing authorities as well as local and regional authorities
  through the Technical Support Instrument, which provides tailor-made technical support to design
  , implement, evaluate and adapt
  reforms. The technical support involves
  capacity with regard to (cross-sectoral) decision-maker and stakeholder engagement mechanisms and multi-level governance instruments; with regard to attracting and streamlining public and private sector investment; tailored advice for technical, legal and financial expertise required for design, execution and monitoring of restoration measures; guidance
  on strengthening the administrative capacity, on harmonising the legislative frameworks, and sharing relevant best practices.
  The Technical Support Instrument should build on and be well integrated with existing local/regional/national knowledge platforms and services, which are already in use by different stakeholders.

Reason

The technical support system needs to address the managing authorities and LRAs that implement the Law. A lack of technical expertise, and also experience with (private sector) finance instruments, are among the main challenges for designing, executing and monitoring restoration measures. Effective engagement of decision makers and partnerships beyond the usual suspects are prerequisites for large-scale ecosystem restoration. However, officials who develop National Restoration Plans often lack the experience and resources for engaging stakeholders other than the usual public actors, for instance private land owners. Thus, there is an urgent need to fill these gaps with an effective technical support system.

Amendment 5

Article 1

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | This Regulation lays down rules to contribute to: |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

1.

This Regulation lays down rules to contribute to:

| 1. | This Regulation lays down rules to contribute to: |
| --- | --- |

1.

This Regulation lays down rules to contribute to:

| | (a) | the continuous,
  long-term
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient nature across the Union’s land and sea areas through the restoration of ecosystems; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the continuous,
  long-term
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient nature across the Union’s land and sea areas through the restoration of ecosystems;

| | (a) | the continuous,
  long-lasting
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient
  indigenous
  nature across the Union’s land and sea areas through the restoration of
  European
  ecosystems; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

the continuous,
  long-lasting
  and sustained recovery of biodiverse and resilient
  indigenous
  nature across the Union’s land and sea areas through the restoration of
  European
  ecosystems;

| | (b) | achieving the Union’s overarching objectives concerning climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

achieving the Union’s overarching objectives concerning climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation;

| | (b) | achieving the Union’s overarching objectives concerning climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

achieving the Union’s overarching objectives concerning climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation;

| | (c) | meeting the Union’s international commitments. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

meeting the Union’s international commitments.

| | (c) | meeting the Union’s international commitments
  ; in other words, a recovery aimed at restoring the ecological balance lost
  . |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

meeting the Union’s international commitments
  ; in other words, a recovery aimed at restoring the ecological balance lost
  .

Reason

The use of ‘long-term’ seems to suggest that restoration will be implemented over a long period of time. Thus, it is better to use the term ‘long-lasting’, the meaning of which is clear.

It must be understood that the constant introduction of non-native plant and animal species leads to the destruction of native ecosystems, due to the displacement, competition and extinction of native species.

Amendment 6

Article 1

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | This Regulation establishes a framework within which Member States shall put in place, without delay, effective and area-based restoration measures which together shall cover, by 2030, at least 20 % of the Union’s land and sea areas and, by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

2.

This Regulation establishes a framework within which Member States shall put in place, without delay, effective and area-based restoration measures which together shall cover, by 2030, at least 20 % of the Union’s land and sea areas and, by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration.

| 2. | This Regulation establishes a framework within which Member States shall put in place, without delay, effective and area-based restoration measures which together shall cover, by 2030, at least 20 % of the Union’s land and
  at least 20 % of the Union’s
  sea areas and, by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration
  , striving to be aligned with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework |
| --- | --- |

2.

This Regulation establishes a framework within which Member States shall put in place, without delay, effective and area-based restoration measures which together shall cover, by 2030, at least 20 % of the Union’s land and
  at least 20 % of the Union’s
  sea areas and, by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration
  , striving to be aligned with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

Reason

The overarching restoration target must be understood to cover EU land and sea areas respectively, rather than in combination (i.e. at least 20 % of EU land and 20 % of EU sea areas by 2030).

Amendment 7

Article 3

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (13) | ‘urban green space’ means all green urban areas; broad-leaved forests; coniferous forests; mixed forests; natural grasslands; moors and heathlands; transitional woodland-shrubs and sparsely vegetated areas — as found within
  cities or towns and suburbs
  calculated on the basis of data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

(13)

‘urban green space’ means all green urban areas; broad-leaved forests; coniferous forests; mixed forests; natural grasslands; moors and heathlands; transitional woodland-shrubs and sparsely vegetated areas — as found within
  cities or towns and suburbs
  calculated on the basis of data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

| (13) | a. | Urban area means the land area of territorial units classified as urban centres and urban clusters using the grid-based typology established in accordance with Article 4b(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(13)

a.

Urban area means the land area of territorial units classified as urban centres and urban clusters using the grid-based typology established in accordance with Article 4b(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003;

| b. | ‘urban green space’ means all green urban areas; broad-leaved forests; coniferous forests; mixed forests; natural grasslands; moors and heathlands; transitional woodland-shrubs and sparsely vegetated areas;
  green space integrated into the built structures
   — as found within
  the urban centres and urban clusters with its vicinity
  , calculated on the basis of data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
  Urban green spaces entail all green urban areas with the potential to foster biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services, and to address ecological connectivity and diversity, and avoiding any harmful practices to biodiversity in their design, management and maintenance along the provisions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030. The aim is to develop data measurement tools for a more detailed individual assessment of green spaces, where green roofs, green walls and individual trees, for example, can also be taken into account. The elements of the definition of ‘urban green space’ listed should therefore be interpreted in line with the respective land use types in the Copernicus Urban Atlas (in particular 14100 , 3100 and 32000 ). |
| --- | --- |

b.

‘urban green space’ means all green urban areas; broad-leaved forests; coniferous forests; mixed forests; natural grasslands; moors and heathlands; transitional woodland-shrubs and sparsely vegetated areas;
  green space integrated into the built structures
   — as found within
  the urban centres and urban clusters with its vicinity
  , calculated on the basis of data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
  Urban green spaces entail all green urban areas with the potential to foster biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services, and to address ecological connectivity and diversity, and avoiding any harmful practices to biodiversity in their design, management and maintenance along the provisions of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030. The aim is to develop data measurement tools for a more detailed individual assessment of green spaces, where green roofs, green walls and individual trees, for example, can also be taken into account. The elements of the definition of ‘urban green space’ listed should therefore be interpreted in line with the respective land use types in the Copernicus Urban Atlas (in particular 14100 , 3100 and 32000 ).

Reason

Urban green spaces provide ecosystem services and biodiversity benefits. However, the capacity of such areas to support biodiversity is strongly related to their quality, configuration, structure and extent. The Law does not provide specific provisions for the quality, structure or management of urban green spaces. It is essential to also regulate ‘urban green space’ in the proposed regulation in order to exclude mal-implementation and transposition of the Law on the ground.

Amendment 8

Article 3

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (14) | ‘urban tree canopy cover’ means the total area of tree cover within cities and towns and suburbs, calculated on the basis of the Tree Cover Density data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

(14)

‘urban tree canopy cover’ means the total area of tree cover within cities and towns and suburbs, calculated on the basis of the Tree Cover Density data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

| (14) | ‘urban tree canopy cover’ means the total area of tree cover within cities and towns and suburbs, calculated on the basis of the Tree Cover Density data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
  In a Member State or a region, basic green space data that is more detailed than the Copernicus dataset can also be used.




  Tree species to expand tree canopy should be selected at the discretion of the relevant urban authority according to the following criteria: potential to foster biodiversity; native, climate resilient species over non-native species; invasive alien species must be forbidden; tree species diversity over monoculture that must be avoided, where possible
  .


  Criteria selection for quality urban tree canopy cover should take into account the potential ecosystem services these canopies and their surroundings could offer, including absorbing water inrushes from storms, reducing adverse extreme weather events and effects, and facilitating the migration of birds and other species. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

‘urban tree canopy cover’ means the total area of tree cover within cities and towns and suburbs, calculated on the basis of the Tree Cover Density data provided by the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service as established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
  In a Member State or a region, basic green space data that is more detailed than the Copernicus dataset can also be used.

Tree species to expand tree canopy should be selected at the discretion of the relevant urban authority according to the following criteria: potential to foster biodiversity; native, climate resilient species over non-native species; invasive alien species must be forbidden; tree species diversity over monoculture that must be avoided, where possible
  .

Criteria selection for quality urban tree canopy cover should take into account the potential ecosystem services these canopies and their surroundings could offer, including absorbing water inrushes from storms, reducing adverse extreme weather events and effects, and facilitating the migration of birds and other species.

Reason

The law should include specifications on tree species characteristics and diversity that are important for the provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity gains.

Amendment 9

Article 4

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Member States shall put in place the restoration measures for the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of the species listed in Annexes II, IV and V to Directive 92/43/EEC and of the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of wild birds covered by Directive 2009/147/EC that are necessary to improve the quality and quantity of those habitats, including by re-establishing them, and to enhance connectivity, until sufficient quality and quantity of those habitats is achieved. [...] |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

3.

Member States shall put in place the restoration measures for the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of the species listed in Annexes II, IV and V to Directive 92/43/EEC and of the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of wild birds covered by Directive 2009/147/EC that are necessary to improve the quality and quantity of those habitats, including by re-establishing them, and to enhance connectivity, until sufficient quality and quantity of those habitats is achieved. [...]

| 3. | Member States shall put in place the restoration measures for the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of the species listed in Annexes II, IV and V to Directive 92/43/EEC and of the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of wild birds covered by Directive 2009/147/EC that are necessary to improve the quality and quantity of those habitats, including by re-establishing them, and to enhance connectivity
  through ecological corridors
  , until sufficient quality and quantity of those habitats is achieved. [...] |
| --- | --- |

3.

Member States shall put in place the restoration measures for the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of the species listed in Annexes II, IV and V to Directive 92/43/EEC and of the terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats of wild birds covered by Directive 2009/147/EC that are necessary to improve the quality and quantity of those habitats, including by re-establishing them, and to enhance connectivity
  through ecological corridors
  , until sufficient quality and quantity of those habitats is achieved. [...]

| 5. | The restoration measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall consider the need for improved connectivity between the habitat types listed in Annex I and take into account the ecological requirements of the species referred to in paragraph 3 that occur in those habitat types. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The restoration measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall consider the need for improved connectivity between the habitat types listed in Annex I and take into account the ecological requirements of the species referred to in paragraph 3 that occur in those habitat types.

| 5. | The restoration measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall consider the need for improved connectivity
  through ecological corridors
  between the habitat types listed in Annex I and take into account the ecological requirements of the species referred to in paragraph 3 that occur in those habitat types. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The restoration measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall consider the need for improved connectivity
  through ecological corridors
  between the habitat types listed in Annex I and take into account the ecological requirements of the species referred to in paragraph 3 that occur in those habitat types.

Reason

It is important to mention that connectivity should aim at creating or re-connecting ecological corridors.

Amendment 10

Article 4

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex I, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance including their typical species,
  as
  referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3
  of this Article
  .
  Areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex I are in unknown condition shall be
  considered as not being in good condition
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

4.

The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex I, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance including their typical species,
  as
  referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3
  of this Article
  .
  Areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex I are in unknown condition shall be
  considered as not being in good condition
  .

| 4. | The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex I, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3.
  For areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex I are in unknown condition
  , required scientific evidence on the applicable spatial scale
  shall be
  generated as quickly as possible but no later than two years after the Regulation enters into force, to determine suitable restoration measures and areas. The NRP must include a specific plan of action, timetable and indication of required resources dedicated to these measures
  . |
| --- | --- |

4.

The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex I, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3.
  For areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex I are in unknown condition
  , required scientific evidence on the applicable spatial scale
  shall be
  generated as quickly as possible but no later than two years after the Regulation enters into force, to determine suitable restoration measures and areas. The NRP must include a specific plan of action, timetable and indication of required resources dedicated to these measures
  .

Reason

For several habitat types, existing databases lack spatially explicit, local information regarding the state of communities, reference levels, or elements that engender habitat degradation, and thus do not provide a scientifically sound base for prioritisation of areas or restoration actions. The scientific evidence collected must be presented as soon as possible to make it possible to start preparing plans and implementing them in a timely manner.

Amendment 11

Article 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 8. | Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 is justified if it is caused by: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

8.

Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 is justified if it is caused by:

| 8. | Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7
  may only be

  justified if

  Member States provide compelling evidence that
  it is caused by: |
| --- | --- |

8.

Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7
  may only be

  justified if

  Member States provide compelling evidence that
  it is caused by:

| | (a) | force majeure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

force majeure;

| | (a) | force majeure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

force majeure;

| | (b) | unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or

| | (b) | unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or

| | (c) | a
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

a
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis.

| | (c) | an ongoing or future
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis
  , provided that the Member State concerned has adopted adequate compensatory measures, and taking into account national and area-specific environmental challenges
  . |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

an ongoing or future
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis
  , provided that the Member State concerned has adopted adequate compensatory measures, and taking into account national and area-specific environmental challenges
  .

Reason

The non-deterioration requirement should not come at the expense of ongoing projects that contribute to other transition-related challenges, such as the energy transition, digitalisation and making infrastructure more sustainable. The text follows the wording of Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1).

Amendment 12

Article 5

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3.
  Areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex II are in unknown condition shall be
  considered as not being in good condition
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

4.

The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3.
  Areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex II are in unknown condition shall be
  considered as not being in good condition
  .

| 4. | The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3.
  For areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex II are in unknown condition
  , required scientific evidence on the applicable spatial scale
  shall be
  generated as quickly as possible but no later than two years after the Regulation enters into force, to determine suitable restoration measures and areas. The NRP must include a specific plan of action, timetable and indication of required resources dedicated to these measures
  . |
| --- | --- |

4.

The determination of the most suitable areas for restoration measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be based on the best available knowledge and the latest scientific evidence of the condition of the habitat types listed in Annex II, measured by the structure and functions which are necessary for their long-term maintenance, including their typical species, referred to in Article 1(e) of Directive 92/43/EEC, and of the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in paragraph 3.
  For areas
  where the habitat types listed in Annex II are in unknown condition
  , required scientific evidence on the applicable spatial scale
  shall be
  generated as quickly as possible but no later than two years after the Regulation enters into force, to determine suitable restoration measures and areas. The NRP must include a specific plan of action, timetable and indication of required resources dedicated to these measures
  .

Reason

For several habitat types, existing databases lack spatially explicit, local information regarding the state of communities, reference levels, or elements that engender habitat degradation, and thus do not provide a scientifically sound base for prioritisation of areas or restoration actions. The scientific evidence collected must be presented as soon as possible to make it possible to start preparing plans and implementing them in a timely manner.

Amendment 13

Article 5

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 8. | Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 is justified if caused by: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

8.

Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 is justified if caused by:

| 8. | Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7
  may only be
  justified if
  Member States provide compelling evidence that it is
  caused by: |
| --- | --- |

8.

Outside Natura 2000 sites, the non-fulfilment of the obligations set out in paragraphs 6 and 7
  may only be
  justified if
  Member States provide compelling evidence that it is
  caused by:

| | (a) | force majeure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

force majeure;

| | (a) | force majeure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

force majeure;

| | (b) | unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or

| | (b) | unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

unavoidable habitat transformations which are directly caused by climate change; or

| | (c) | a
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

a
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis.

| | (c) | an ongoing or future
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis
  , provided that the Member State concerned has adopted adequate compensatory measures, and taking into account national and area-specific environmental challenges
  . |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

an ongoing or future
  project of overriding public interest for which no less damaging alternative solutions are available, to be determined on a case by case basis
  , provided that the Member State concerned has adopted adequate compensatory measures, and taking into account national and area-specific environmental challenges
  .

Reason

The non-deterioration requirement should not come at the expense of ongoing projects that contribute to other transition-related challenges, such as the energy transition, digitalisation and making infrastructure more sustainable. The text follows the wording of Article 6(5) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

Amendment 14

Article 6

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Member States shall ensure that there is no net loss of urban green space,
  and of
  urban tree canopy cover by 2030, compared to
  2021
  , in
  all
  cities
  and
  in towns and suburbs. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

1.

Member States shall ensure that there is no net loss of urban green space,
  and of
  urban tree canopy cover by 2030, compared to
  2021
  , in
  all
  cities
  and
  in towns and suburbs.

| 1. | Member States shall ensure that there is no net loss of urban green space, including urban tree canopy cover by 2030, compared to
  2024
  , in
  urban green space in accordance with the article 3
  in cities, towns and suburbs.
  Member States shall closely cooperate with local and regional authorities, as well as managing authorities for achieving this. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Member States shall ensure that there is no net loss of urban green space, including urban tree canopy cover by 2030, compared to
  2024
  , in
  urban green space in accordance with the article 3
  in cities, towns and suburbs.
  Member States shall closely cooperate with local and regional authorities, as well as managing authorities for achieving this.

| 2. | Member States shall ensure that there is an increase in the total national area of urban green space in cities and in towns and suburbs of at least 3 % of the total area of cities and of towns and suburbs in 2021, by 2040, and at least 5 % by 2050. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Member States shall ensure that there is an increase in the total national area of urban green space in cities and in towns and suburbs of at least 3 % of the total area of cities and of towns and suburbs in 2021, by 2040, and at least 5 % by 2050.

| 2. | The measures to reach a better ecological quality of habitats and connectivity must be initiated, considering the complementarity of the measures with local land use plans and urban planning. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Member States shall ensure that there is an increase in
  amount and quality in
  the total national area of urban green space
  in accordance with the article 3
  in cities, towns and suburbs of at least 3 % of the total area of cities, towns and suburbs in 202
  4
  , by 2040, and at least 5 % by 2050.
  The targets are set relative to the total urban space of LAUs in a Member State — not to existing urban green spaces in the reference year 2024 — to ensure a fair approach to restoration across cities, towns and suburbs, keeping into account national circumstances. Despite the administrative structures of LAUs, urban areas need to be tackled as functional entities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Member States shall ensure that there is an increase in
  amount and quality in
  the total national area of urban green space
  in accordance with the article 3
  in cities, towns and suburbs of at least 3 % of the total area of cities, towns and suburbs in 202
  4
  , by 2040, and at least 5 % by 2050.
  The targets are set relative to the total urban space of LAUs in a Member State — not to existing urban green spaces in the reference year 2024 — to ensure a fair approach to restoration across cities, towns and suburbs, keeping into account national circumstances. Despite the administrative structures of LAUs, urban areas need to be tackled as functional entities.

| | In addition, Member States shall ensure: |
| --- | --- |

In addition, Member States shall ensure:

| | In addition, Member States shall ensure: |
| --- | --- |

In addition, Member States shall ensure:

| | (a) | a minimum of
  10 %
  urban tree canopy cover in all cities and in towns and suburbs by 2050; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

a minimum of
  10 %
  urban tree canopy cover in all cities and in towns and suburbs by 2050; and

| | (a) | a minimum of
  15 %
  urban tree canopy cover in all cities and in towns and suburbs by 2050; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

a minimum of
  15 %
  urban tree canopy cover in all cities and in towns and suburbs by 2050;

| | (b) | a net gain of urban green space that is integrated into existing and new buildings and infrastructure developments, including through renovations and renewals, in all cities and in towns and suburbs. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

a net gain of urban green space that is integrated into existing and new buildings and infrastructure developments, including through renovations and renewals, in all cities and in towns and suburbs.

| | (b) | a net gain of urban green space that is integrated into existing and new buildings and infrastructure developments, including through renovations and renewals, in all cities and in towns and suburbs; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

a net gain of urban green space that is integrated into existing and new buildings and infrastructure developments, including through renovations and renewals, in all cities and in towns and suburbs; and

| | (c) | control of invasive alien species in urban green space, also favouring the biodiversity and amount of insects, which improves the well-functioning ecosystems in these spaces. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

control of invasive alien species in urban green space, also favouring the biodiversity and amount of insects, which improves the well-functioning ecosystems in these spaces.

Reason

The target is formulated in a way that has created misunderstanding. Several actors have read it in terms of 3 % and 5 % increase of the total national area of green space, whilst the impact assessment makes it clear that the reference is the total national area covered by LAUs.

Amendment 15

Article 7

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Member States shall make an inventory of barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters and identify the barriers that need to be removed to contribute to the achievement of the restoration targets set out in Article 4 of this Regulation and of the objective of restoring
  at least 25 000
   km
  of rivers
  into free-flowing rivers in the Union by 2030
  , without prejudice to Directive 2000/60/EC, in particular Articles 4(3), 4(5) and 4(7) thereof
  , and
  Regulation No 1315/2013, in particular Article 15 thereof
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

1.

Member States shall make an inventory of barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters and identify the barriers that need to be removed to contribute to the achievement of the restoration targets set out in Article 4 of this Regulation and of the objective of restoring
  at least 25 000
   km
  of rivers
  into free-flowing rivers in the Union by 2030
  , without prejudice to Directive 2000/60/EC, in particular Articles 4(3), 4(5) and 4(7) thereof
  , and
  Regulation No 1315/2013, in particular Article 15 thereof
  .

| 1. | Member States shall make an inventory of barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters and identify the barriers that need to be removed to contribute to the achievement of the restoration targets set out in Article 4 of this Regulation and of the objective of restoring
  15 % of river length (178 000
   km
  across the EU)
  into free-flowing rivers in the Union by 2030,
  improving biodiversity through barrier removal
  and
  the restoration of the related floodplains
  ,
  while taking into account the renewable energy demand
  .


  This inventory shall include underground aquifers, as their saturation levels must be maintained because of their contribution to the longitudinal and lateral courses of surface waters, as well as to wetlands and springs. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Member States shall make an inventory of barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters and identify the barriers that need to be removed to contribute to the achievement of the restoration targets set out in Article 4 of this Regulation and of the objective of restoring
  15 % of river length (178 000
   km
  across the EU)
  into free-flowing rivers in the Union by 2030,
  improving biodiversity through barrier removal
  and
  the restoration of the related floodplains
  ,
  while taking into account the renewable energy demand
  .

This inventory shall include underground aquifers, as their saturation levels must be maintained because of their contribution to the longitudinal and lateral courses of surface waters, as well as to wetlands and springs.

Reason

The proposal should contain quantified and time-bound targets to remove barriers and truly restore the rivers’ connectivity. Member States should be required to restore 15 % of river length into free-flowing rivers by 2030 through barrier removal and the restoration of the related floodplains.

Amendment 16

Article 7

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Member States shall remove the barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters identified under paragraph 1 of this Article, in accordance with the plan for their removal referred to in Article 12(2), point (f). When removing barriers, Member States shall primarily address obsolete barriers, which are those that are no longer needed for renewable energy generation, inland navigation, water supply or other uses. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

2.

Member States shall remove the barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters identified under paragraph 1 of this Article, in accordance with the plan for their removal referred to in Article 12(2), point (f). When removing barriers, Member States shall primarily address obsolete barriers, which are those that are no longer needed for renewable energy generation, inland navigation, water supply or other uses.

| 2. | Member States shall remove the barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters identified under paragraph 1 of this Article, in accordance with the plan for their removal referred to in Article 12(2), point (f). When removing barriers, Member States shall primarily address
  (i) barriers which when removed deliver ecological benefits, and (ii)
  obsolete barriers, which are those that are no longer needed for renewable energy generation, inland navigation, water supply or other uses.
  Within this meaning, ‘obsolete barriers’ shall not be understood to mean those that are part of historical and cultural heritage, the keeping of which would not leave insurmountable barriers and which have contributed to the creation of unique landscapes and biodiversity, or which help to recharge aquifers by slowing down the speed of water. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Member States shall remove the barriers to longitudinal and lateral connectivity of surface waters identified under paragraph 1 of this Article, in accordance with the plan for their removal referred to in Article 12(2), point (f). When removing barriers, Member States shall primarily address
  (i) barriers which when removed deliver ecological benefits, and (ii)
  obsolete barriers, which are those that are no longer needed for renewable energy generation, inland navigation, water supply or other uses.
  Within this meaning, ‘obsolete barriers’ shall not be understood to mean those that are part of historical and cultural heritage, the keeping of which would not leave insurmountable barriers and which have contributed to the creation of unique landscapes and biodiversity, or which help to recharge aquifers by slowing down the speed of water.

Reason

Next to the proposal for Member States to primarily address the removal of obsolete barriers, another important criterion to guide the identification of barriers for removal should be associated ecological benefits of the removal.

Amendment 17

Article 9

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Member States shall put in place the restoration measures necessary to enhance biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems, in addition to the areas that are subject to restoration measures under Article 4(1), (2) and (3). |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

1.

Member States shall put in place the restoration measures necessary to enhance biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems, in addition to the areas that are subject to restoration measures under Article 4(1), (2) and (3).

| 1. | Member States shall put in place the restoration measures necessary to enhance biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems,
  including balancing out plant eaters, parasitoids and predators to facilitate agricultural production without the use of plant protection products,
  in addition to the areas that are subject to restoration measures under Article 4(1), (2) and (3). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Member States shall put in place the restoration measures necessary to enhance biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems,
  including balancing out plant eaters, parasitoids and predators to facilitate agricultural production without the use of plant protection products,
  in addition to the areas that are subject to restoration measures under Article 4(1), (2) and (3).

Reason

Agricultural ecosystems and European food productivity are in jeopardy due to the arrival of new pests into our lands, which causes crop losses, requires the widespread use of pesticides and affects the biodiversity of European ecosystems.

Amendment 18

Article 9

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | For organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands, Member States shall put in place restoration measures. Those measures shall be in place on at least: |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

4.

For organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands, Member States shall put in place restoration measures. Those measures shall be in place on at least:

| 4. | For organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands, Member States shall put in place restoration measures. Those measures shall be in place on at least: |
| --- | --- |

4.

For organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands, Member States shall put in place restoration measures. Those measures shall be in place on at least:

| | (a) | 30 % of such areas by 2030, of which at least
  a quarter
  shall be rewetted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

30 % of such areas by 2030, of which at least
  a quarter
  shall be rewetted;

| | (a) | 30 % of such areas by 2030, of which at least
  half
  shall be rewetted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

30 % of such areas by 2030, of which at least
  half
  shall be rewetted;

| | (b) | 50 % of such areas by 2040, of which at least
  half
  shall be rewetted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

50 % of such areas by 2040, of which at least
  half
  shall be rewetted;

| | (b) | 50 % of such areas by 2040, of which at least
  two thirds
  shall be rewetted; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

50 % of such areas by 2040, of which at least
  two thirds
  shall be rewetted;

| | (c) | 70 % of such areas by 2050, of which at least
  half
  shall be rewetted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

70 % of such areas by 2050, of which at least
  half
  shall be rewetted.

| | (c) | 70 % of such areas by 2050, of which at least
  two thirds
  shall be rewetted. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

70 % of such areas by 2050, of which at least
  two thirds
  shall be rewetted.

Reason

Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store, and if damaged they are a major source of GHG emissions. Hence, it is suggested to increase the rewetting (the most effective peatland restoration measure) which would help reducing emissions significantly and meeting the overarching target.

Amendment 19

Article 9

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | 5. | The Member States shall apply the measures laid down in Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides (OJ-L-2009-309) in order to achieve the sustainable use of plant protection products, reducing their risks to and effects on human health and the environment, and to promote integrated pest management and alternative methods and techniques, such as non-chemical control measures. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

5.

Reason

It is essential to reduce the use of pesticides and fertilisers and, if necessary, replace them with safe, natural products and non-polluting alternative techniques.

Amendment 20

Article 10

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Member States shall achieve an increasing trend
  at national level
  of each of the following indicators in forest ecosystem
  s
  , as further set out in Annex VI, measured in the period from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until 31 December 2030, and every
  three
  years thereafter, until the satisfactory levels identified in accordance with Article 11(3) are reached: |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

2.

Member States shall achieve an increasing trend
  at national level
  of each of the following indicators in forest ecosystem
  s
  , as further set out in Annex VI, measured in the period from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until 31 December 2030, and every
  three
  years thereafter, until the satisfactory levels identified in accordance with Article 11(3) are reached:

| 2. | Member States shall achieve an increasing trend of each of the following indicators in
  each
  forest ecosystem, as further set out in Annex VI, measured in the period from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until 31 December 2030, and every
  five
  years thereafter, until the satisfactory levels identified in accordance with Article 11(3) are reached: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Member States shall achieve an increasing trend of each of the following indicators in
  each
  forest ecosystem, as further set out in Annex VI, measured in the period from the date of entry into force of this Regulation until 31 December 2030, and every
  five
  years thereafter, until the satisfactory levels identified in accordance with Article 11(3) are reached:

| | (a) | standing deadwood; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

standing deadwood;

| | (a) | standing deadwood; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

standing deadwood;

| | (b) | lying deadwood; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

lying deadwood;

| | (b) | lying deadwood; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

lying deadwood;

| | (c) | share of forests with uneven-aged structure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

share of forests with uneven-aged structure;

| | (c) | share of forests with uneven-aged structure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(c)

share of forests with uneven-aged structure;

| | (d) | forest connectivity; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

forest connectivity;

| | (d) | forest connectivity; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(d)

forest connectivity;

| | (e) | common forest bird index; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(e)

common forest bird index;

| | (e) | common forest bird index; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(e)

common forest bird index;

| | (f) | stock of organic carbon. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(f)

stock of organic carbon.

| | (f) | stock of organic carbon. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(f)

stock of organic carbon.

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 21

Article 10

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | 3. | The Member States shall implement the measures laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1737/2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 2121/2004 of 13 December 2004, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2278/1999 of 21 October 1999. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

3.

| 4. | The Member States shall implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)3 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the guidelines for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reason

There is an urgent need to implement the measures already provided for in regulations and recommendations at EU level on forest restoration.

Amendment 22

Article 11

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Member States shall quantify the area that needs to be restored to reach the restoration targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 taking into account the condition of the habitat types referred to in Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 5(2) and the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in Article 4(3) and Article 5(3) that are present on their territory. The quantification shall be based, amongst others, on the following information: |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

2.

Member States shall quantify the area that needs to be restored to reach the restoration targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 taking into account the condition of the habitat types referred to in Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 5(2) and the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in Article 4(3) and Article 5(3) that are present on their territory. The quantification shall be based, amongst others, on the following information:

| 2. | Member States shall quantify the area that needs to be restored to reach the restoration targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 taking into account the condition of the habitat types referred to in Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 5(2) and the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in Article 4(3) and Article 5(3) that are present on their territory. The quantification shall be based, amongst others, on the following information: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Member States shall quantify the area that needs to be restored to reach the restoration targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 taking into account the condition of the habitat types referred to in Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1) and 5(2) and the quality and quantity of the habitats of the species referred to in Article 4(3) and Article 5(3) that are present on their territory. The quantification shall be based, amongst others, on the following information:

| | (a) | for each habitat type: |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

for each habitat type:

| | (a) | for each habitat type: |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

for each habitat type:

| | | (i) | the total habitat area and a map of its current distribution; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(i)

the total habitat area and a map of its current distribution;

| | | (i) | the total habitat area and a map of its current distribution; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(i)

the total habitat area and a map of its current distribution;

| | | (ii) | the habitat area not in good condition; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

the habitat area not in good condition;

| | | (ii) | the habitat area not in good condition; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(ii)

the habitat area not in good condition;

| | | (iii) | the favourable reference area taking into account the documented losses over at least the last 70 years and the projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(iii)

the favourable reference area taking into account the documented losses over at least the last 70 years and the projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change;

| | | (iii) | the favourable reference area taking into account the documented losses over at least the last 70 years and the projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(iii)

the favourable reference area taking into account the documented losses over at least the last 70 years and the projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change;

| | | (iv) | the areas most suitable for the re-establishment of habitat types in view of ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(iv)

the areas most suitable for the re-establishment of habitat types in view of ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change;

| | | (iv) | the areas most suitable for the re-establishment of habitat types in view of ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(iv)

the areas most suitable for the re-establishment of habitat types in view of ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change;

| | (b) | the sufficient quality and quantity of the habitats of the species required for achieving their favourable conservation status, taking into account the areas most suitable for re-establishment of those habitats, and the connectivity needed between habitats in order for the species populations to thrive, as well as ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the sufficient quality and quantity of the habitats of the species required for achieving their favourable conservation status, taking into account the areas most suitable for re-establishment of those habitats, and the connectivity needed between habitats in order for the species populations to thrive, as well as ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change.

| | (b) | the sufficient quality and quantity of the habitats of the species required for achieving their favourable conservation status, taking into account the areas most suitable for re-establishment of those habitats, and the connectivity needed between habitats in order for the species populations to thrive, as well as ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

the sufficient quality and quantity of the habitats of the species required for achieving their favourable conservation status, taking into account the areas most suitable for re-establishment of those habitats, and the connectivity needed between habitats in order for the species populations to thrive, as well as ongoing and projected changes to environmental conditions due to climate change.

| 3. | When identifying the vicinity of urban centres and urban clusters, serving to define urban green space in accordance with Article 3, Member States shall include areas within at least 1 kilometre from the urban centres and urban clusters. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reason

Based on local circumstances and needs, each Member State should be required to identify the ‘vicinity’ of urban centres and clusters in their national plans in a manner consistent with the urban structure, administrative boundaries and other relevant factors at local and national level.

Amendment 23

Article 11

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Member States shall set, by 2030 at the latest, satisfactory levels for each of the indicators referred to in Articles 8(1), 9(2) and 10(2), through an open and effective process and assessment, based on the latest scientific evidence and, if available, the framework referred to in Article 17(9). |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

3.

Member States shall set, by 2030 at the latest, satisfactory levels for each of the indicators referred to in Articles 8(1), 9(2) and 10(2), through an open and effective process and assessment, based on the latest scientific evidence and, if available, the framework referred to in Article 17(9).

| 3. | Member States shall set, by 2030 at the latest, satisfactory levels for each of the indicators referred to in Articles 8(1), 9(2) and 10(2), through an open and effective process and assessment, based on the latest scientific evidence
  , and in coordination with other Member States
  and, if available, the framework referred
  to in Article 17(9). To safeguard alignment across Member States, minimum requirements and guidance for Member States to define satisfactory levels shall be provided and adopted in a timely manner under
  Article 17(9). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Member States shall set, by 2030 at the latest, satisfactory levels for each of the indicators referred to in Articles 8(1), 9(2) and 10(2), through an open and effective process and assessment, based on the latest scientific evidence
  , and in coordination with other Member States
  and, if available, the framework referred
  to in Article 17(9). To safeguard alignment across Member States, minimum requirements and guidance for Member States to define satisfactory levels shall be provided and adopted in a timely manner under
  Article 17(9).

Reason

A clear and common framework and guidance on the minimum requirements for MS to define satisfactory levels (applies to the targets for pollinators, agricultural and forest ecosystems) are required.

Amendment 24

Article 11

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 6. | Member States shall coordinate the development of national restoration plans with the designation of the renewables go-to areas. During the preparation of the nature restoration plans, Member States shall ensure synergies with the already designated renewables go-to areas and ensure that the functioning of the renewables go-to areas, including the permitting procedures applicable in the renewables go-to areas foreseen by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 remain unchanged. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

6.

Member States shall coordinate the development of national restoration plans with the designation of the renewables go-to areas. During the preparation of the nature restoration plans, Member States shall ensure synergies with the already designated renewables go-to areas and ensure that the functioning of the renewables go-to areas, including the permitting procedures applicable in the renewables go-to areas foreseen by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 remain unchanged.

| 6. | Member States shall coordinate the development of national restoration plans with the designation of the renewables go-to areas. During the preparation of the nature restoration plans, Member States shall ensure synergies with the already designated renewables go-to areas and ensure that the functioning of the renewables go-to areas, including the permitting procedures applicable in the renewables go-to areas foreseen by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 remain unchanged,
  without jeopardising biodiversity and restoration measures
  . |
| --- | --- |

6.

Member States shall coordinate the development of national restoration plans with the designation of the renewables go-to areas. During the preparation of the nature restoration plans, Member States shall ensure synergies with the already designated renewables go-to areas and ensure that the functioning of the renewables go-to areas, including the permitting procedures applicable in the renewables go-to areas foreseen by Directive (EU) 2018/2001 remain unchanged,
  without jeopardising biodiversity and restoration measures
  .

Reason

The identification and allocation of renewable go-to areas should take into account the spaces and functioning of the ecosystem restoration measures to be put in place.

Amendment 25

Article 11

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 7. | When preparing their national restoration plans, Member States shall take the following into account:
  [...] |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

7.

When preparing their national restoration plans, Member States shall take the following into account:

[...]

| 7. | When preparing their national restoration plans, Member States shall take the following into account:
  [...] |
| --- | --- |

7.

When preparing their national restoration plans, Member States shall take the following into account:

[...]

| | (f) | national biodiversity strategies and action plans developed in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(f)

national biodiversity strategies and action plans developed in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity;

| | [...] |
| --- | --- |

[...]

| | (f) | national biodiversity strategies and actions plans developed in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
  as well as local biodiversity strategies and action plans

   (1)

  and collaboration mechanisms for integrating the former into the latter and vice versa. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(f)

national biodiversity strategies and actions plans developed in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
  as well as local biodiversity strategies and action plans

   (1)

  and collaboration mechanisms for integrating the former into the latter and vice versa.

| | [...] |
| --- | --- |

[...]

| | (h) | urban greening plans and their ambitions for expanding urban green spaces and areas, including measures to create biodiverse and accessible urban forests, parks and gardens, urban farms, green roofs and walls, tree lined streets, urban meadows, and urban hedges; and also, indicators used for reporting and monitoring. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(h)

urban greening plans and their ambitions for expanding urban green spaces and areas, including measures to create biodiverse and accessible urban forests, parks and gardens, urban farms, green roofs and walls, tree lined streets, urban meadows, and urban hedges; and also, indicators used for reporting and monitoring.

Reason

Similar processes and engagement mechanisms could be used as a reference, for example, Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (LBSAPs), and Urban Greening Plans.

Amendment 26

Article 11

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | 7. | [...]








  (i) | the technical support tool used to help implement the Law. This tool shall include: capacity with regard to (cross-sectoral) decision-maker and stakeholder engagement mechanisms and integrated approaches to urban and municipal development, as well as multi-level governance instruments; attracting and streamlining public and private sector investment; tailored advice for technical, legal and financial expertise required for design, execution and monitoring of restoration measures; the setup of manageable and streamlined monitoring instruments and processes; guidance for the alignment of reporting instruments, standards and protocols across governance levels; and good practices in ecosystem restoration across different physical geographies and contexts. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

7.

[...]

(i)

the technical support tool used to help implement the Law. This tool shall include: capacity with regard to (cross-sectoral) decision-maker and stakeholder engagement mechanisms and integrated approaches to urban and municipal development, as well as multi-level governance instruments; attracting and streamlining public and private sector investment; tailored advice for technical, legal and financial expertise required for design, execution and monitoring of restoration measures; the setup of manageable and streamlined monitoring instruments and processes; guidance for the alignment of reporting instruments, standards and protocols across governance levels; and good practices in ecosystem restoration across different physical geographies and contexts.

Reason

The technical support tool needs to address the managing authorities and LRAs that implement the Law. A lack of technical expertise, and also experience with (private sector) finance instruments, are among the main challenges for designing, executing and monitoring restoration measures. In order to ensure nature is successfully restored, technical support should also include local integrated approaches.

Amendment 27

Article 11

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | 12. | Member States should apply a whole-of-government approach and coordinate the development, pre-evaluation, monitoring and reporting of national restoration plans with local and regional authorities, as well as managing authorities, taking account of all ecosystems that LAUs encompass.



  Member States should formalise mechanisms for stakeholders’ and organisations’ timely contribution to the NRP, co-evaluation of the NRP before submission, put in place feedback processes, and provide guidance and required instruments for the alignment of local, regional and national monitoring protocols. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

12.

Member States should formalise mechanisms for stakeholders’ and organisations’ timely contribution to the NRP, co-evaluation of the NRP before submission, put in place feedback processes, and provide guidance and required instruments for the alignment of local, regional and national monitoring protocols.

Reason

The compartmentalisation of competences among administrations hinders an integrated vision that is required for the effective management of habitats or watersheds that transcend administrative borders. The engagement of local, regional and national authorities, and managing authorities in NRPs is essential to establish such a shared, integrated vision for restoration and avoid mal-implementation (for instance through protection of species in one territory, but not in the neighbouring one). Formalised governance structures and processes will be needed for effective coordination and monitoring of restoration actions.

Amendment 28

Article 12

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | (n) | A summary of the process for preparing and establishing the national restoration plan, including information on public participation and of how the needs of local communities and stakeholders have been considered; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

2.

(n)

A summary of the process for preparing and establishing the national restoration plan, including information on public participation and of how the needs of local communities and stakeholders have been considered;

| 2. | (n) | A summary of the process for preparing and establishing the national restoration plan, including information on public participation and of how the needs of local communities and stakeholders have been considered
  , including local and regional authorities, respective management authorities, and land owners. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(n)

A summary of the process for preparing and establishing the national restoration plan, including information on public participation and of how the needs of local communities and stakeholders have been considered
  , including local and regional authorities, respective management authorities, and land owners.

Reason

It is pertinent that LRAs, managing authorities and land owners will be included in the drafting of the national restoration plans since they will be the ones who ultimately design, implement, monitor and co-fund restoration measures.

Amendment 29

Article 16

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Member States shall determine what constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right, consistently with the objective of providing the public with wide access to justice. For the purposes of paragraph 1, any non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired and their interest shall be deemed sufficient. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

2.

Member States shall determine what constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right, consistently with the objective of providing the public with wide access to justice. For the purposes of paragraph 1, any non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired and their interest shall be deemed sufficient.

| 2. | Member States shall determine what constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right, consistently with the objective of providing the public with wide access to justice
  in accordance with the Aarhus Convention and in particular with Article 9 on Access to justice
  . For the purposes of paragraph 1, any non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired and their interest shall be deemed sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Member States shall determine what constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right, consistently with the objective of providing the public with wide access to justice
  in accordance with the Aarhus Convention and in particular with Article 9 on Access to justice
  . For the purposes of paragraph 1, any non-governmental organisation promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired and their interest shall be deemed sufficient.

Reason

The Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus in 1998, provides an appropriate framework for ensuring the necessary protocols are followed in relation to the Nature Restoration Law.

Amendment 30

Article 17

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | (b) | the area of urban green space and tree canopy cover in cities and towns and suburbs, as referred to in Article 6; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

1.

(b)

the area of urban green space and tree canopy cover in cities and towns and suburbs, as referred to in Article 6;

| 1. | (b) | the area
  and quality
  of urban green space and tree canopy cover in cities and towns and suburbs, as referred to in Article 6; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

(b)

the area
  and quality
  of urban green space and tree canopy cover in cities and towns and suburbs, as referred to in Article 6;

Reason

Self-explanatory.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| 1. | recognises that the proposed EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is a game changer in the fight against biodiversity loss and the impacts of climate change, and appreciates its approach to legally binding, time-bound, sequenced targets to safeguard the protection and restoration of all ecosystems in Member States, with the aim of urgently addressing its degradation; sees this proposal, with the necessary modifications, as a crucial step forward that will steer the implementation of an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | notes that the impact assessment report has examined the amount of green space and the potential for increasing it through land use change across the EU and thus found the targets to be realistic. However, the analysis overlooked the differing circumstances and starting points in different countries, regions and cities. The CoR stresses that the proposal must be urgently adapted to take account of the widely differing current situations in the various Member States, regions and municipalities in terms of the quantity and quality of different ecosystems, regional, urban, municipal and agglomeration structure, administrative structure and land ownership; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | draws attention to the widespread environmental devastation caused by the brutal and illegal Russian aggression of Ukraine; stresses that the degradation of the environment and problems linked will have cross-border consequences, affecting both human health and local ecosystems; urges to take now appropriate steps and reflect on concrete actions to be implemented on biodiversity and ecosystem restoration after the end of the war; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | highlights the key role of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in co-drafting National Restoration Plans (NRPs), identifying restoration areas and determining indicators based on local priorities and community needs, public and private co-finance, stakeholder and public engagement, and executing local, integrated, place-based restoration actions; emphasises the key role of LRAs in monitoring and reporting on progress towards the targets for urban and other ecosystems that fall within the boundaries of LAUs; highlights the importance of ensuring that monitoring and reporting does not create an excessive administrative burden and that digital tools can be used to facilitate the work; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | insists that local and regional authorities should define the targeted ecosystems, including urban green areas and their quantitative and qualitative development needs, taking into account to their local integrated urban development, in close partnership with the Member States and managing authorities, to ensure that local conditions in terms of urban structure and nature are taken into account, as well as a fair approach to restoration across urban and peri-urban areas; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | urges Member States to ensure that NRPs take into account the specific socioeconomic, geographic and environmental conditions and characteristics of the local area in question, the local community and regional context, as well as the relevant restoration needs, particularly in relation with highly vulnerable ecosystems such as outermost regions, islands, mountainous regions, peatlands and wetlands, or other areas rich in endemic or threatened species, and also urban ecosystems; calls for an explicit emphasis in the NRL on especially vulnerable ecosystems, acknowledging their particular conditions and restoration needs; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | insists to acknowledge the importance of biocultural interactions in shaping local identities and promoting high cultural and natural value farming landscapes, because they represents the core of success to recoupling cultural identity with the ecosystems on a global scale; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | welcomes the European Commission’s inclusion in the NRL of an extensive impact assessment that relates to the application of both subsidiarity and proportionality. The reasoning provided — relating to the European added value of the proposal and the roll-out of measures deriving from EU competencies in the areas of environment and climate change — is in compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. However, the CoR points out that the direct and indirect effects of Article 6, such as the financial consequences and the impact on the Member State’s internal administration and judicial system, are not specified; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | stresses the indispensable role of ecosystems as carbon stores and a protection against the impacts of climate change. This requires not only an end to harmful practices, such as deforestation, sealing of land and peat extraction, but also targeted protection and reconstruction, such as the restoration of streams, peatlands and wetlands; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | points out that the Regulation needs to take account of the variations in circumstances and starting points that exist at both national and local level in terms of, for example, administrative divisions, density and green spaces, as well as local and national needs; believes that integrated approaches to urban and community development at local level should therefore be strengthened, and that definitions and requirements need to be clear and relevant across the Union; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | stresses the need for cities and municipalities to increase their climate resilience by protecting, promoting and restoring blue infrastructure by revitalising canals and streams and creating small watercourses; calls on the Member States, within the framework of this Regulation, to ensure that all cities and municipalities with more than 20 000 inhabitants develop, adopt and implement plans for the rapid expansion of green and blue areas; |
| --- | --- |

11.

A.   Policy integration and coherence

| 12. | reiterates the importance of integrating the NRL with existing local, regional and other sub-national policies and strategies, and highlights the need for adequate instruments and mechanisms to strengthen the mandatory character and qualitative impact of the law at local and sub-national level. At the same time, the CoR stresses that the capacity of local and regional authorities to contribute to the achievement of common nature objectives through local knowledge and local solutions must be increased, not hindered. Despite the administrative structures of LAUs, urban areas need to be tackled as functional entities; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | stresses that restoration measures, especially at local level, are part of climate change action and urban planning, which must be implemented by cities and regions through ambitious policies that transcend administrative boundaries, with assessment of the overall effectiveness of each measure; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | stresses the value of integrating NRPs with National Energy and Climate plans and binding targets under the current Renewable Energy Directive (in accordance with the revised target introduced by RePowerEU); considers it essential that designated ‘go-to’ renewables areas do not compete with nature restoration measures, but support each other in achieving the set ambitions; in this regard, draws attention to the need to take into account the small surface areas of the outermost regions and islands, to reconcile different land uses in order to ensure that protection targets do not impede or hinder the essential energy transition and the related development of renewable energy infrastructure, in particular in regions that cannot connect to the European energy grid; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | urges to overcome the inconsistencies in, and conflicting interests with, other policy domains (such as energy, fisheries, food production and agriculture) that may jeopardise the NRL’s successful implementation or go against the public interest; calls for strongly aligned perspectives to add greater ‘weight’ to ecosystem restoration in the spheres of land use and land-use planning, also creating a fair system for compensation for those entitled to it. Specific interests within the areas of food security and energy security, brought to the fore by geopolitical circumstances, should find the right synergies with the NRL and other EU environmental legislation; |
| --- | --- |

15.

B.   Financing ecosystem restoration, streamlining public sector investment, and fostering private sector investment

| 16. | draws attention to the substantial financial resources required for the measures provided for in the proposal for a Regulation; stresses that adequate financial resources should be earmarked for restoration; given that the necessary funds are not available in the EU funding programmes in the coming years or cannot be used flexibly, and that Member States, regions and municipalities do not have adequate financial margins in their national budgets; reiterates the need to increase biodiversity and ecosystem restoration-targeted funding and to ease access to the effective and non-bureaucratic deployment of available funding instruments for LRAs; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | calls for earmarked national funding streams in full alignment with the identified priorities and needs of LRAs; calls for the recognition of regional structures as important bodies that can streamline and coordinate LRA priorities, thereby engendering effective support lines for co-finance and fostering effective restoration actions at territorial scale(s); |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | mindful of the implementation gap regarding the Nature Directives, calls for stronger enforcement mechanisms and compliance infrastructure, so that ecosystem restoration, in addition to action to halt global warming, has at least the same level of importance as other land-use requirements; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | stresses that private-sector investment will be pivotal to closing the ecosystem restoration financing gap; highlights the untapped opportunities and need for measures piloting and expanding the use of market-based instruments, such as impact investment, payment for ecosystem services (PES) or land-based carbon removal credits. Such piloting should go hand-in-hand with capacity building in LRAs on financing instruments of this type — ideally one of the priority areas of the technical support system; |
| --- | --- |

19.

C.   Technical Support and capacity building for LRAs

| 20. | emphasises that the effective design, execution and monitoring of restoration actions will require considerable technical expertise and investment of resources on the part of the implementing LRAs; notes that such expertise is currently lacking in LRAs; calls for this to be developed, either in-house, pooled across LRAs in one or more neighbouring territories, or outsourced; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | calls for a comprehensive technical support system, including: capacity building in LRAs to attain the required technical expertise; the setup of respective monitoring instruments and processes; guidance for the alignment of reporting instruments, standards and protocols across governance levels, and; good practices in ecosystem restoration across different physical geographies and contexts; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | highlights that such a support system should build on, and be integrated with, existing capacity building tools/platforms, such as the EU Urban Greening Platform, NetworkNature, Biodiversa+, BioAgora, UrbanByNature, CitiesWithNature and RegionsWithNature; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | calls for the provision of an accessible, inclusive, and standardised monitoring and reporting system that allows for streamlined methods for: identifying restoration areas; assessing the status of ecosystems and; setting satisfactory indicator levels and monitoring targets. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Brussels, 9 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).

1

(1)  
  Recognised by the CBD in the decision X/22 at CBD COP10

1

Recognised by the CBD in the decision X/22 at CBD COP10

---

III Preparatory acts

Committee of the Regions

153rd CoR plenary session, 8.2.2023–9.2.2023

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/58

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on Regional adaptation strategies for low carbon agriculture

(2023/C 157/09)

| Reference document: | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union certification framework for carbon removals (SEC(2022) 423 final) — (SWD(2022) 377 final) — (SWD(2022) 378 final)
  COM(2022) 672 final — 2022/0394(COD) |
| --- | --- |

Reference document:

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Union certification framework for carbon removals (SEC(2022) 423 final) — (SWD(2022) 377 final) — (SWD(2022) 378 final)

COM(2022) 672 final — 2022/0394(COD)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General considerations

| 1. | points out that due to the global climate emergency, we must reach the collective European target of climate neutrality by 2050 while minimising the negative economic and social impacts of the transition on EU regions, citizens and businesses; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | emphasises that agriculture, which is responsible for 13 % of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, can make a significant contribution to achieving the goal of climate neutrality by 2050 partly thanks to practices which sequester carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis, biomass, storing carbon in the soil and drastically reducing emissions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | as stated in its opinion on the revision of the LULUCF Regulation (1), supports the European Commission’s proposal to boost the net removals target to 310 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in the land sector by 2030; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | points out that the role of European agriculture is to feed people, guaranteeing Europeans’ food security; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | notes that, in parallel to specific geopolitical crises such as the war in Ukraine, the impact of climate change and the collapse of biodiversity are also structurally endangering the food security and supply of Europe and the world; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | notes that extreme climate events such as droughts, fires and floods are becoming more frequent and severe, and are further weakening the European agricultural and forestry sectors; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | considers that a transition towards more sustainable European food systems, based on agroecological and circular economy practices, is vital if we are to achieve the EU’s objectives on climate, food security, biodiversity protection, reduction of fertilisers and pesticides and imported deforestation and resilience of production systems, as laid down in the Farm to Fork Strategy and more broadly in the European Green Deal; recalls that agricultural products imported into Europe must meet the same environmental requirements as products within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | nonetheless considers that any policy on the transition of European food systems should ultimately aim to boost the EU’s food autonomy and universal access to sustainable, safe, nutritious and affordable food; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | flags up the need to support farmers during this transition by means of appropriate European support policies; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | emphasises that farming must provide a decent income for farmers, who must also be paid a fair wage for the ecosystem services they provide. Rural areas are often affected by demographic decline, weaker connectivity and lack of appropriate infrastructure. In view of the importance of rural areas for food production, the farming profession must remain attractive to prevent younger generations leaving the countryside in search of better opportunities; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | points out that local and regional authorities must support farmers during this transition to agroecology; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | calls for these practices to represent additional income for farmers in the context of certification; finds that there is also a need to ensure the coherence, transparency and security of the system as a general principle, so that credits granted in this sector can be considered reliable; |
| --- | --- |

12.

The principles and practices of low carbon agriculture

| 13. | supports the Commission proposal to explore new forms of support for carbon storage in the soil, set out in the communication on sustainable carbon cycles; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | considers however that all these practices must not be reduced to a mere economic model; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | considers that low carbon agriculture should primarily be defined as a set of agroecology and soil preservation practices geared towards removing and reducing emissions as part of a broader approach which seeks to restore biodiversity, to protect water and soil quality, to guarantee food security, to adapt to climate change, to preserve agricultural jobs in rural areas and to improve farmers’ income; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | proposes that the definition of low carbon agriculture factor in the two dimensions of carbon neutrality: sequestration and overall reduction of emissions, so that farmers can be rewarded for both; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | notes here that an approach to low carbon practices based solely on carbon effectiveness and intensity fails to account for the complexity of agricultural production methods and could in fact result in production methods becoming intensive, which would be counter-productive for the environment; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | points out that practices seeking to preserve or increase the amount of carbon stored in the soil have many beneficial side effects for the environment and farmers, but that those farmers who use a no-tillage technique on their farm which helps to keep carbon in the soil may need to continue using pesticides to a limited extent, as no-tillage techniques can significantly change pest control needs; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | highlights that if not carried out on a permanent basis, carbon farming risks being easily reversed and therefore would not be a permanent means of removing carbon from the atmosphere; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | considers that low carbon agriculture should be rolled out as a matter of priority in sectors such as protecting and restoring peatlands, developing agroforestry and maintaining permanent grasslands which have the greatest potential for storing and reducing CO2 emissions; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | emphasises the importance of practices which reinforce agroforestry systems, such as restoring and sustainably managing the network of small fields and hedges and forestry-grazing systems which, as well as offering storage capacity, are a source of biodiversity and additional revenue for farmers, but also ecosystems at risk of erosion or degraded ecosystems with high carbon sequestration potential; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | regrets that the total surface area of permanent grasslands continues to shrink, since the common agricultural policy (CAP) conditionality rules authorise the conversion to other uses of 5 % of these areas each programming period as the reference year is changed and figures are managed on an overly aggregated basis; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | points out, as stated in its opinion on agroecology, that priority should be given to extensive and semi-extensive livestock systems such as mixed livestock farming and grazing, which promote the reduction of chemical inputs using nitrogen and a form of upkeep of meadowland, which is beneficial for the climate and provides ecosystem services; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | believes firmly that stocks of carbon in the soil in arable land must be maintained and increased by means of agroecology practices, but warns that it is difficult to ensure that this is done on a long-term basis; |
| --- | --- |

24.

General principles of a European certification for low carbon agriculture

| 25. | notes that the Commission aims to establish a carbon certification system giving value to carbon sequestration, including in soil; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | regrets, however, that the European Commission’s proposal does not provide details on certain key issues such as the governance of certification systems; is disappointed that the European Commission has chosen to deal with them by means of secondary legislation; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | calls on the Commission to take account of the specific features of the agricultural and forestry sector and to ensure that the future certification scheme distinguishes between practices based on natural processes and technological practices; |
| --- | --- |

27.

| 28. | notes that there are carbon labels and certifications in several Member States, including for agriculture, and calls on the Commission to take these into account when devising a strict European framework; a clear and transparent methodology should be established to make the system reliable and ensure that the credits are transparent, thereby achieving the best possible remuneration; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | asks the European Commission to explain how it intends to maintain the level playing field with non-EU removals certificates which are not based on the same requirements; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | points out that in order to achieve global climate neutrality, we need to leverage two key issues: reducing manmade greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the number of carbon sinks through forestation, reforestation, pasture farming, agricultural and soil improvement techniques and other technological and industrial solutions; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | considers that European climate action must continue to give priority to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | emphasises that removals are not an alternative to emission reduction and calls for removals to focus just on residual and unavoidable emissions, partly in order to avoid speculation and any barriers to mitigation efforts; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | notes that the belief held by individuals and economic and public actors that they will be able to achieve neutrality by offsetting emissions through the purchase of carbon credits is based on erroneous scientific principles: there is no equivalence between an amount of gas emitted right now and the amount removed at some point in the future which might then be reversed; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | proposes that the European certification scheme should be used to contribute to European and global neutrality by selling carbon certificates within food supply chains for businesses in the sector in order to finance decarbonisation projects adapted to regional needs; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | considers that all economic sectors should contribute to the fight against climate change and that their efforts should be proportionate to their capacity; is therefore not in favour of using the carbon certification scheme for agriculture to offset emissions not produced by agriculture and agrifood, with the exception of the agrifood product transport and marketing sector. However, different land uses need to be seen from a holistic perspective, so that the regulatory framework does not encourage the reclassification of land; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | regrets that the European Commission’s proposal has not established rules on how economic actors can use these carbon removals certificates, thus opening the door to undesirable methods of offsetting emissions; |
| --- | --- |

36.

| 37. | recommends that the future certification scheme should not encourage practices which have externalities harmful to biodiversity and the environment generally, even if they do manage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in line with the principle of ‘Do no significant harm’; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | considers that any low carbon agriculture certification should be multidimensional and contribute to a systemic transition of food systems towards agroecology by incorporating or building on straightforward indicators on biodiversity, water quality, natural soil fertility and use of inputs, to be determined in accordance with the adopted methodology; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | proposes that the certification factor in both agricultural emissions and removals, so as to have a good overview of any given project’s climate impact; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | considers in the same way that the scope of the European certification scheme for agriculture should cover and promote the reduction of all greenhouse gas emissions on farms in order to foster systemic change in production systems and practices; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | regrets, in this regard, that the European Commission’s proposal focuses solely on carbon removals and fails to develop a holistic approach to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | asks however that reductions and removals be tallied up separately in order to ensure transparent reporting on projects and to monitor developments in carbon sinks and agricultural emissions, without merging the two objectives; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | recommends tailoring certification implementation levels to the practices certified, with a view to reducing the danger of carbon leaks both inside and outside the farm; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | calls for the future certification scheme to guarantee compliance with the criteria of permanence and absence of double counting; |
| --- | --- |

44.

| 45. | calls on the Commission to establish fair rules in order to steer clear of side effects penalising the most virtuous managers and farmers who have already developed agricultural initiatives and practices promoting carbon sequestration, and to avoid ultimately rewarding farmers who opted for practices which damaged soil carbon levels; |
| --- | --- |

45.

| 46. | proposes here that the low carbon agriculture certification scheme should also take account of saturation levels and maintaining carbon stocks, above and beyond removal rates; |
| --- | --- |

46.

| 47. | points out that the permanence of carbon stored in the soil and biomass is one of the main issues for any carbon certification scheme; |
| --- | --- |

47.

| 48. | proposes that certification schemes be based on long-term contracts and commitments whereby farmers pledge not to go back on what has been achieved even after the contract period, particularly for agroforestry and peatland projects; |
| --- | --- |

48.

| 49. | notes that the Commission has opted to consider that carbon is re-emitted at the end of the monitoring period; but considers it paramount to explore a way to guarantee the long-term profitability of storage practices with a view to encouraging permanent storage; |
| --- | --- |

49.

| 50. | recommends rigorous use of terms and conditions in contracts to ensure that the burden and risk of reversibility are shared out fairly should there be any problem with the performance of the contract, regardless of the manager’s intentions; |
| --- | --- |

50.

| 51. | proposes in this regard that the concept of risk management be incorporated into the certification scheme, in order to protect farmers and managers from unpredictable climate events such as forest fires; |
| --- | --- |

51.

| 52. | flags up the sheer diversity of conditions in terms of production systems in the Member States and their regions, and considers that the certification scheme must allow for the flexibility needed to cater for these regional characteristics; |
| --- | --- |

52.

| 53. | calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment of how a European certification scheme could affect land prices, society and the economy; |
| --- | --- |

53.

Monitoring, reporting and verification system

| 54. | notes that for many reasons, it is difficult to put a number on the amount of carbon stored in the soil; |
| --- | --- |

54.

| 55. | proposes, in this regard, adopting an approach which is based on practices recognised as being able to boost and maintain soil carbon content while helping to safeguard biodiversity, rather than a solely results-based one; |
| --- | --- |

55.

| 56. | asks the Commission to continue developing methods for overseeing the storage of carbon in agricultural and forestry soil and to improve the evaluation of carbon storage potential, before the future certification scheme is rolled out; |
| --- | --- |

56.

| 57. | proposes that the counting method take account of all emissions produced by a given farm, both direct and indirect, so as to avoid the danger of carbon leaks and promote the systemic transition of agricultural systems; |
| --- | --- |

57.

| 58. | proposes that the monitoring and verification system go beyond carbon counting indicators to include indicators relevant to biodiversity and farm autonomy, and suggests counting emissions by hectare rather than on the basis of the quantity produced so as to encourage the shift to more extensive forms of farming and discourage optimisation by means of intensification; |
| --- | --- |

58.

| 59. | recommends implementing a monitoring and evaluation framework for the certification scheme; this framework should be both reliable and accessible, without incurring disproportionate administrative and oversight costs; |
| --- | --- |

59.

| 60. | proposes that the Member States develop specific advisory services for the monitoring and evaluation framework for low-carbon agriculture projects, geared to the various types of farms and production methods; |
| --- | --- |

60.

| 61. | recommends that provision be made for revision mechanisms so that the monitoring and verification system can be adapted to changing agricultural and forestry practices; |
| --- | --- |

61.

| 62. | proposes implementing a European register to ensure that agricultural carbon certification contributions and credits can be traced, building on existing experiences at national and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

62.

Financing low carbon agriculture

| 63. | notes that the CAP is and must remain the main tool for supporting European agricultural production and steering it towards ever more resilient and sustainable systems; |
| --- | --- |

63.

| 64. | considers that the implementation of a low carbon agriculture certification scheme financed in part by the private sector cannot replace public financing; |
| --- | --- |

64.

| 65. | considers that the establishment of voluntary compensation markets could entail a significant danger of financialisation of farming and agricultural land grabbing in the medium and long term, and that the Commission should take these dangers into account immediately; |
| --- | --- |

65.

| 66. | notes that at the present time, the price per tonne of carbon on the voluntary markets would not be enough to support farmers during systemic transitions and in fact might even discourage managers, particularly smaller ones who are less able to tap economies of scale; therefore funding should at least cover the implementation of new practices, plus certification; |
| --- | --- |

66.

| 67. | proposes here that safeguard clauses be added; these could take the form of a maximum price for removals certificates so as to prevent productive agricultural land being forested and agricultural land grabbing, and a minimum price to ensure that the certified provisions are able to attract farmers and deter businesses reluctant to make the effort to reduce their emissions; |
| --- | --- |

67.

| 68. | calls on the Commission to give priority to a hybrid approach, with an initial partial payment calculated on the basis of the agricultural practices and the balance paid at the end of the 5 to 10-year multiannual project depending on the results actually achieved; |
| --- | --- |

68.

| 69. | calls for criteria to be applied in line with the principle of hierarchy of mitigation, thereby restricting access to purchasing and financing any carbon credits derived from the certification scheme to buyers and financiers who have already demonstrably and substantially reduced their emissions at source, so as to curb speculation; |
| --- | --- |

69.

| 70. | calls for certification schemes involving private financiers to be directed primarily towards the involvement of stakeholders in the food supply and value chain, with a view to decarbonising the agri-food industry by means of partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

70.

| 71. | calls for financing linked to the carbon certification scheme to operate alongside CAP financing; |
| --- | --- |

71.

| 72. | calls for the bulk of the costs incurred by the monitoring and evaluation system to be covered by the credit purchaser, should voluntary markets be established; |
| --- | --- |

72.

| 73. | regrets that the European Commission’s proposal does not explain how the various sources of funding (including complementarity with the CAP) could be tapped jointly in order to provide farmers with an income sufficient to make it worth their while; |
| --- | --- |

73.

| 74. | proposes using the certification scheme as a taxonomy in order to attract additional public and private funds for multidimensional transition projects, particularly those developed by local and regional authorities, certain to have a positive impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; |
| --- | --- |

74.

The role of local and regional authorities

| 75. | notes that local and regional authorities play a pivotal role in assisting farmers with the development of low carbon agriculture, particularly as regards providing technical training for newcomers, helping young farmers get set up, advising farmers, the rules governing agricultural land and land use, establishing demonstration farms, and tools for monitoring the roll-out of the transition to agroecology, as well as in promoting research into carbon sequestration according to the region’s specific conditions, such as climate and soil type; |
| --- | --- |

75.

| 76. | regrets, however, that the European Commission’s proposal overlooks the potential impact of these new rules on regional land use and regional farming and food strategies; is disappointed that the proposal is not accompanied by a full subsidiarity assessment grid; |
| --- | --- |

76.

| 77. | notes that practices cannot change and evolve in isolation or solely at farm level; |
| --- | --- |

77.

| 78. | calls on the Commission to take systematic account of the regional dimension of transition dynamics, including the shift to low-carbon agriculture, and to foster better engagement of local and regional authorities in the implementation of agricultural policies, including the future carbon certification scheme; |
| --- | --- |

78.

| 79. | notes that local and regional authorities can play the twofold role of getting the ball rolling in low carbon agriculture projects and then grouping them together at regional level by nurturing cooperation between stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

79.

| 80. | calls on the Commission to include local and regional authorities in the governance of the European carbon certification scheme as they can ensure that projects based on supply chain cooperation and tailored to a region’s needs and features and regional strategies for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions can get off the ground; |
| --- | --- |

80.

| 81. | regrets that the European Commission’s proposal does not specify the role of local and regional authorities in the governance of the carbon removals certification scheme, and considers that this could cause problems for the regions in the medium and long term (land prices, land grabbing and regional food autonomy and resilience); |
| --- | --- |

81.

| 82. | proposes exploring whether it would be feasible for regional authorities to set up and operate regional-level certification systems. This would involve establishing a system of governance adapted to local requirements and stipulating the number of available credits based on actual agricultural emissions and the potential for reduction and storage; |
| --- | --- |

82.

| 83. | encourages local and regional authorities to promote peer learning on low carbon agriculture practices by means of demonstration farms and regional advisory networks. |
| --- | --- |

83.

Brussels, 8 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Revision of LULUCF and Effort Sharing regulations (OJ C 301, 5.8.2022, p. 221).

1

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/64

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the European Health Data Space

(2023/C 157/10)

| Rapporteur: | Daniela CÎMPEAN (EPP/RO), President of Sibiu County Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document: | Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Health Data Space
  COM(2022) 197 final 2022/0140 (COD) |

Rapporteur:

Daniela CÎMPEAN (EPP/RO), President of Sibiu County Council

Reference document:

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Health Data Space

COM(2022) 197 final 2022/0140 (COD)

I.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 1(2) new letter (a1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| This Regulation:
  [...] | This Regulation:
  [...]






  (
  a)



  1 | gives data users access to health data for the purposes set out in Chapter IV of the Regulation. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

This Regulation:

[...]

This Regulation:

[...]

(
  a)



  1

Reason

The access of data users is an important part of the regulation.

Amendment 2

Article 2(2)(n)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (n) | ‘EHR system’ (electronic health record system) means any appliance or software
  intended by the manufacturer to be used
  for storing, intermediating, importing, exporting, converting, editing or viewing electronic health records; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(n)

‘EHR system’ (electronic health record system) means any appliance or software
  intended by the manufacturer to be used
  for storing, intermediating, importing, exporting, converting, editing or viewing electronic health records;

| (n) | ‘EHR system’ (electronic health record system) means any appliance or software
  used by the healthcare provider
  for storing, intermediating, importing, exporting, converting, editing or viewing electronic health records; |
| --- | --- |

(n)

‘EHR system’ (electronic health record system) means any appliance or software
  used by the healthcare provider
  for storing, intermediating, importing, exporting, converting, editing or viewing electronic health records;

Reason

It is the healthcare provider, not the manufacturer, who sets the framework for the use of EHR systems. This is in the interests both of consistency between countries and of patient safety.

Amendment 3

Article 2(2)(y)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| ‘data holder’ means any natural or legal person, which is an entity or a body in the health or care sector, or performing research in relation to these sectors, as well as Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies who has the right or obligation, in accordance with this Regulation, applicable Union law or national legislation implementing Union law, or in the case of non-personal data, through control of the technical design of a product and related services, the ability to make available, including to register, provide, restrict access or exchange certain data; | ‘data holder’ means any natural or legal person,
  at national or regional level, depending on the health organization of the Member State,
  which is an entity or a body in the health or care sector, or performing research in relation to these sectors, as well as Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies who has the right or obligation, in accordance with this Regulation, applicable Union law or national legislation implementing Union law, or in the case of non-personal data, through control of the technical design of a product and related services, the ability to make available, including to register, provide, restrict access or exchange certain data; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

‘data holder’ means any natural or legal person, which is an entity or a body in the health or care sector, or performing research in relation to these sectors, as well as Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies who has the right or obligation, in accordance with this Regulation, applicable Union law or national legislation implementing Union law, or in the case of non-personal data, through control of the technical design of a product and related services, the ability to make available, including to register, provide, restrict access or exchange certain data;

‘data holder’ means any natural or legal person,
  at national or regional level, depending on the health organization of the Member State,
  which is an entity or a body in the health or care sector, or performing research in relation to these sectors, as well as Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies who has the right or obligation, in accordance with this Regulation, applicable Union law or national legislation implementing Union law, or in the case of non-personal data, through control of the technical design of a product and related services, the ability to make available, including to register, provide, restrict access or exchange certain data;

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 4

Article 2(2)(ad)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| ‘data quality’ means the degree to which characteristics of
  electronic
  health data
  are suitable
  for
  secondary
  use; | ‘data quality’ means the degree to which characteristics of health data
  meet the requirements
  for use; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

‘data quality’ means the degree to which characteristics of
  electronic
  health data
  are suitable
  for
  secondary
  use;

‘data quality’ means the degree to which characteristics of health data
  meet the requirements
  for use;

Reason

The definition of the quality of information generated in the healthcare sector cannot be based solely on secondary use. The concept of quality should also take into account the aim of providing care. Furthermore, different uses may have different data requirements; the same data can be deemed as having different quality depending on how they are used.

Amendment 5

Article 3(6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Natural persons may insert their electronic health data in their own EHR or in that of natural persons whose health information they can access, through electronic health data access services or applications linked to these services. That information shall be marked as inserted by the natural person or by his or her representative. | Natural persons may
  , in accordance with the rules of their healthcare provider,
  insert their electronic health data in their own EHR or in that of natural persons whose health information they can access, through electronic health data access services or applications linked to these services. That information shall be marked as inserted by the natural person or by his or her representative. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Natural persons may insert their electronic health data in their own EHR or in that of natural persons whose health information they can access, through electronic health data access services or applications linked to these services. That information shall be marked as inserted by the natural person or by his or her representative.

Natural persons may
  , in accordance with the rules of their healthcare provider,
  insert their electronic health data in their own EHR or in that of natural persons whose health information they can access, through electronic health data access services or applications linked to these services. That information shall be marked as inserted by the natural person or by his or her representative.

Reason

To highlight the importance of healthcare providers being able to control which information can be added to the medical record. Otherwise, there is a risk of collecting large volumes of sensitive personal data that is of poor quality.

Amendment 6

Article 3(9)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Notwithstanding Article 6(1), point (d), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, natural persons shall have the right to restrict access of health professionals to all or part of their electronic health data. Member States shall establish the rules and specific safeguards regarding such restriction mechanisms. | Notwithstanding Article 6(1), point (d), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, natural persons shall have the right to restrict access of health professionals to all or part of their electronic health data. Member States shall establish the rules and specific safeguards regarding such restriction mechanisms.
  These rules and protective measures must not hinder the ability of healthcare services to provide good, safe and equitable and accessible care. Natural persons should be informed of the patient safety risks associated with limiting access to health data. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Notwithstanding Article 6(1), point (d), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, natural persons shall have the right to restrict access of health professionals to all or part of their electronic health data. Member States shall establish the rules and specific safeguards regarding such restriction mechanisms.

Notwithstanding Article 6(1), point (d), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, natural persons shall have the right to restrict access of health professionals to all or part of their electronic health data. Member States shall establish the rules and specific safeguards regarding such restriction mechanisms.
  These rules and protective measures must not hinder the ability of healthcare services to provide good, safe and equitable and accessible care. Natural persons should be informed of the patient safety risks associated with limiting access to health data.

Reason

The aim of providing care must take precedence over any possibility of restrictions. It should not be possible to block access to certain information, such as warning notices; nor should legal guardians have the right to block children’s data at their own discretion.

Amendment 7

Article 3(10)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Natural persons shall have the right to obtain information on the healthcare providers and health professionals that have accessed their electronic health data in the context of healthcare. The information shall be provided immediately and free of charge through electronic health data access services. | Natural persons shall have the right to obtain information on the healthcare providers and health professionals that have accessed their electronic health data in the context of healthcare
  , unless there are fundamental considerations relating to the health professional’s privacy that militate against it
  . The information shall be provided immediately and free of charge through electronic health data access services. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Natural persons shall have the right to obtain information on the healthcare providers and health professionals that have accessed their electronic health data in the context of healthcare. The information shall be provided immediately and free of charge through electronic health data access services.

Natural persons shall have the right to obtain information on the healthcare providers and health professionals that have accessed their electronic health data in the context of healthcare
  , unless there are fundamental considerations relating to the health professional’s privacy that militate against it
  . The information shall be provided immediately and free of charge through electronic health data access services.

Reason

Protecting the privacy of healthcare providers or professionals may be a fundamental consideration. For example, it may be necessary to consider the safety of health professionals who have been threatened by a patient.

Amendment 8

Article 4(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where they process data in an electronic format, health professionals shall: | Where they process data in an electronic format, health professionals shall
  , in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and national law
  : |
| (a) | have access to the electronic health data of natural persons under their treatment, irrespective of the Member State of affiliation and the Member State of treatment; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where they process data in an electronic format, health professionals shall:

Where they process data in an electronic format, health professionals shall
  , in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and national law
  :

(a)

have access to the electronic health data of natural persons under their treatment, irrespective of the Member State of affiliation and the Member State of treatment;

| (a) | have access to the electronic health data of natural persons under their treatment, irrespective of the Member State of affiliation and the Member State of treatment; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

have access to the electronic health data of natural persons under their treatment, irrespective of the Member State of affiliation and the Member State of treatment;

| (b) | ensure that the personal electronic health data of the natural persons they treat are updated with information related to the health services provided. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ensure that the personal electronic health data of the natural persons they treat are updated with information related to the health services provided.

| (b) | ensure that the personal electronic health data of the natural persons they treat are updated with information related to the health services provided. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ensure that the personal electronic health data of the natural persons they treat are updated with information related to the health services provided.

Reason

Clarification of the article with respect to the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1)), to make it clear that the obligations stem from that Regulation.

Amendment 9

Article 4(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In line with the data minimisation principle provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Member States may establish rules providing for the categories of personal electronic health data required
  by different health professions
  .
  Such rules shall not be based on the source of electronic health data. | In line with the data minimisation principle provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Member States may establish rules providing for the categories of personal electronic health data required
  in healthcare
  . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In line with the data minimisation principle provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Member States may establish rules providing for the categories of personal electronic health data required
  by different health professions
  .
  Such rules shall not be based on the source of electronic health data.

In line with the data minimisation principle provided for in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Member States may establish rules providing for the categories of personal electronic health data required
  in healthcare
  .

Reason

Basing rules on data sources and professional categories exceeds EU competences and overlooks national regulatory frameworks. The patient’s privacy may be compromised, in particular if the principles of sharing are changed for existing sources. In particular, the link to the source may undermine the principle of data minimisation.

Amendment 10

Article 4(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States shall ensure that access to at least the priority categories of electronic health data referred to in Article 5 is made available to health professionals through health professional access services. Health professionals who are in possession of recognised electronic identification means shall have the right to use those health professional access services, free of charge. | Member States
  and, where appropriate, local or regional authorities
  shall ensure that access to at least the priority categories of electronic health data referred to in Article 5 is made available to health professionals
  , including for cross-border care,
  through health professional access services. Health professionals who are in possession of recognised electronic identification means shall have the right to use those health professional access services, free of charge. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Member States shall ensure that access to at least the priority categories of electronic health data referred to in Article 5 is made available to health professionals through health professional access services. Health professionals who are in possession of recognised electronic identification means shall have the right to use those health professional access services, free of charge.

Member States
  and, where appropriate, local or regional authorities
  shall ensure that access to at least the priority categories of electronic health data referred to in Article 5 is made available to health professionals
  , including for cross-border care,
  through health professional access services. Health professionals who are in possession of recognised electronic identification means shall have the right to use those health professional access services, free of charge.

Reason

To take account of regional competences in the field of health in various Member States.

Amendment 11

Article 4(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where access to electronic health data has been restricted by the natural person, the healthcare provider or health professionals shall not be informed of the content of the
  electronic
  health data without prior authorisation by the natural person
  , including where
  the provider or professional
  is informed of the existence and nature of the
  restricted
  electronic
  health data. | Where access to electronic health data has been restricted by the natural person, the healthcare provider or health professionals shall not be informed of the content of the health data without prior authorisation by the natural person
  . However,
  the provider or professional
  must be able to see that such
  restricted health data
  exists
  . |
| In cases where processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person, the healthcare provider or health professional may get access to the restricted electronic health data. | In cases where processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person
  , or a manifest public interest
  , the healthcare provider or health professional may get access to the restricted electronic health data. |
| Following such access, the healthcare provider or health professional shall inform the data holder and the natural person concerned or his/her guardians that access to electronic health data had been granted. Member States’ law may add additional safeguards. | Following such access, the healthcare provider or health professional shall inform the data holder and the natural person concerned or his/her guardians that access to electronic health data had been granted. Member States’ law may add additional safeguards. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where access to electronic health data has been restricted by the natural person, the healthcare provider or health professionals shall not be informed of the content of the
  electronic
  health data without prior authorisation by the natural person
  , including where
  the provider or professional
  is informed of the existence and nature of the
  restricted
  electronic
  health data.

Where access to electronic health data has been restricted by the natural person, the healthcare provider or health professionals shall not be informed of the content of the health data without prior authorisation by the natural person
  . However,
  the provider or professional
  must be able to see that such
  restricted health data
  exists
  .

In cases where processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person, the healthcare provider or health professional may get access to the restricted electronic health data.

In cases where processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person
  , or a manifest public interest
  , the healthcare provider or health professional may get access to the restricted electronic health data.

Following such access, the healthcare provider or health professional shall inform the data holder and the natural person concerned or his/her guardians that access to electronic health data had been granted. Member States’ law may add additional safeguards.

Following such access, the healthcare provider or health professional shall inform the data holder and the natural person concerned or his/her guardians that access to electronic health data had been granted. Member States’ law may add additional safeguards.

Reason

Healthcare professionals and healthcare providers should be able to see that certain information is blocked, even if the content of this information is not available. Providing good care presupposes knowing whether or not all the information is available. ‘Manifest public interest’ has been added to the reasons for providing access to data, in order to protect other interests. This could, for example, relate to infection control.

Amendment 12

Article 5(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 67 to amend the list of priority categories of electronic health data in paragraph 1. [...]






  (c) | international standards exist for the category that have been examined for the possibility of their application in the Union. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 67 to amend the list of priority categories of electronic health data in paragraph 1. [...]

(c)

international standards exist for the category that have been examined for the possibility of their application in the Union.

The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 67 to amend the list of priority categories of electronic health data in paragraph 1. [...]

| (c) | international standards exist for the category that have been examined for the possibility of their application in the Union
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

international standards exist for the category that have been examined for the possibility of their application in the Union
  ;

| (d) | the need to share information in the priority categories shall be determined by the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the need to share information in the priority categories shall be determined by the Member States.

Reason

The priorities of new categories must be guided by real needs in the Member States. In many countries, the regional and local level is responsible for healthcare and must be involved in the prioritisation process.

Amendment 13

Article 7(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States shall ensure that, where data is processed in electronic format, health professionals systematically register the relevant health data falling under
  at least
  the priority categories referred to in Article 5 concerning the health services provided by them to natural persons, in the electronic format in an EHR system. | Member States shall ensure that, where data is processed in electronic format, health professionals systematically register the relevant health data falling under the priority categories referred to in Article 5 concerning the health services provided by them to natural persons, in the electronic format in an EHR system. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Member States shall ensure that, where data is processed in electronic format, health professionals systematically register the relevant health data falling under
  at least
  the priority categories referred to in Article 5 concerning the health services provided by them to natural persons, in the electronic format in an EHR system.

Member States shall ensure that, where data is processed in electronic format, health professionals systematically register the relevant health data falling under the priority categories referred to in Article 5 concerning the health services provided by them to natural persons, in the electronic format in an EHR system.

Reason

The wording ‘at least’ is too vague. The regulation should regulate the categories referred to in Article 5 at any given time. If more categories of electronic health data need to be exchanged for healthcare purposes, the list of priority categories should be expanded.

Amendment 14

Article 9(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where a natural person uses telemedicine services or personal health data access services referred to in Article 3(5), point (a), that natural person shall have the right to identify electronically using any electronic identification means which is recognised pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014. | Where a natural person uses telemedicine services or personal health data access services referred to in Article 3(5), point (a), that natural person shall have the right to identify electronically using any electronic identification means which is recognised pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014
  and which takes account of existing electronic identification models in the Member States
  . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where a natural person uses telemedicine services or personal health data access services referred to in Article 3(5), point (a), that natural person shall have the right to identify electronically using any electronic identification means which is recognised pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014.

Where a natural person uses telemedicine services or personal health data access services referred to in Article 3(5), point (a), that natural person shall have the right to identify electronically using any electronic identification means which is recognised pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014
  and which takes account of existing electronic identification models in the Member States
  .

Reason

The models already in place in the Member States must be taken into account.

Amendment 15

Article 10(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Digital health authority






  1. | Each Member State shall designate a digital health authority responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Chapter at national level. The Member State shall communicate the identity of the digital health authority to the Commission by the date of application of this Regulation. Where a designated digital health authority is an entity consisting of multiple organisations, the Member State shall communicate to the Commission a description of the separation of tasks between the organisations. The Commission shall make this information publicly available. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Digital health authority

1.

Each Member State shall designate a digital health authority responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Chapter at national level. The Member State shall communicate the identity of the digital health authority to the Commission by the date of application of this Regulation. Where a designated digital health authority is an entity consisting of multiple organisations, the Member State shall communicate to the Commission a description of the separation of tasks between the organisations. The Commission shall make this information publicly available.

Digital health authority

| 1. | Each Member State shall designate a digital health authority responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Chapter at national level.
  The Member States may also complement this with regional e-health authorities responsible for implementation and enforcement at regional level
  . The Member State shall communicate the identity of the digital health authority to the Commission by the date of application of this Regulation. Where a designated digital health authority is an entity consisting of multiple organisations, the Member State shall communicate to the Commission a description of the separation of tasks between the organisations. The Commission shall make this information publicly available. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Each Member State shall designate a digital health authority responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Chapter at national level.
  The Member States may also complement this with regional e-health authorities responsible for implementation and enforcement at regional level
  . The Member State shall communicate the identity of the digital health authority to the Commission by the date of application of this Regulation. Where a designated digital health authority is an entity consisting of multiple organisations, the Member State shall communicate to the Commission a description of the separation of tasks between the organisations. The Commission shall make this information publicly available.

Reason

To introduce the possibility of designating regional e-health authorities.

Amendment 16

Article 10(2)(h)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Each digital health authority shall be entrusted with the following tasks: [...]






  (h) | contribute, at Union level, to the development of the European electronic health record exchange format and to the elaboration of common specifications addressing interoperability, security, safety or fundamental right concerns in accordance with Article 23 and of the specifications of the EU database for EHR systems and wellness applications referred to in Article 32; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Each digital health authority shall be entrusted with the following tasks: [...]

(h)

contribute, at Union level, to the development of the European electronic health record exchange format and to the elaboration of common specifications addressing interoperability, security, safety or fundamental right concerns in accordance with Article 23 and of the specifications of the EU database for EHR systems and wellness applications referred to in Article 32;

Each digital health authority shall be entrusted with the following tasks: [...]

| (h) | contribute, at Union level
  , and in cooperation with the local and regional level within the Member States,
  to the development of the European electronic health record exchange format and to the elaboration of common specifications addressing interoperability, security, safety or fundamental right concerns
  and interaction patterns
  in accordance with Article 23 and of the specifications of the EU database for EHR systems and wellness applications referred to in Article 32; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

contribute, at Union level
  , and in cooperation with the local and regional level within the Member States,
  to the development of the European electronic health record exchange format and to the elaboration of common specifications addressing interoperability, security, safety or fundamental right concerns
  and interaction patterns
  in accordance with Article 23 and of the specifications of the EU database for EHR systems and wellness applications referred to in Article 32;

Reason

Where the regional and local level is responsible for healthcare within a Member State, it is not sufficient for a State authority to contribute to developing the format.

Amendment 17

Article 10(2)(k)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Each digital health authority shall be entrusted with the following tasks: [...]






  (k) | offer
  , in compliance with national legislation, telemedicine services and ensure that such services are easy to use, accessible to different groups of natural persons and health professionals, including natural persons with disabilities, do not discriminate and offer the possibility of choosing between in person and digital services; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Each digital health authority shall be entrusted with the following tasks: [...]

(k)

offer
  , in compliance with national legislation, telemedicine services and ensure that such services are easy to use, accessible to different groups of natural persons and health professionals, including natural persons with disabilities, do not discriminate and offer the possibility of choosing between in person and digital services;

Each digital health authority shall be entrusted with the following tasks: [...]

| (k) | where a Member State allows the provision of telemedicine services,
  in compliance with national legislation,
  facilitate the provision of
  telemedicine services and ensure that such services are easy to use, accessible to different groups of natural persons and health professionals, including natural persons with disabilities, do not discriminate and offer the possibility of choosing between in person and digital services; |
| --- | --- |

(k)

where a Member State allows the provision of telemedicine services,
  in compliance with national legislation,
  facilitate the provision of
  telemedicine services and ensure that such services are easy to use, accessible to different groups of natural persons and health professionals, including natural persons with disabilities, do not discriminate and offer the possibility of choosing between in person and digital services;

Reason

Digital health authorities should not provide telemedicine services; Member States which do offer such services should facilitate the provision thereof.

Amendment 18

Article 10(2)(m)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (m) | cooperate with other relevant entities and bodies at national or Union level, to ensure interoperability, data portability and security of electronic health data, as well as with stakeholders representatives, including patients’ representatives, healthcare providers, health professionals, industry associations; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(m)

cooperate with other relevant entities and bodies at national or Union level, to ensure interoperability, data portability and security of electronic health data, as well as with stakeholders representatives, including patients’ representatives, healthcare providers, health professionals, industry associations;

| (m) | cooperate with other relevant entities and bodies at
  local, regional,
  national or Union level, to ensure interoperability, data portability and security of electronic health data, as well as with stakeholders representatives, including patients’ representatives, healthcare providers, health professionals, industry associations; |
| --- | --- |

(m)

cooperate with other relevant entities and bodies at
  local, regional,
  national or Union level, to ensure interoperability, data portability and security of electronic health data, as well as with stakeholders representatives, including patients’ representatives, healthcare providers, health professionals, industry associations;

Reason

To take account of regional competences in the field of health in various Member States.

Amendment 19

Article 23(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt common specifications in respect of the essential requirements set out in Annex II, including a time limit for implementing those common specifications. Where relevant, the common specifications shall take into account the specificities of medical devices and high risk AI systems referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 14. | The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt common specifications in respect of the essential requirements set out in Annex II, including a time limit for implementing those common specifications. Where relevant, the common specifications shall take into account the specificities of medical devices and high risk AI systems referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 14.
  When developing common specifications, the starting point shall be the use of electronic health record systems to support good healthcare. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt common specifications in respect of the essential requirements set out in Annex II, including a time limit for implementing those common specifications. Where relevant, the common specifications shall take into account the specificities of medical devices and high risk AI systems referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 14.

The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt common specifications in respect of the essential requirements set out in Annex II, including a time limit for implementing those common specifications. Where relevant, the common specifications shall take into account the specificities of medical devices and high risk AI systems referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 14.
  When developing common specifications, the starting point shall be the use of electronic health record systems to support good healthcare.

Reason

The main purpose of patient records is to support good healthcare. This must be the starting point when developing common specifications with a view to tapping good practices and the experience of Member States which have already developed a system of electronic health records.

Amendment 20

Article 29(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Manufacturers of EHR systems placed on the market shall report any serious incident involving an EHR system to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where such serious incident occurred and the corrective actions taken or envisaged by the manufacturer. | Manufacturers of EHR systems placed on the market shall report any serious incident involving an EHR system to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where such serious incident occurred and the corrective actions taken or envisaged by the manufacturer. |
| Such notification shall be made, without prejudice to incident notification requirements under Directive (EU) 2016/1148, immediately after the manufacturer has established a causal link between the EHR system and the serious incident or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than
  15
  days after the manufacturer becomes aware of the serious incident involving the EHR system. | Such notification shall be made, without prejudice to incident notification requirements under Directive (EU) 2016/1148, immediately after the manufacturer has established a causal link between the EHR system and the serious incident or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than
  7
  days after the manufacturer becomes aware of the serious incident involving the EHR system. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Manufacturers of EHR systems placed on the market shall report any serious incident involving an EHR system to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where such serious incident occurred and the corrective actions taken or envisaged by the manufacturer.

Manufacturers of EHR systems placed on the market shall report any serious incident involving an EHR system to the market surveillance authorities of the Member States where such serious incident occurred and the corrective actions taken or envisaged by the manufacturer.

Such notification shall be made, without prejudice to incident notification requirements under Directive (EU) 2016/1148, immediately after the manufacturer has established a causal link between the EHR system and the serious incident or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than
  15
  days after the manufacturer becomes aware of the serious incident involving the EHR system.

Such notification shall be made, without prejudice to incident notification requirements under Directive (EU) 2016/1148, immediately after the manufacturer has established a causal link between the EHR system and the serious incident or the reasonable likelihood of such a link, and, in any event, not later than
  7
  days after the manufacturer becomes aware of the serious incident involving the EHR system.

Reason

The time limit should not exceed one week. The deadline of 15 days for notification of a serious incident considerably increases the risk of it causing serious harm.

Amendment 21

Article 33(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Data holders
  shall
  make the following
  categories of electronic data available for secondary use in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter
  : (a) [...] (o) | The Member States
  shall
  , in consultation with the Commission, determine which
  categories of electronic data
  data holders shall make
  available for secondary use in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter
  . This can be regulated by means of implementing acts adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 68(2). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Data holders
  shall
  make the following
  categories of electronic data available for secondary use in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter
  : (a) [...] (o)

The Member States
  shall
  , in consultation with the Commission, determine which
  categories of electronic data
  data holders shall make
  available for secondary use in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter
  . This can be regulated by means of implementing acts adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 68(2).

Reason

The Regulation should not specify all categories. More work and analysis is needed to determine the types of data to be shared. It would therefore be more appropriate to do this with implementing acts. The list significantly interferes with existing national legislation.

Amendment 22

Article 33(5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where the consent of the natural person is required by national law, health data access bodies shall rely on the obligations laid down in this Chapter to provide access to electronic health data. | Where the consent of the natural person is required by national law
  , including through his or her representative
  , health data access bodies shall rely on the obligations laid down in this Chapter to provide access to electronic health data. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where the consent of the natural person is required by national law, health data access bodies shall rely on the obligations laid down in this Chapter to provide access to electronic health data.

Where the consent of the natural person is required by national law
  , including through his or her representative
  , health data access bodies shall rely on the obligations laid down in this Chapter to provide access to electronic health data.

Reason

Express provision should be made for the case where the natural person wishes or needs to act through a representative.

Amendment 23

Article 35(e)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (e) | developing products or services that may harm individuals and societies at large, including, but not limited to illicit drugs, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products
  , or goods or services which are designed or modified in such a way that they contravene public order or morality. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(e)

developing products or services that may harm individuals and societies at large, including, but not limited to illicit drugs, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products
  , or goods or services which are designed or modified in such a way that they contravene public order or morality.

| (e) | developing products or services that may harm individuals and societies at large, including, but not limited to illicit drugs, alcoholic beverages
  or
  tobacco products. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

developing products or services that may harm individuals and societies at large, including, but not limited to illicit drugs, alcoholic beverages
  or
  tobacco products.

| (f) | developing products or services that may create discriminations (in terms, of race, gender, age or sexual orientation). |
| --- | --- |

(f)

developing products or services that may create discriminations (in terms, of race, gender, age or sexual orientation).

Reason

What constitutes public order and morality is a question of values. It is therefore inappropriate for the EU to introduce rules concerning morality in the EHDS. Where specific goods and services are concerned, they should instead be explicitly specified, possibly by means of an implementing act. The reasons for subparagraph (f) are self-explanatory.

Amendment 24

Article 36(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | In the performance of their tasks, health data access bodies shall actively cooperate with stakeholders’ representatives, especially with representatives of patients, data holders and data users. Staff of health data access bodies shall avoid any conflicts of interest. Health data access bodies shall not be bound by any instructions, when making their decisions. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3.

In the performance of their tasks, health data access bodies shall actively cooperate with stakeholders’ representatives, especially with representatives of patients, data holders and data users. Staff of health data access bodies shall avoid any conflicts of interest. Health data access bodies shall not be bound by any instructions, when making their decisions.

| 3. | In the performance of their tasks, health data access bodies shall actively cooperate with stakeholders’ representatives, especially with representatives of patients, data holders and data users. Staff of health data access bodies shall avoid any conflicts of interest.
  A conflict of interest shall be understood to mean the existence of a direct or indirect formal link with one or more entities that are data holders or beneficiaries.
  Health data access bodies shall not be bound by any instructions
  from another external entity
  , when making their decisions. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the performance of their tasks, health data access bodies shall actively cooperate with stakeholders’ representatives, especially with representatives of patients, data holders and data users. Staff of health data access bodies shall avoid any conflicts of interest.
  A conflict of interest shall be understood to mean the existence of a direct or indirect formal link with one or more entities that are data holders or beneficiaries.
  Health data access bodies shall not be bound by any instructions
  from another external entity
  , when making their decisions.

Reason

The term ‘conflict of interest’ requires a clearer definition. The wording ‘shall not be bound by any instructions’ needs to be clarified. Internal rules/regulations should not be included in this category.

Amendment 25

Article 38(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where a health data access body is informed by a data user of a finding that may impact on the health of a natural person, the health data access body
  may
  inform the natural person and his or her treating health professional
  about
  that finding. | Where a health data access body is informed by a data user of a finding that may impact on the health of a natural person, the health data access body
  shall
  inform the natural person and his or her treating health professional that
  a
  finding
  has been made, and give the natural person an opportunity to receive or object to receiving information about what the finding means, including through his or her representative; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where a health data access body is informed by a data user of a finding that may impact on the health of a natural person, the health data access body
  may
  inform the natural person and his or her treating health professional
  about
  that finding.

Where a health data access body is informed by a data user of a finding that may impact on the health of a natural person, the health data access body
  shall
  inform the natural person and his or her treating health professional that
  a
  finding
  has been made, and give the natural person an opportunity to receive or object to receiving information about what the finding means, including through his or her representative;

Reason

It should be mandatory to provide information on the existence of a finding. At the same time, the person should be given the opportunity to consider whether or not to receive more information on the finding.

Amendment 26

Article 43(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Health data access bodies shall have the power to revoke the data permit issued pursuant to Article 46 and stop the affected electronic health data processing operation carried out by the data user in order to ensure the cessation of the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 3, immediately or within a reasonable time limit, and shall take appropriate and proportionate measures aimed at ensuring compliant processing by the data users. In this regard, the health data access bodies shall be able, where appropriate, to revoke the data permit and to exclude the data user from any access to electronic health data for a period of up to 5 years. | Health data access bodies shall have the power to revoke the data permit issued pursuant to Article 46 and stop the affected electronic health data processing operation carried out by the data user in order to ensure the cessation of the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 3, immediately or within a reasonable time limit, and shall take appropriate and proportionate measures aimed at ensuring compliant processing by the data users. In this regard, the health data access bodies shall be able, where appropriate,
  to fine (up to 10 % of the data user’s annual turnover for the previous financial year) or
  to revoke the data permit and to exclude the data user from any access to electronic health data for a period of up to 5 years. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Health data access bodies shall have the power to revoke the data permit issued pursuant to Article 46 and stop the affected electronic health data processing operation carried out by the data user in order to ensure the cessation of the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 3, immediately or within a reasonable time limit, and shall take appropriate and proportionate measures aimed at ensuring compliant processing by the data users. In this regard, the health data access bodies shall be able, where appropriate, to revoke the data permit and to exclude the data user from any access to electronic health data for a period of up to 5 years.

Health data access bodies shall have the power to revoke the data permit issued pursuant to Article 46 and stop the affected electronic health data processing operation carried out by the data user in order to ensure the cessation of the non-compliance referred to in paragraph 3, immediately or within a reasonable time limit, and shall take appropriate and proportionate measures aimed at ensuring compliant processing by the data users. In this regard, the health data access bodies shall be able, where appropriate,
  to fine (up to 10 % of the data user’s annual turnover for the previous financial year) or
  to revoke the data permit and to exclude the data user from any access to electronic health data for a period of up to 5 years.

Reason

The sanctions must be reinforced in case of misuse of the Regulation.

Amendment 27

Article 44

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | The health data access body shall ensure that access is only provided to requested electronic health data relevant for the purpose of processing indicated in the data access application by the data user and in line with the data permit granted. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.

The health data access body shall ensure that access is only provided to requested electronic health data relevant for the purpose of processing indicated in the data access application by the data user and in line with the data permit granted.

| 1. | The health data access body shall ensure that access is only provided to requested electronic health data relevant for the purpose of processing indicated in the data access application by the data user and in line with the data permit granted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The health data access body shall ensure that access is only provided to requested electronic health data relevant for the purpose of processing indicated in the data access application by the data user and in line with the data permit granted.

| 2. | The health data access bodies shall provide the electronic health data in an anonymised format, where the purpose of processing by the data user can be achieved with such data, taking into account the information provided by the data user. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The health data access bodies shall provide the electronic health data in an anonymised format, where the purpose of processing by the data user can be achieved with such data, taking into account the information provided by the data user.

| 2. | The health data access bodies shall provide the electronic health data in an anonymised format, where the purpose of processing by the data user can be achieved with such data, taking into account the information provided by the data user. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The health data access bodies shall provide the electronic health data in an anonymised format, where the purpose of processing by the data user can be achieved with such data, taking into account the information provided by the data user.

| 3. | Where the purpose of the data user’s processing cannot be achieved with anonymised data, taking into account the information provided by the data user, the health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data in pseudonymised format. The information necessary to reverse the pseudonymisation shall be available only to the health data access body. Data users shall not re-identify the electronic health data provided to them in pseudonymised format. The data user’s failure to respect the health data access body’s measures ensuring pseudonymisation shall be subject to appropriate penalties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Where the purpose of the data user’s processing cannot be achieved with anonymised data, taking into account the information provided by the data user, the health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data in pseudonymised format. The information necessary to reverse the pseudonymisation shall be available only to the health data access body. Data users shall not re-identify the electronic health data provided to them in pseudonymised format. The data user’s failure to respect the health data access body’s measures ensuring pseudonymisation shall be subject to appropriate penalties.

| 3. | Where the purpose of the data user’s processing cannot be achieved with anonymised data, taking into account the information provided by the data user, the health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data in pseudonymised format. The information necessary to reverse the pseudonymisation shall be available only to the health data access body. Data users shall not re-identify the electronic health data provided to them in pseudonymised format. The data user’s failure to respect the health data access body’s measures ensuring pseudonymisation shall be subject to appropriate penalties. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Where the purpose of the data user’s processing cannot be achieved with anonymised data, taking into account the information provided by the data user, the health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data in pseudonymised format. The information necessary to reverse the pseudonymisation shall be available only to the health data access body. Data users shall not re-identify the electronic health data provided to them in pseudonymised format. The data user’s failure to respect the health data access body’s measures ensuring pseudonymisation shall be subject to appropriate penalties.

| 4. | Health data access bodies may, where necessary, provide personal electronic health data, subject to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and national law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reason

In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to provide access to personal electronic health data for secondary use, for example in the context of research in the public interest. Of course, this must be done in compliance with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) and national law.

Amendment 28

Article 46(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | A health data access body shall issue or refuse a data permit within
  2
  months of receiving the data access application. By way of derogation from that Regulation [...] [Data Governance Act COM/2020/767 final], the health data access body may extend the period for responding to a data access application by 2 additional months where necessary, taking into account the complexity of the request. In such cases, the health data access body shall notify the applicant as soon as possible that more time is needed for examining the application, together with the reasons for the delay. Where a health data access body fails to provide a decision within the time limit, the data permit shall be issued. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

3.

A health data access body shall issue or refuse a data permit within
  2
  months of receiving the data access application. By way of derogation from that Regulation [...] [Data Governance Act COM/2020/767 final], the health data access body may extend the period for responding to a data access application by 2 additional months where necessary, taking into account the complexity of the request. In such cases, the health data access body shall notify the applicant as soon as possible that more time is needed for examining the application, together with the reasons for the delay. Where a health data access body fails to provide a decision within the time limit, the data permit shall be issued.

| 3. | A health data access body shall issue or refuse a data permit within
  3
  months of receiving the data access application. By way of derogation from that Regulation [...] [Data Governance Act COM/2020/767 final], the health data access body may extend the period for responding to a data access application by 2 additional months where necessary, taking into account the complexity of the request. In such cases, the health data access body shall notify the applicant as soon as possible that more time is needed for examining the application, together with the reasons for the delay. Where a health data access body fails to provide a decision within the time limit, the data permit shall be issued. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A health data access body shall issue or refuse a data permit within
  3
  months of receiving the data access application. By way of derogation from that Regulation [...] [Data Governance Act COM/2020/767 final], the health data access body may extend the period for responding to a data access application by 2 additional months where necessary, taking into account the complexity of the request. In such cases, the health data access body shall notify the applicant as soon as possible that more time is needed for examining the application, together with the reasons for the delay. Where a health data access body fails to provide a decision within the time limit, the data permit shall be issued.

Reason

The health data access body might need some time to assess the applications.

Amendment 29

Article 46(9)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| A data permit shall be issued for the duration necessary to fulfil the requested purposes which shall not exceed
  5
  years. This duration may be extended once, at the request of the data user, based on arguments and documents to justify this extension provided, 1 month before the expiry of the data permit
  , for a period which cannot exceed 5 years
  . By way of derogation from Article 42, the health data access body may charge increasing fees to reflect the costs and risks of storing electronic health data for a longer period of time exceeding the initial
  5
  years. In order to reduce such costs and fees, the health data access body may also propose to the data user to store the dataset in storage system with reduced capabilities. The data within the secure processing environment shall be deleted within 6 months following the expiry of the data permit. Upon request of the data user, the formula on the creation of the requested dataset shall be stored by the health data access body. | A data permit shall be issued for the duration necessary to fulfil the requested purposes which shall not exceed
  10
  years. This duration may be extended once
  for a maximum of 2 years
  , at the request of the data user, based on arguments and documents to justify this extension provided, 1 month before the expiry of the data permit. By way of derogation from Article 42, the health data access body may charge increasing fees to reflect the costs and risks of storing electronic health data for a longer period of time exceeding the initial
  10
  years. In order to reduce such costs and fees, the health data access body may also propose to the data user to store the dataset in storage system with reduced capabilities. The data within the secure processing environment shall be deleted within 6 months following the expiry of the data permit. Upon request of the data user, the formula on the creation of the requested dataset shall be stored by the health data access body. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

A data permit shall be issued for the duration necessary to fulfil the requested purposes which shall not exceed
  5
  years. This duration may be extended once, at the request of the data user, based on arguments and documents to justify this extension provided, 1 month before the expiry of the data permit
  , for a period which cannot exceed 5 years
  . By way of derogation from Article 42, the health data access body may charge increasing fees to reflect the costs and risks of storing electronic health data for a longer period of time exceeding the initial
  5
  years. In order to reduce such costs and fees, the health data access body may also propose to the data user to store the dataset in storage system with reduced capabilities. The data within the secure processing environment shall be deleted within 6 months following the expiry of the data permit. Upon request of the data user, the formula on the creation of the requested dataset shall be stored by the health data access body.

A data permit shall be issued for the duration necessary to fulfil the requested purposes which shall not exceed
  10
  years. This duration may be extended once
  for a maximum of 2 years
  , at the request of the data user, based on arguments and documents to justify this extension provided, 1 month before the expiry of the data permit. By way of derogation from Article 42, the health data access body may charge increasing fees to reflect the costs and risks of storing electronic health data for a longer period of time exceeding the initial
  10
  years. In order to reduce such costs and fees, the health data access body may also propose to the data user to store the dataset in storage system with reduced capabilities. The data within the secure processing environment shall be deleted within 6 months following the expiry of the data permit. Upon request of the data user, the formula on the creation of the requested dataset shall be stored by the health data access body.

Reason

Many research projects will require data to be retained for more than five years. The amendment provides more scope for assessing the ‘necessary duration’, so that the retention period can be up to 10 years. On the other hand, the extension period should be shorter than the proposed five years.

Amendment 30

Article 47(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where an applicant has requested a result in an anonymised form, including statistical format, based on a data request, the health data access body shall assess, within 2 months and, where possible, provide the result to the data user within 2 months. | Where an applicant has requested a result in an anonymised form, including statistical format, based on a data request, the health data access body shall assess, within 2 months and, where possible, provide the result to the data user within 2 months.
  Where it is not possible to provide the data, the health data access body shall provide the applicant with a reasoned explanation for the refusal. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where an applicant has requested a result in an anonymised form, including statistical format, based on a data request, the health data access body shall assess, within 2 months and, where possible, provide the result to the data user within 2 months.

Where an applicant has requested a result in an anonymised form, including statistical format, based on a data request, the health data access body shall assess, within 2 months and, where possible, provide the result to the data user within 2 months.
  Where it is not possible to provide the data, the health data access body shall provide the applicant with a reasoned explanation for the refusal.

Reason

The article states that the data is to be provided ‘where possible’. Where it is not possible to provide the data, the applicant should receive a reasoned explanation of why this is not possible.

Amendment 31

Article 49(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Where an applicant requests access to electronic health data only from a single data holder in a single Member State, by way of derogation from Article 45(1), that applicant may file a data access application or a data request directly to the data holder. The data access application shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 45 and the data request shall comply with requirements in Article 47. Multi-country requests and requests requiring a combination of datasets from several data holders shall be addressed to health data access bodies. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.

Where an applicant requests access to electronic health data only from a single data holder in a single Member State, by way of derogation from Article 45(1), that applicant may file a data access application or a data request directly to the data holder. The data access application shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 45 and the data request shall comply with requirements in Article 47. Multi-country requests and requests requiring a combination of datasets from several data holders shall be addressed to health data access bodies.

| 1. | Where an applicant requests access to electronic health data only from a single data holder in a single Member State, by way of derogation from Article 45(1), that applicant may file a data access application or a data request directly to the data holder. The
  single data holder shall refuse the data authorisation in the circumstance of which individual cases may be attributed to a specific person despite pseudonymisation. The
  data access application shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 45 and the data request shall comply with requirements in Article 47. Multi-country requests and requests requiring a combination of datasets from several data holders shall be addressed to health data access bodies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where an applicant requests access to electronic health data only from a single data holder in a single Member State, by way of derogation from Article 45(1), that applicant may file a data access application or a data request directly to the data holder. The
  single data holder shall refuse the data authorisation in the circumstance of which individual cases may be attributed to a specific person despite pseudonymisation. The
  data access application shall comply with the requirements set out in Article 45 and the data request shall comply with requirements in Article 47. Multi-country requests and requests requiring a combination of datasets from several data holders shall be addressed to health data access bodies.

Reason

Anonymity is key concerning health data.

Amendment 32

Article 50(1)(f)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data only through a secure processing environment, with technical and organisational measures and security and interoperability requirements. In particular, they shall take the following security measures: | The health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data only through a secure processing environment, with technical and organisational measures and security and interoperability requirements. In particular, they shall take the following security measures: |
| [...] | [...] |
| (f) | ensure compliance and monitor the security measures referred to in this Article to
  mitigate
  potential security threats. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data only through a secure processing environment, with technical and organisational measures and security and interoperability requirements. In particular, they shall take the following security measures:

The health data access bodies shall provide access to electronic health data only through a secure processing environment, with technical and organisational measures and security and interoperability requirements. In particular, they shall take the following security measures:

[...]

[...]

(f)

ensure compliance and monitor the security measures referred to in this Article to
  mitigate
  potential security threats.

| (f) | ensure compliance and monitor the security measures referred to in this Article to
  minimise
  potential security threats. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

ensure compliance and monitor the security measures referred to in this Article to
  minimise
  potential security threats.

Reason

The aim of security measures should be to minimise potential security threats and not merely mitigate them.

Amendment 33

Article 65(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Tasks of the EHDS Board | Tasks of the EHDS Board |
| 1. | The EHDS Board shall have the following tasks relating to the primary use of electronic health data in accordance with Chapters II and III:
  [...] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Tasks of the EHDS Board

Tasks of the EHDS Board

1.

The EHDS Board shall have the following tasks relating to the primary use of electronic health data in accordance with Chapters II and III:

[...]

| 1. | The EHDS Board shall have the following tasks relating to the primary use of electronic health data in accordance with Chapters II and III:
  [...] |
| --- | --- |

1.

The EHDS Board shall have the following tasks relating to the primary use of electronic health data in accordance with Chapters II and III:

[...]

| | (b) | to issue written contributions and to exchange best practices on matters related to the coordination of the implementation at Member State level of this Regulation and of the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to it, in particular as regards: |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

to issue written contributions and to exchange best practices on matters related to the coordination of the implementation at Member State level of this Regulation and of the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to it, in particular as regards:

| | [...] |
| --- | --- |

[...]

| | (b) | to issue written contributions and to exchange best practices on matters related to the coordination of the implementation at Member State level of this Regulation and of the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to it,
  taking into account the regional and local level,
  in particular as regards: |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

to issue written contributions and to exchange best practices on matters related to the coordination of the implementation at Member State level of this Regulation and of the delegated and implementing acts adopted pursuant to it,
  taking into account the regional and local level,
  in particular as regards:

| | [...] |
| --- | --- |

[...]

Reason

To highlight the importance of including the local and regional level.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

Regarding data security and protection

| 1. | welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a European Health Data Space (EHDS) and stresses the need for healthcare services to be able to benefit from such infrastructure, while ensuring the security of patients’ privacy and data rights (2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | underlines that citizens’ health-related expectations towards the EU were reflected in the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, in particular as regards strengthening the resilience and quality of the health systems by ‘creating a European Health Data Space, which would facilitate the exchange of health data; individual health records could be made available — on a voluntary basis — with the help of an individual European electronic health pass that complies with data protection rules’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | welcomes the ambition in the proposal to create new and expanded opportunities for primary and secondary use of health data for the benefit of patients, healthcare, research and society as a whole. Improving access to health data is a prerequisite for developing modern healthcare; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | believes that giving patients access to their own health data and enabling them to share it with healthcare services facilitates joined-up care, improves patient safety and gives patients more opportunities to be active co-creators of their own care. Controlled and privacy-proof use of health data for research, policy-making and product development is also an important prerequisite for new medical progress, greater patient safety and better monitoring of health care outcomes; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | points out that the overarching purpose of health data, and of sharing it, is to provide patients with the best possible healthcare and to ensure the quality of the healthcare provided. An assessment of the state of the health system would also be recommended, with a special focus on villages and towns, and to develop and organize health systems based on the results of this assessment, with the scope to minimize differences in the quality of care; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | considers that the free movement of goods and services should not be prioritised over patients’ access to good healthcare in their home country, and that this needs to be taken into account in ongoing work on the regulation; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | highlights the fact that medical records are one of the most important tools for healthcare providers and professionals in organising and providing good healthcare that is safe for patients; it must therefore be possible to develop medical documentation with due regard for both the common standards established by the EHDS and the additional national and regional standards established by each Member State in line with specific local needs; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | draws attention to the need to clarify whether or not social services are covered by the new Regulation, as some Member States record both social and health data together, while others make a distinction; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | believes that the Regulation will require major development work at European, national, regional and local level, which will take up substantial financial, time and human resources. The cost estimates included in the proposal do not identify local and regional costs clearly enough. While these costs can undoubtedly be partly funded under various EU programmes, it is unclear to what extent Member States’ transition costs will be covered and how the costs incurred by the various stakeholders will be handled; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | stresses that, as the digitalisation of health data increases cybersecurity risks, all parties involved must comply with the highest standards of data protection and security. Europeans must be assured that their personal health data will be processed with the utmost care, based on a robust framework and robust data protection and security systems with appropriate safeguards; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | stresses that, in seeking to empower individuals to have increased access to and control over their electronic health data, the Regulation needs to ensure that vulnerable groups, and in particular older people with limited digital skills or limited access to digital resources, are not neglected (3); |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | considers of utmost importance the right to self-determination of natural persons and underlines the importance of including guarantees regarding compliance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR); |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | highlights that the creation of the EHDS is made more difficult by a lack of experts and technical know-how and by a limited number of providers with the necessary expertise to build and maintain health data systems and infrastructure that meet high security and data protection requirements; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | calls on the Commission to discuss and present suggestions on how the Union can support the development of additional physical infrastructure for data storage in the Member States, including at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

14.

Regarding interoperability

| 15. | is concerned that, in the absence of clear guidelines, the implementation of the EHDS could lead to a fragmented approach, similar to the GDPR experience, resulting from uneven implementation and different interpretations at national and even regional level across the EU; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | considers that common specific rules, operating models and solutions are therefore needed if the Regulation is to be implemented uniformly across all Member States and to ensure that the cross-border use of health data respects Europeans’ right to privacy; in this regard, is pleased that the current proposal makes it mandatory to use the electronic health record exchange format; |
| --- | --- |

16.

Regarding data quality

| 17. | points out that the data used for research or policy-making, as well as for the provision of healthcare, must be reliable, in uniform format, consistent, fit for purpose, representative and measurable; welcomes the requirements set out in the proposal — specifying the types and main characteristics of the health data — but considers that the quality requirements warrant greater attention; |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | notes, however, that several Member States are already working at national and decentralised level to find digital solutions for the exchange of data across sectors, and for many of the other elements contained in the Regulation. Therefore, the experience acquired through this type of initiative should be harnessed and tapped in future through the EHDS; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | further points out that the development of the framework for exchanging data between Member States must be based on international standards such as FHIR profiling and SNOMED CT standards. This will make European work relevant to any non-EU countries that are already looking towards and collaborating with a number of Member States on the fluid exchange of data across systems, etc.; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | considers that giving individuals the right and option to modify and enter data in their personal electronic health records might lead to problems with the quality of those records, and suggests that more detailed consideration be given to how these issues could be addressed; |
| --- | --- |

20.

Regarding governance

| 21. | stresses that the success of the EHDS requires a multi-level governance approach and solutions not only at EU and national level, but also at regional and local level; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | believes that one of the challenges involved in rolling out the EHDS will be providing sufficient resources and infrastructure, including physical infrastructure at national, regional and local level, to cover the storage of, access to and exchange of health data for healthcare provision, research, policy-making and regulatory activities; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | stresses the need to further clarify the role and powers of the EHDS Board. While the board is to be composed of representatives of the digital health authorities and health data access bodies from all of the Member States, the role of the observers, experts, stakeholders and other third parties, and the arrangements for their participation in the work of the board, are unclear; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | notes that the proposal requires the standardisation of data across Member States in order for data to be exchanged. This could have significant administrative and financial implications for local and regional authorities, as any new data standards would need to be integrated into authorities’ existing IT systems and staff would need to be given training to work with these new standards; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | calls for the CoR, as the representative of local and regional authorities, to be represented on the EHDS Board; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | highlights that, as the current proposal provides leeway for implementing many of its practical aspects through implementing acts, it is currently difficult to get an overview of what the Regulation will mean in practice for patients, healthcare systems, research, innovators and other users of health data; |
| --- | --- |

26.

Regarding subsidiarity

| 27. | in its current form, the proposal for a regulation does not appear to pose any problems as regards its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in terms of the proposed objectives of portability and interoperability of data, as these cannot be properly regulated by Member States/regions and/or local authorities acting alone. Furthermore, the EHDS has a number of benefits which contribute to closing the gap between EU regions and to providing reliable information used to devise health policies geared to local needs. Another aspect which must not be overlooked is the scientific benefits regarding the positive or negative (adverse) effects of the various medical technologies used, the findings of which can be rapidly put to use in the most far flung or disadvantaged regions. However, care must be taken to ensure that the proposed Regulation does not exceed the EU’s competences and that it does uphold the rights of Member States and/or regional or local authorities with regard to the organisation of healthcare, given that a number of countries have chosen to devolve various responsibilities for healthcare to regional or local authorities, allowing decisions to be taken as closely as possible to citizens. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Brussels, 8 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).

1

(2)  CoR opinion on A pharmaceutical strategy for Europe and legislative proposal for changing the mandate of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) (OJ C 300, 27.7.2021, p. 87).

2

(3)  Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (OJ L 327, 2.12.2016, p. 1).

3

---

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/82

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Single Market Emergency Instrument

(2023/C 157/11)

| Rapporteur: | Muhterem ARAS (DE/Greens), President of the State Parliament of Baden-Württemberg |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents: | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Single Market emergency instrument and repealing Council Regulation No (EC) 2679/98
  COM(2022) 459 final
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2016/424, (EU) 2016/425, (EU) 2016/426, (EU) 2019/1009 and (EU) No 305/2011 as regards emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to a Single Market emergency
  COM(2022) 461 final
  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2000/14/EC, 2006/42/EC, 2010/35/EU, 2013/29/EU, 2014/28/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/31/EU, 2014/32/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU and 2014/68/EU as regard emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to a Single Market emergency
  COM(2022) 462 final |

Rapporteur:

Muhterem ARAS (DE/Greens), President of the State Parliament of Baden-Württemberg

Reference documents:

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Single Market emergency instrument and repealing Council Regulation No (EC) 2679/98

COM(2022) 459 final

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2016/424, (EU) 2016/425, (EU) 2016/426, (EU) 2019/1009 and (EU) No 305/2011 as regards emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to a Single Market emergency

COM(2022) 461 final

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2000/14/EC, 2006/42/EC, 2010/35/EU, 2013/29/EU, 2014/28/EU, 2014/29/EU, 2014/30/EU, 2014/31/EU, 2014/32/EU, 2014/33/EU, 2014/34/EU, 2014/35/EU, 2014/53/EU and 2014/68/EU as regard emergency procedures for the conformity assessment, adoption of common specifications and market surveillance due to a Single Market emergency

COM(2022) 462 final

I.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Single Market emergency instrument and repealing Council Regulation No (EC) 2679/98

COM(2022) 459 final

Amendment 1

Amendment to Recital 33

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Furthermore, to ensure availability of crisis-relevant goods during the Single Market emergency, the Commission may recommend that Member States distribute strategic reserves, having with due regard to the principles of solidarity, necessity and proportionality. | Furthermore, to ensure availability of crisis-relevant goods during the Single Market emergency, the Commission may recommend that Member States distribute strategic reserves, having with due regard to the principles of solidarity, necessity and proportionality.
  This must take into account the different local and regional needs such as those of the outermost regions, densely populated cities, rural areas and border regions. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Furthermore, to ensure availability of crisis-relevant goods during the Single Market emergency, the Commission may recommend that Member States distribute strategic reserves, having with due regard to the principles of solidarity, necessity and proportionality.

Furthermore, to ensure availability of crisis-relevant goods during the Single Market emergency, the Commission may recommend that Member States distribute strategic reserves, having with due regard to the principles of solidarity, necessity and proportionality.
  This must take into account the different local and regional needs such as those of the outermost regions, densely populated cities, rural areas and border regions.

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 2

Amendment to Article 1(3)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States shall regularly exchange information on all matters falling within the scope of this Regulation among themselves and with the Commission. | Member States shall regularly exchange information on all matters falling within the scope of this Regulation among themselves and with the Commission
  , the European Parliament, the European Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Member States shall regularly exchange information on all matters falling within the scope of this Regulation among themselves and with the Commission.

Member States shall regularly exchange information on all matters falling within the scope of this Regulation among themselves and with the Commission
  , the European Parliament, the European Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee
  .

Reason

Local and regional authorities are asked to implement many of the measures activated under the SMEI. Therefore, they should at least be kept informed via the CoR.

Amendment 3

Amendment to Article 2(8)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| This Regulation is without prejudice to the responsibility of the Member States to safeguard national security or their power to safeguard essential state functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State and maintaining law and order. | This Regulation is without prejudice to the
  general
  responsibility of the Member States to safeguard national security or their power to safeguard essential state functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State and maintaining law and order. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

This Regulation is without prejudice to the responsibility of the Member States to safeguard national security or their power to safeguard essential state functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State and maintaining law and order.

This Regulation is without prejudice to the
  general
  responsibility of the Member States to safeguard national security or their power to safeguard essential state functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State and maintaining law and order.

Reason

The word ‘general’ should be added for clarification in order to preserve the free movement rules in Article 16 et seq.

Amendment 4

Amendment and addition to Article 4(3)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall chair the advisory group and ensure its secretariat. The Commission may invite
  a representative of the European Parliament,
  representatives of EFTA States that are contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area 49, representatives of economic operators, stakeholder organisations, social partners and experts, to attend meetings of the advisory group as observers. It shall invite the representatives of other crisis-relevant bodies at Union level as observers to the relevant meetings of the advisory group. | The Commission shall chair the advisory group and ensure its secretariat.
  Permanent members of the advisory group also include representatives of the European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions.
  The Commission may invite representatives of EFTA States that are contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area 49, representatives of economic operators, stakeholder organisations, social partners and experts, to attend meetings of the advisory group as observers. It shall invite the representatives of other crisis-relevant bodies at Union level as observers to the relevant meetings of the advisory group. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall chair the advisory group and ensure its secretariat. The Commission may invite
  a representative of the European Parliament,
  representatives of EFTA States that are contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area 49, representatives of economic operators, stakeholder organisations, social partners and experts, to attend meetings of the advisory group as observers. It shall invite the representatives of other crisis-relevant bodies at Union level as observers to the relevant meetings of the advisory group.

The Commission shall chair the advisory group and ensure its secretariat.
  Permanent members of the advisory group also include representatives of the European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions.
  The Commission may invite representatives of EFTA States that are contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area 49, representatives of economic operators, stakeholder organisations, social partners and experts, to attend meetings of the advisory group as observers. It shall invite the representatives of other crisis-relevant bodies at Union level as observers to the relevant meetings of the advisory group.

Reason

The European Parliament and the European Committee of the Regions must be represented with permanent seats on the advisory group in order to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and to involve local and regional authorities (LRAs) implementing EU legislation on the ground. LRAs are also directly exposed to the problems and impacts of crises and are able to report first-hand. LRAs’ interests can be represented on the advisory group via the European Committee of the Regions.

Amendment 5

Amendment to Article 5(1)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States shall designate central liaison offices responsible for contacts, coordination and information exchange with the central liaison offices of other Member States and Union level central liaison office under this Regulation. Such liaison offices shall coordinate and compile the inputs from relevant national competent authorities. | Member States shall designate
  , together with local and regional authorities,
  central liaison offices responsible for contacts, coordination and information exchange with the central liaison offices of other Member States and Union level central liaison office under this Regulation. Such liaison offices shall coordinate and compile the inputs from relevant national
  , regional and local
  competent authorities. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Member States shall designate central liaison offices responsible for contacts, coordination and information exchange with the central liaison offices of other Member States and Union level central liaison office under this Regulation. Such liaison offices shall coordinate and compile the inputs from relevant national competent authorities.

Member States shall designate
  , together with local and regional authorities,
  central liaison offices responsible for contacts, coordination and information exchange with the central liaison offices of other Member States and Union level central liaison office under this Regulation. Such liaison offices shall coordinate and compile the inputs from relevant national
  , regional and local
  competent authorities.

Reason

It is important to involve local and regional authorities, as national liaison offices alone cannot ensure the exchange of information. It would make sense, depending on the political and constitutional structure of the Member States, to involve regional and local offices upstream.

Amendment 6

Amendment to Article 6(1)(a)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | cooperation between
  national and Union level
  competent authorities for the management of the Single Market vigilance and emergency modes in vigilance and emergency modes across the sectors of the Single Market; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

cooperation between
  national and Union level
  competent authorities for the management of the Single Market vigilance and emergency modes in vigilance and emergency modes across the sectors of the Single Market;

| (a) | cooperation between competent authorities
  at local, regional, national and Union level
  for the management of the Single Market vigilance and emergency modes in vigilance and emergency modes across the sectors of the Single Market; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

cooperation between competent authorities
  at local, regional, national and Union level
  for the management of the Single Market vigilance and emergency modes in vigilance and emergency modes across the sectors of the Single Market;

Reason

It is important to involve the local and regional level.

Amendment 7

Amendment to Article 6(2)(a)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| an inventory of relevant national competent authorities, the central liaison offices designated in accordance with Article 5 and single points of contact referred to in Article 21, their contact details, assigned roles and responsibilities during the vigilance and emergency modes of this Regulation under national law; | an inventory of relevant national
  as well as local and regional
  competent authorities, the central liaison offices designated in accordance with Article 5 and single points of contact referred to in Article 21, their contact details, assigned roles and responsibilities during the vigilance and emergency modes of this Regulation under national law; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

an inventory of relevant national competent authorities, the central liaison offices designated in accordance with Article 5 and single points of contact referred to in Article 21, their contact details, assigned roles and responsibilities during the vigilance and emergency modes of this Regulation under national law;

an inventory of relevant national
  as well as local and regional
  competent authorities, the central liaison offices designated in accordance with Article 5 and single points of contact referred to in Article 21, their contact details, assigned roles and responsibilities during the vigilance and emergency modes of this Regulation under national law;

Reason

It is important to involve the local and regional level, depending on the structure of the Member States.

Amendment 8

Addition and amendment to Article 8(3)(c)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| the geographical area; the proportion of the Single Market affected by the disruption or potential disruption; the impact on specific geographical areas particularly vulnerable or exposed to supply chain disruptions including the
  EU
  outermost regions; | the geographical area; the proportion of the Single Market affected by the disruption or potential disruption; the impact on specific geographical areas particularly vulnerable or exposed to supply chain disruptions including the
  EU’s border and
  outermost regions; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

the geographical area; the proportion of the Single Market affected by the disruption or potential disruption; the impact on specific geographical areas particularly vulnerable or exposed to supply chain disruptions including the
  EU
  outermost regions;

the geographical area; the proportion of the Single Market affected by the disruption or potential disruption; the impact on specific geographical areas particularly vulnerable or exposed to supply chain disruptions including the
  EU’s border and
  outermost regions;

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 9

Amendment to Article 9(1)(a)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where the Commission, taking into consideration the opinion provided by the advisory group, considers that the threat referred to in Article 3(2) is present, it shall activate the vigilance mode for a maximum duration of six months by means of an implementing act. Such an implementing act shall contain the following:






  (a) | an assessment of the potential impact of the crisis; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Where the Commission, taking into consideration the opinion provided by the advisory group, considers that the threat referred to in Article 3(2) is present, it shall activate the vigilance mode for a maximum duration of six months by means of an implementing act. Such an implementing act shall contain the following:

(a)

an assessment of the potential impact of the crisis;

Where the Commission, taking into consideration the opinion provided by the advisory group, considers that the threat referred to in Article 3(2) is present, it shall activate the vigilance mode for a maximum duration of six months by means of an implementing act. Such an implementing act shall contain the following:

| (a) | an assessment of the potential impact of the crisis
  , including the specific situation of border regions
  ; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

an assessment of the potential impact of the crisis
  , including the specific situation of border regions
  ;

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 10

Amendment to Article 11(5)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| National competent authorities shall have due regard to the administrative burden on economic operators and in particular SMEs, which may be associated with requests for information and ensure
  it is kept to a minimum
  . | National competent authorities shall have due regard to the administrative burden on economic operators and in particular SMEs, which may be associated with requests for information and ensure
  that the content of requests is proportionate and strictly limited to what is necessary to comply with Article 9
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

National competent authorities shall have due regard to the administrative burden on economic operators and in particular SMEs, which may be associated with requests for information and ensure
  it is kept to a minimum
  .

National competent authorities shall have due regard to the administrative burden on economic operators and in particular SMEs, which may be associated with requests for information and ensure
  that the content of requests is proportionate and strictly limited to what is necessary to comply with Article 9
  .

Reason

Avoiding unnecessary red tape for businesses.

Amendment 11

Amendment to Article 12(2)(a)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission may require, by means of implementing acts, that the Member States provide information on the goods listed in an implementing act adopted pursuant to Article 9(1), as regards all of the following:






  a) | the current stock in their territory; |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission may require, by means of implementing acts, that the Member States provide information on the goods listed in an implementing act adopted pursuant to Article 9(1), as regards all of the following:

a)

the current stock in their territory;

The Commission may require, by means of implementing acts, that the Member States provide information on the goods listed in an implementing act adopted pursuant to Article 9(1), as regards all of the following:

| a) | the current stock
  and sites
  in their territory; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the current stock
  and sites
  in their territory;

Reason

It is important to check where Member States store crisis-relevant goods so that, in the event of an emergency, they can also be distributed to remote areas in a timely manner.

Amendment 12

Amendment to Article 12(3)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Taking due account of stocks held or being built up by economic operators on their territory, Member States shall deploy their best efforts to build up strategic reserves of the goods of strategic importance identified in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall provide support to Member States to coordinate and streamline their efforts. | Taking due account of stocks held or being built up by economic operators on their territory
  and of territorial balance, with particular regard to island, mountainous and other remote areas
  , Member States shall deploy their best efforts to build up strategic reserves of the goods of strategic importance identified in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall provide support to Member States to coordinate and streamline their efforts. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Taking due account of stocks held or being built up by economic operators on their territory, Member States shall deploy their best efforts to build up strategic reserves of the goods of strategic importance identified in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall provide support to Member States to coordinate and streamline their efforts.

Taking due account of stocks held or being built up by economic operators on their territory
  and of territorial balance, with particular regard to island, mountainous and other remote areas
  , Member States shall deploy their best efforts to build up strategic reserves of the goods of strategic importance identified in accordance with paragraph 1. The Commission shall provide support to Member States to coordinate and streamline their efforts.

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 13

Amendment to Article 15(1)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where the Commission considers, taking into consideration the opinion provided by the advisory group, that an extension of the Single Market emergency mode is necessary, it shall propose to the Council to extend the Single Market emergency mode. Subject to urgent and exceptional changes in circumstances, the Commission shall endeavour to do so no later than 30 days before the expiry of the period for which the Single Market emergency mode has been activated. The Council may extend the Single Market emergency mode by no more than six months at a time by means of an implementing act. | Where the Commission considers, taking into consideration the opinion provided by the advisory group, that an extension of the Single Market emergency mode is necessary, it shall propose to the Council to extend the Single Market emergency mode. Subject to urgent and exceptional changes in circumstances, the Commission shall endeavour to do so no later than 30 days before the expiry of the period for which the Single Market emergency mode has been activated. The Council may extend the Single Market emergency mode by no more than six months at a time by means of an implementing act.
  Unless it is extended, the Single Market emergency mode will automatically expire. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Where the Commission considers, taking into consideration the opinion provided by the advisory group, that an extension of the Single Market emergency mode is necessary, it shall propose to the Council to extend the Single Market emergency mode. Subject to urgent and exceptional changes in circumstances, the Commission shall endeavour to do so no later than 30 days before the expiry of the period for which the Single Market emergency mode has been activated. The Council may extend the Single Market emergency mode by no more than six months at a time by means of an implementing act.

Where the Commission considers, taking into consideration the opinion provided by the advisory group, that an extension of the Single Market emergency mode is necessary, it shall propose to the Council to extend the Single Market emergency mode. Subject to urgent and exceptional changes in circumstances, the Commission shall endeavour to do so no later than 30 days before the expiry of the period for which the Single Market emergency mode has been activated. The Council may extend the Single Market emergency mode by no more than six months at a time by means of an implementing act.
  Unless it is extended, the Single Market emergency mode will automatically expire.

Reason

Emergency measures must always be time-limited and end automatically in order to prevent abuse. This is mentioned in Article 14(3) on activation, but not in the article on deactivation, therefore clarification is provided.

Amendment 14

Amendment to Article 16(1)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| When adopting and applying national measures in response to a Single Market emergency and the underlying crisis, Member States shall ensure that their actions fully comply with the Treaty and Union law and, in particular, with the requirements laid down in this Article. | When adopting and applying national measures in response to a Single Market emergency and the underlying crisis, Member States shall ensure that their actions fully comply with the Treaty and Union law and, in particular, with the
  priority
  requirements laid down in this Article,
  especially as regards measures under the Schengen Borders Code
  . |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

When adopting and applying national measures in response to a Single Market emergency and the underlying crisis, Member States shall ensure that their actions fully comply with the Treaty and Union law and, in particular, with the requirements laid down in this Article.

When adopting and applying national measures in response to a Single Market emergency and the underlying crisis, Member States shall ensure that their actions fully comply with the Treaty and Union law and, in particular, with the
  priority
  requirements laid down in this Article,
  especially as regards measures under the Schengen Borders Code
  .

Reason

In order for the free movement rules of the SMEI to be effective, they must take partial priority over the Schengen Borders Code, otherwise Member States could introduce unilateral and uncoordinated border controls which could by their very nature amount to border closures.

Amendment 15

Amendment to Article 16(2)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Any restriction shall be limited in time and removed as soon as the situation allows it. Additionally, any restriction should take into account the situation of border regions. | Any restriction shall be limited in time
  , reviewed regularly
  and removed as soon as the situation allows. Additionally, any restriction should take into account the situation of border regions. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Any restriction shall be limited in time and removed as soon as the situation allows it. Additionally, any restriction should take into account the situation of border regions.

Any restriction shall be limited in time
  , reviewed regularly
  and removed as soon as the situation allows. Additionally, any restriction should take into account the situation of border regions.

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 16

Amendment and addition to Article 16(5)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States shall ensure that all affected stakeholders are informed of measures restricting free movement of goods, services and persons, including workers and service providers, before their entry into force. Member States shall ensure a continuous dialogue with stakeholders, including communication with social partners and international partners. | Member States shall ensure that all affected stakeholders
  as well as local and regional authorities
  are informed of measures restricting free movement of goods, services and persons, including workers and service providers, before their entry into force. Member States shall ensure a continuous dialogue with stakeholders, including communication with
  the European Committee of the Regions,
  social partners and international partners. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Member States shall ensure that all affected stakeholders are informed of measures restricting free movement of goods, services and persons, including workers and service providers, before their entry into force. Member States shall ensure a continuous dialogue with stakeholders, including communication with social partners and international partners.

Member States shall ensure that all affected stakeholders
  as well as local and regional authorities
  are informed of measures restricting free movement of goods, services and persons, including workers and service providers, before their entry into force. Member States shall ensure a continuous dialogue with stakeholders, including communication with
  the European Committee of the Regions,
  social partners and international partners.

Reason

To ensure the involvement of local and regional authorities.

Amendment 17

Amendment to Article 19(2)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States shall provide to the Commission a statement of the reasons which make the enactment of such measure justified and proportionate, where those reasons have not already been made clear in the notified measure. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the full text of the
  national legislative or regulatory provisions
  which
  contain
  or
  are
  modified by the measure. | Member States shall provide to the Commission a statement of the reasons which make the enactment of such measure justified and proportionate, where those reasons have not already been made clear in the notified measure. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the full text of the
  relevant applicable


  legislation in their Member State
  which
  contains
  or
  is
  modified by the measure. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Member States shall provide to the Commission a statement of the reasons which make the enactment of such measure justified and proportionate, where those reasons have not already been made clear in the notified measure. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the full text of the
  national legislative or regulatory provisions
  which
  contain
  or
  are
  modified by the measure.

Member States shall provide to the Commission a statement of the reasons which make the enactment of such measure justified and proportionate, where those reasons have not already been made clear in the notified measure. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the full text of the
  relevant applicable


  legislation in their Member State
  which
  contains
  or
  is
  modified by the measure.

Reason

In some Member States, regions can adopt their own or additional rules, meaning that not only should national legislation be mentioned, but all legislation applicable in the Member State concerned.

Amendment 18

Amendment to Article 21(2)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Member States shall ensure that it is possible for citizens, consumers, economic operators and workers and their representatives to receive, at their request and via the respective single points of contact, information from the competent authorities on the way in which the respective national crisis response measures are generally interpreted and applied. Where appropriate, such information shall include a step-by-step guide. The information shall be provided in clear, understandable and intelligible language. It shall be easily accessible at a distance and by electronic means and shall be kept up to date. | Member States shall ensure that it is possible for citizens, consumers,
  local and regional authorities,
  economic operators and workers and their representatives to receive, at their request and via the respective single points of contact, information from the competent authorities on the way in which the respective national crisis response measures are generally interpreted and applied. Where appropriate, such information shall include a step-by-step guide. The information shall be provided in clear, understandable and intelligible language. It shall be easily accessible at a distance and by electronic means and shall be kept up to date. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Member States shall ensure that it is possible for citizens, consumers, economic operators and workers and their representatives to receive, at their request and via the respective single points of contact, information from the competent authorities on the way in which the respective national crisis response measures are generally interpreted and applied. Where appropriate, such information shall include a step-by-step guide. The information shall be provided in clear, understandable and intelligible language. It shall be easily accessible at a distance and by electronic means and shall be kept up to date.

Member States shall ensure that it is possible for citizens, consumers,
  local and regional authorities,
  economic operators and workers and their representatives to receive, at their request and via the respective single points of contact, information from the competent authorities on the way in which the respective national crisis response measures are generally interpreted and applied. Where appropriate, such information shall include a step-by-step guide. The information shall be provided in clear, understandable and intelligible language. It shall be easily accessible at a distance and by electronic means and shall be kept up to date.

Reason

Everyone should have access to Member States’ single points of contact. This can be facilitated by the regional level. This is particularly important in border regions and peripheral areas.

Amendment 19

Amendment to Article 22(2)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Union level single point of contact shall provide citizens, consumers, economic operators, workers and their representatives with the following assistance [...] | The Union level single point of contact shall provide citizens, consumers,
  local and regional authorities,
  economic operators, workers and their representatives with the following assistance [...] |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

The Union level single point of contact shall provide citizens, consumers, economic operators, workers and their representatives with the following assistance [...]

The Union level single point of contact shall provide citizens, consumers,
  local and regional authorities,
  economic operators, workers and their representatives with the following assistance [...]

Reason

To ensure the involvement of local and regional authorities.

Amendment 20

Amendment to Article 24(1)

| Text proposed by the European Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where there is a severe crisis-related shortages or an immediate threat thereof, the Commission may invite representative organisations or economic operators in crisis-relevant supply chains to transmit on a voluntary basis, within a set time limit, specific information to the Commission on the production capacities and possible existing stocks of crisis-relevant goods and components thereof in Union production facilities and third country facilities which it operates, contracts or purchases supply from, as well as information on any relevant supply chain disruptions within a given deadline. | Where there is a severe crisis-related shortages or an immediate threat thereof, the Commission may invite representative organisations or economic operators in crisis-relevant supply chains to transmit on a voluntary basis, within a set time limit, specific information to the Commission on the production capacities and possible existing stocks of crisis-relevant goods and components thereof in Union production facilities and third country facilities which it operates, contracts or purchases supply from, as well as information on any relevant supply chain disruptions within a given deadline.
  The Commission shall ensure that the administrative and commercial burden on economic operators, particularly SMEs, is kept to a minimum, that the deadlines for replying are realistic and that the content of the requirements is proportionate and limited to what is strictly necessary. |

Text proposed by the European Commission

CoR amendment

Where there is a severe crisis-related shortages or an immediate threat thereof, the Commission may invite representative organisations or economic operators in crisis-relevant supply chains to transmit on a voluntary basis, within a set time limit, specific information to the Commission on the production capacities and possible existing stocks of crisis-relevant goods and components thereof in Union production facilities and third country facilities which it operates, contracts or purchases supply from, as well as information on any relevant supply chain disruptions within a given deadline.

Where there is a severe crisis-related shortages or an immediate threat thereof, the Commission may invite representative organisations or economic operators in crisis-relevant supply chains to transmit on a voluntary basis, within a set time limit, specific information to the Commission on the production capacities and possible existing stocks of crisis-relevant goods and components thereof in Union production facilities and third country facilities which it operates, contracts or purchases supply from, as well as information on any relevant supply chain disruptions within a given deadline.
  The Commission shall ensure that the administrative and commercial burden on economic operators, particularly SMEs, is kept to a minimum, that the deadlines for replying are realistic and that the content of the requirements is proportionate and limited to what is strictly necessary.

Reason

Avoiding unnecessary red tape for businesses.

II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| 1. | welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a Single Market Emergency Instrument to ensure the functioning of the single market, together with the free movement of people, in future crisis situations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | underlines how coordinated EU action enabled single market freedoms to be restored during the COVID-19 pandemic and how Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, in breach of international law, has revealed the speed with which a new crisis can emerge; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | highlights how crises can have serious repercussions for the single market; stresses the importance of needs-based measures in order to address crisis-related divergences at European, national, regional and local level, and of a needs-based cohesion policy which, by following the same objectives, can enhance the ability to withstand crises; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | reiterates its view that the free movement of goods, people and services in particular must be protected against crises; stresses the specific role of border regions for the functioning of the single market; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | stresses that the areas covered by Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are particularly affected by the impact of crises, as they are already facing challenges resulting from their situation; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | sees, therefore, the need for a robust overall EU crisis framework for the single market that complements existing and planned sector-specific rules; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Border management in the Single Market Emergency Instrument

| 7. | underlines that border regions suffer in particular from crisis-related and, especially, from unilateral and short-term border closures; this affects all cross-border cooperation in areas such as education, health and energy, as well as transport of goods, cross-border commuters, service providers, but also families and other interpersonal relations; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | points out, in particular, that border controls are close in nature to border closures, given that they involve congestion stretching back kilometres at border crossings; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | calls, therefore, on the European Commission to give partial priority to the free movement rules of the Single Market Emergency Instrument over the Schengen Borders Code in order to ensure the free movement of persons, services and goods in times of crisis; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | calls on the Council, following the entry into force of the regulation, to start negotiations with third countries at the EU’s external borders in order to enforce such free movement rules; |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | highlights, in this regard, its opinion on Revised Schengen Area Governance (1), which calls for internal border controls to be strictly limited to a maximum of 24 months and an explanation of why alternative measures are not appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | urges the Council to also lift its opposition to the creation of the European Cross-Border Mechanism (ECBM) so that straightforward intergovernmental solutions can be put in place along borders; |
| --- | --- |

12.

The Single Market Emergency Instrument from a regional perspective

| 13. | welcomes in general the proposal’s place-based approach and its focus on travel and business activities; at the same time, calls for the emergency instrument to have a stronger territorial focus to ensure that it is effective on the ground; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | building on this, calls for representatives of the European Committee of the Regions to have a permanent seat on the advisory group; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | further calls for local and regional authorities to be involved in the design of the central liaison offices and for equal access to national single points of contact and the single point of contact at EU level; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | points out that goods that are (potentially) relevant in crises are unevenly distributed across the single market; stresses the vital need for European solidarity in action to ensure that such goods can be distributed to heavily affected areas; welcomes the ban on export restrictions in this regard; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | proposes that the relevant definitions and criteria be made more consistent throughout the proposal and that, in this connection, regional concerns be given greater consideration; |
| --- | --- |

17.

Governance of the Single Market Emergency Instrument

| 18. | stresses, in this context, the need to clarify individual definitions in order to achieve legal certainty and make clear under which conditions and circumstances and in which crises the emergency instrument will be used; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | welcomes the proposed traffic light system with the three phases of contingency planning, single market surveillance and single market emergency for better crisis prevention, preparedness and management; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | strongly welcomes the focus on information exchange, communication and coordination between Member States and suggests that a common online information interface for future crises be set up, along the lines of ‘Re-open EU’ created during the COVID-19 pandemic; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | underlines the need to ensure complementarity and consistency with sector-specific and other general rules, particularly the Schengen Borders Code, so as not to generate greater legal uncertainty; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | underlines the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and notes that the Commission’s proposal is very far-reaching; stresses, therefore, the importance of ensuring sufficient scrutiny and transparency in the way that the instrument is implemented, not least in order to review and compensate for the potentially wide-ranging extension of the powers conferred on the Commission; points out that this can only be achieved through clear and unambiguous criteria and quantifiable thresholds combined with a due process that guarantees the involvement not only of the Member States and the European Parliament, but of national and regional parliaments too; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | stresses that any emergency measure must effectively enforce and fully respect labour laws and fundamental rights, including social, workers’ and trade union rights; |
| --- | --- |

23.

| 24. | calls for a review of the necessity and proportionality of monitoring supply chains, of collecting information from businesses and of the obligation to comply with priority-rated orders; it is precisely in times of crisis that additional burdens on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, should be kept to a minimum; at the very least, tight deadlines for replying should be extended; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | welcomes the fact that conformity assessments of strategically important products have been stepped up; suggests extending this to other product groups too; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | calls on the European Commission to make joint procurement transparent and to draw lessons from the failures surrounding the conclusion of contracts with COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers; |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | finally, welcomes the recent debates on strengthening European strategic autonomy independently of crises and looks forward to the European Commission’s draft legislation on critical raw materials; in this regard, asks the European Commission to include the proposals made in the CoR opinion on the Action Plan for Critical Raw Materials (2) in its draft legislation. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Brussels, 8 February 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Revised Schengen Area Governance (COR-2022-01129-00-01) (OJ C 498, 30.12.2022, p. 114).

1

(2)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Action Plan for Critical Raw Materials (COR-2020-04292-00-01) (OJ C 175, 7.5.2021, p. 10).

2

---