# Official Journal C 277/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.277.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 277 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5513 September 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.277.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 277

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5513 September 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RESOLUTIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012 |
| 2012/C 277/01 | Resolution on the Priorities of the Committee of the Regions for 2013 in view of the Work Programme of the European Commission | 1 |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012 |
| 2012/C 277/02 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The global approach to migration and mobility | 6 |
| 2012/C 277/03 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum | 12 |
| 2012/C 277/04 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Future cities: Environmentally and socially sustainable cities | 18 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Committee of the Regions

96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012

2012/C 277/01

Resolution on the Priorities of the Committee of the Regions for 2013 in view of the Work Programme of the European Commission

1

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012

2012/C 277/02

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The global approach to migration and mobility

6

2012/C 277/03

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum

12

2012/C 277/04

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Future cities: Environmentally and socially sustainable cities

18

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS |
| | 96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012 |
| 2012/C 277/05 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on EU financial instruments in home affairs | 23 |
| 2012/C 277/06 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on EU financial instruments in justice and citizenship | 43 |
| 2012/C 277/07 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on A mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions | 51 |
| 2012/C 277/08 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on the programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE) | 61 |
| 2012/C 277/09 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The award of concessions contracts | 74 |
| 2012/C 277/10 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on European territorial cooperation | 96 |
| 2012/C 277/11 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Airport package | 110 |
| 2012/C 277/12 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Connecting Europe facility | 125 |
| 2012/C 277/13 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC | 137 |
| 2012/C 277/14 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Horizon 2020 (the framework programme for research and innovation) | 143 |
| 2012/C 277/15 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Creative Europe | 156 |
| 2012/C 277/16 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Union civil protection mechanism | 164 |
| 2012/C 277/17 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Responsible Businesses Package | 171 |

III   Preparatory acts

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012

2012/C 277/05

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on EU financial instruments in home affairs

23

2012/C 277/06

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on EU financial instruments in justice and citizenship

43

2012/C 277/07

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on A mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions

51

2012/C 277/08

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on the programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE)

61

2012/C 277/09

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The award of concessions contracts

74

2012/C 277/10

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on European territorial cooperation

96

2012/C 277/11

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Airport package

110

2012/C 277/12

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Connecting Europe facility

125

2012/C 277/13

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC

137

2012/C 277/14

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Horizon 2020 (the framework programme for research and innovation)

143

2012/C 277/15

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Creative Europe

156

2012/C 277/16

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Union civil protection mechanism

164

2012/C 277/17

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Responsible Businesses Package

171

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

EN

---

I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RESOLUTIONS

Committee of the Regions

96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/1

---

Resolution on the ‘Priorities of the Committee of the Regions for 2013 in view of the Work Programme of the European Commission’

2012/C 277/01

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | having regard to the Commission Communication on the Commission Work Programme for 2012 ‘Delivering European Renewal’ (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on the Commission Work Programme for 2012 ‘Delivering European Renewal’ (1),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the priorities of the Committee of the Regions for 2012 based on the legislative and work programme of the European Commission (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the priorities of the Committee of the Regions for 2012 based on the legislative and work programme of the European Commission (2),

| — | having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2012 to the European Spring Council 2012 on the Draft Treaty on stability, coordination and governance in the economic and monetary union (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2012 to the European Spring Council 2012 on the Draft Treaty on stability, coordination and governance in the economic and monetary union (3),

| — | having regard to the existing Protocol of cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions signed on 16 February 2012, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the existing Protocol of cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions signed on 16 February 2012,

whereas the Committee of the Regions wishes to outline its key positions regarding the Commission’s work programme for 2013,

The future of the Union

| 1. | is convinced that, while the European Union is faced with enormous challenges in addressing the ongoing financial, economic, social and political crisis, there is an urgent need for an ambitious European Commission 2013 work programme that would boost sustainable growth, job creation and quality of life in Europe and contribute to restore the citizens’ confidence in the European integration process; |
| --- | --- |

1.

is convinced that, while the European Union is faced with enormous challenges in addressing the ongoing financial, economic, social and political crisis, there is an urgent need for an ambitious European Commission 2013 work programme that would boost sustainable growth, job creation and quality of life in Europe and contribute to restore the citizens’ confidence in the European integration process;

| 2. | considers that recovery must rest on two equally important pillars of structural reforms: relaunching growth and ensuring budgetary discipline; |
| --- | --- |

2.

considers that recovery must rest on two equally important pillars of structural reforms: relaunching growth and ensuring budgetary discipline;

| 3. | supports deeper economic integration and better alignment of policy priorities, revenues and spending between all levels of government, while respecting the autonomy and powers of national, regional and local governments; based on the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance, rejects any implicit or explicit renationalisation or centralisation of policies; |
| --- | --- |

3.

supports deeper economic integration and better alignment of policy priorities, revenues and spending between all levels of government, while respecting the autonomy and powers of national, regional and local governments; based on the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance, rejects any implicit or explicit renationalisation or centralisation of policies;

| 4. | requests the European Commission to resist attempts to use inter-governmental agreements to bypass the democratic procedures of the Union, as agreed in the Treaties, without calling into question the enhanced cooperation provided for under the Lisbon Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

4.

requests the European Commission to resist attempts to use inter-governmental agreements to bypass the democratic procedures of the Union, as agreed in the Treaties, without calling into question the enhanced cooperation provided for under the Lisbon Treaty;

| 5. | recalls the CoR position (4) that an early adoption of the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) for the 2014-2020 period at the end of 2012 is an important signal that the EU is able to respond to global challenges with its own strategy for growth, jobs and competitiveness and a prerequisite for guaranteeing that cohesion policy will remain uninterrupted operational; |
| --- | --- |

5.

recalls the CoR position (4) that an early adoption of the next multi-annual financial framework (MFF) for the 2014-2020 period at the end of 2012 is an important signal that the EU is able to respond to global challenges with its own strategy for growth, jobs and competitiveness and a prerequisite for guaranteeing that cohesion policy will remain uninterrupted operational;

| 6. | reiterates that the EU budget is an investment budget, that proposals for financial cuts in programmes which are part of the EU growth agenda must be rejected and that the creation of new own resources is needed, in particular with a view of replacing national contributions to the EU budget; |
| --- | --- |

6.

reiterates that the EU budget is an investment budget, that proposals for financial cuts in programmes which are part of the EU growth agenda must be rejected and that the creation of new own resources is needed, in particular with a view of replacing national contributions to the EU budget;

| 7. | reiterates the determination of regional and local authorities to be involved in the simplification of EU funds and the revision of the Financial Regulation, in order to cut red tape, increase the leverage effect of public funds at EU, national and regional levels, as well as ensure transparency and accountability for the EU taxpayers; |
| --- | --- |

7.

reiterates the determination of regional and local authorities to be involved in the simplification of EU funds and the revision of the Financial Regulation, in order to cut red tape, increase the leverage effect of public funds at EU, national and regional levels, as well as ensure transparency and accountability for the EU taxpayers;

| 8. | is of the view that the European Commission should present an analysis of the impact of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union on local and regional authorities and - in particular - on the question how the remit of local and regional fiscal autonomy is preserved; |
| --- | --- |

8.

is of the view that the European Commission should present an analysis of the impact of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union on local and regional authorities and - in particular - on the question how the remit of local and regional fiscal autonomy is preserved;

| 9. | supports efforts to ensure budgetary discipline, in particular with regard to tackling high levels of public debt which are a serious threat to intergenerational solidarity, and notes that adequate capacity among local and regional authorities can at the same time ensure growth through appropriate investment via for example implementation of projects co-funded by European funds and public procurement; |
| --- | --- |

9.

supports efforts to ensure budgetary discipline, in particular with regard to tackling high levels of public debt which are a serious threat to intergenerational solidarity, and notes that adequate capacity among local and regional authorities can at the same time ensure growth through appropriate investment via for example implementation of projects co-funded by European funds and public procurement;

| 10. | reiterates its call on the Commission to mainstream Article 9 TFEU on the promotion of high levels of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion in all its proposals; therefore urges the Commission to present balanced recommendations related to the European Semester and to bear these treaty obligations in mind in any legislation related to the economic and financial crisis; |
| --- | --- |

10.

reiterates its call on the Commission to mainstream Article 9 TFEU on the promotion of high levels of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection and the fight against social exclusion in all its proposals; therefore urges the Commission to present balanced recommendations related to the European Semester and to bear these treaty obligations in mind in any legislation related to the economic and financial crisis;

| 11. | asks the Commission to cooperate with the Committee of the Regions in elaborating a European Administrative Procedures Act; |
| --- | --- |

11.

asks the Commission to cooperate with the Committee of the Regions in elaborating a European Administrative Procedures Act;

Europe 2020 Strategy and the European Semester

| 12. | emphasises that while the European Semester should contribute to economic growth, fiscal discipline and structural challenges, the European Commission and the Member States must also closely anticipate and monitor the impact of these measures on the autonomy of local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

12.

emphasises that while the European Semester should contribute to economic growth, fiscal discipline and structural challenges, the European Commission and the Member States must also closely anticipate and monitor the impact of these measures on the autonomy of local and regional authorities;

| 13. | broadly welcomes the new Compact for Growth and Jobs as decided by the European Council of June 2012, and supports its call to ‘mobilise at every level of governance in the European Union all levers, instruments and policies’, to reach the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy (5); |
| --- | --- |

13.

broadly welcomes the new Compact for Growth and Jobs as decided by the European Council of June 2012, and supports its call to ‘mobilise at every level of governance in the European Union all levers, instruments and policies’, to reach the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy (5);

| 14. | supports the European Commission’s efforts to improve the governance arrangements and in particular the partnership principle in the drawing-up, implementation and evaluation of the National Reform Programmes; however, calls on the European Commission to include an assessment of these aspects in each of the Country Specific Recommendations; |
| --- | --- |

14.

supports the European Commission’s efforts to improve the governance arrangements and in particular the partnership principle in the drawing-up, implementation and evaluation of the National Reform Programmes; however, calls on the European Commission to include an assessment of these aspects in each of the Country Specific Recommendations;

| 15. | recalls the need to include delivery-oriented structures such as territorial pacts in the National Reform Programmes (6); moreover, recognition and support should be given to initiatives that foster competitiveness and innovation at the local and regional level, such as the European Entrepreneurial Regions label; |
| --- | --- |

15.

recalls the need to include delivery-oriented structures such as territorial pacts in the National Reform Programmes (6); moreover, recognition and support should be given to initiatives that foster competitiveness and innovation at the local and regional level, such as the European Entrepreneurial Regions label;

| 16. | is looking forward to reinforcing its co-operation with the European Commission throughout the Europe 2020 policy cycle and requests to be involved in the preparation of the Annual Growth Survey; |
| --- | --- |

16.

is looking forward to reinforcing its co-operation with the European Commission throughout the Europe 2020 policy cycle and requests to be involved in the preparation of the Annual Growth Survey;

| 17. | suggests that the European Commission provide regular updates on the implementation of the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives by particularly reporting on the involvement of local and regional authorities in their implementation; |
| --- | --- |

17.

suggests that the European Commission provide regular updates on the implementation of the Europe 2020 flagship initiatives by particularly reporting on the involvement of local and regional authorities in their implementation;

| 18. | asks the European Commission to outline in 2013 in the context of the mid-term evaluation of the strategy how it wants to ensure a closer involvement of local and regional authorities in that respect; |
| --- | --- |

18.

asks the European Commission to outline in 2013 in the context of the mid-term evaluation of the strategy how it wants to ensure a closer involvement of local and regional authorities in that respect;

| 19. | demands that any redirection of unused structural funds into a new growth agenda shall respect the principles of subsidiarity and involve local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

19.

demands that any redirection of unused structural funds into a new growth agenda shall respect the principles of subsidiarity and involve local and regional authorities;

| 20. | encourages the European Commission to further address key challenges such as youth unemployment and employment for workers over the age of 55 years, and socially disadvantaged groups, taking into account the key role of local and regional authorities; invites in particular the European Commission to present a draft Council recommendation for a Youth Guarantee Regulation; calls for the inclusion of a concrete local and regional dimension in the National Job Plans; |
| --- | --- |

20.

encourages the European Commission to further address key challenges such as youth unemployment and employment for workers over the age of 55 years, and socially disadvantaged groups, taking into account the key role of local and regional authorities; invites in particular the European Commission to present a draft Council recommendation for a Youth Guarantee Regulation; calls for the inclusion of a concrete local and regional dimension in the National Job Plans;

| 21. | invites the Commission to ensure that the forthcoming Recommendation on child poverty and child well-being incorporates the suggestions outlined in the CoR’s Opinion on Child Poverty of February 2012 (CdR 333/2011), particularly the adoption of a comprehensive strategy against child poverty and social exclusion that includes national, regional and local levels as well as the setting-up of a monitoring framework based on sound indicators, also linked with the existing reporting mechanism under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The CoR is convinced that in 2013 an evaluation of the impact of the crisis on child poverty based on specific reporting from Member States under the NRPs and the Europe 2020 strategy is needed; |
| --- | --- |

21.

invites the Commission to ensure that the forthcoming Recommendation on child poverty and child well-being incorporates the suggestions outlined in the CoR’s Opinion on Child Poverty of February 2012 (CdR 333/2011), particularly the adoption of a comprehensive strategy against child poverty and social exclusion that includes national, regional and local levels as well as the setting-up of a monitoring framework based on sound indicators, also linked with the existing reporting mechanism under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The CoR is convinced that in 2013 an evaluation of the impact of the crisis on child poverty based on specific reporting from Member States under the NRPs and the Europe 2020 strategy is needed;

EU budget

| 22. | recalls that in times of crisis and austerity the EU budget should lever as much public and private co-financing as possible at all levels of governance (7); regrets the lack of statistical data that would allow a robust evaluation of such leverage and multiplier effects; |
| --- | --- |

22.

recalls that in times of crisis and austerity the EU budget should lever as much public and private co-financing as possible at all levels of governance (7); regrets the lack of statistical data that would allow a robust evaluation of such leverage and multiplier effects;

| 23. | supports the European Commission’s intention to present a report on the quality of public spending (8) recommends a separation of current spending and investment in the budget deficit calculations so as to avoid investments with long-term net benefits being calculated as a negative; |
| --- | --- |

23.

supports the European Commission’s intention to present a report on the quality of public spending (8) recommends a separation of current spending and investment in the budget deficit calculations so as to avoid investments with long-term net benefits being calculated as a negative;

| 24. | underlines that synergies can in particular be sought between the EU, national and sub-national budgets, provided that proper and effective coordination mechanisms are in place, such as interoperability between public administrations dealing with budgetary matters, harmonised public-finance accountancy rules and budget cycles and comparable budget structures, and invites the European Commission to issue a Green Paper to explore possible concrete measures in this area; |
| --- | --- |

24.

underlines that synergies can in particular be sought between the EU, national and sub-national budgets, provided that proper and effective coordination mechanisms are in place, such as interoperability between public administrations dealing with budgetary matters, harmonised public-finance accountancy rules and budget cycles and comparable budget structures, and invites the European Commission to issue a Green Paper to explore possible concrete measures in this area;

Single Market, SME and Industry

| 25. | calls on the European Commission to include a Single Market Act III in its 2013 Work programme, which should include all remaining policy initiatives from the Single Market Act on which action has not yet been taken and keep a balance among the economic, social and governance pillars with respect to the four fundamental freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

25.

calls on the European Commission to include a Single Market Act III in its 2013 Work programme, which should include all remaining policy initiatives from the Single Market Act on which action has not yet been taken and keep a balance among the economic, social and governance pillars with respect to the four fundamental freedoms;

| 26. | requests the Commission to give particular attention to further improving cross-border labour mobility safeguarding workers’ rights and calls for an improved system of recognition of qualifications in order to support the mobility of professionals; |
| --- | --- |

26.

requests the Commission to give particular attention to further improving cross-border labour mobility safeguarding workers’ rights and calls for an improved system of recognition of qualifications in order to support the mobility of professionals;

| 27. | encourages the European Commission to withdraw its Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action in the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services which has triggered the early-warning on subsidiarity by 12 national parliaments; |
| --- | --- |

27.

encourages the European Commission to withdraw its Proposal for a Council Regulation on the exercise of the right to take collective action in the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services which has triggered the early-warning on subsidiarity by 12 national parliaments;

| 28. | underlines the important role of SMEs in economic regeneration and employment at the local and regional level; this can be further enhanced through the participation of SMEs, universities and local and regional authorities in EU research and innovation funding programmes; |
| --- | --- |

28.

underlines the important role of SMEs in economic regeneration and employment at the local and regional level; this can be further enhanced through the participation of SMEs, universities and local and regional authorities in EU research and innovation funding programmes;

| 29. | calls on the European Commission to enable easier access for SMEs to finance and to public procurement contracts as well as to further reduce administrative burden; |
| --- | --- |

29.

calls on the European Commission to enable easier access for SMEs to finance and to public procurement contracts as well as to further reduce administrative burden;

| 30. | expects the European Commission to involve the CoR in the review of the flagship initiative on Industrial Policy; |
| --- | --- |

30.

expects the European Commission to involve the CoR in the review of the flagship initiative on Industrial Policy;

| 31. | supports the European Parliament request to the Commission to submit, by January 2013, a proposal for a directive, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to ensure access to basic payment services for all consumers legally residing in the Union; |
| --- | --- |

31.

supports the European Parliament request to the Commission to submit, by January 2013, a proposal for a directive, on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to ensure access to basic payment services for all consumers legally residing in the Union;

| 32. | reiterates its call for a European agenda for social housing, which clarifies the competition rules applicable to social housing and empowers local and regional authorities to provide decent and affordable social housing, to promote social mix and to fight discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

32.

reiterates its call for a European agenda for social housing, which clarifies the competition rules applicable to social housing and empowers local and regional authorities to provide decent and affordable social housing, to promote social mix and to fight discrimination;

| 33. | asks the European Commission, after the withdrawal of a first draft regulation for the statute of European mutual societies, to rapidly present a revised draft proposal; |
| --- | --- |

33.

asks the European Commission, after the withdrawal of a first draft regulation for the statute of European mutual societies, to rapidly present a revised draft proposal;

Energy

| 34. | urges a follow-up in 2013 of the Energy Roadmap 2050 to ensure that the local and regional authorities are enabled to bring their contribution to the promotion of decentralised sustainable energy, and energy infrastructure such as smart intergrids, as a key element of resource efficiency and the green economy; therefore calls on the European Commission to develop a comprehensive investment framework with a time horizon of 2030, so as to provide the required certainty for both market actors and local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

34.

urges a follow-up in 2013 of the Energy Roadmap 2050 to ensure that the local and regional authorities are enabled to bring their contribution to the promotion of decentralised sustainable energy, and energy infrastructure such as smart intergrids, as a key element of resource efficiency and the green economy; therefore calls on the European Commission to develop a comprehensive investment framework with a time horizon of 2030, so as to provide the required certainty for both market actors and local and regional authorities;

| 35. | calls on the European Commission to assess the options for an additional decentrally-managed financial instrument to stimulate the implementation of the Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAPs) by regional and local authorities and, notably by Covenant of Mayors’ partners; also supports better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and conservation in future EU funding programmes (9); |
| --- | --- |

35.

calls on the European Commission to assess the options for an additional decentrally-managed financial instrument to stimulate the implementation of the Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAPs) by regional and local authorities and, notably by Covenant of Mayors’ partners; also supports better bundling of financial support measures for energy efficiency and conservation in future EU funding programmes (9);

| 36. | asks the European Commission to take steps towards resolving connectivity problems between Member States and between regions in Member States; and to promote measures that facilitate the spread of micro-production of energy and its integration into the distribution grids; |
| --- | --- |

36.

asks the European Commission to take steps towards resolving connectivity problems between Member States and between regions in Member States; and to promote measures that facilitate the spread of micro-production of energy and its integration into the distribution grids;

| 37. | calls for access to loans from the European Investment Bank for investments in the areas of energy efficiency and renewables to be facilitated for small and medium sized businesses and local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

37.

calls for access to loans from the European Investment Bank for investments in the areas of energy efficiency and renewables to be facilitated for small and medium sized businesses and local and regional authorities;

Regional Policy

| 38. | insists on the need to meet the target of early 2013 for the adoption of the legislative package on Cohesion policy 2014-2020 in order to allow local and regional authorities to start Structural Funds programmes on 1 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

38.

insists on the need to meet the target of early 2013 for the adoption of the legislative package on Cohesion policy 2014-2020 in order to allow local and regional authorities to start Structural Funds programmes on 1 January 2014;

| 39. | calls on EUROSTAT in conjunction with national statistical agencies to address the need for more timely comparable data on regional GDP; |
| --- | --- |

39.

calls on EUROSTAT in conjunction with national statistical agencies to address the need for more timely comparable data on regional GDP;

| 40. | recalls the need to take the territorial dimension of EU policies into account in a more coherent and stringent manner; suggests that the European Commission include these elements in its future impact assessment activities and report on them regularly (10); |
| --- | --- |

40.

recalls the need to take the territorial dimension of EU policies into account in a more coherent and stringent manner; suggests that the European Commission include these elements in its future impact assessment activities and report on them regularly (10);

| 41. | invites the European Commission to extend the scheme of temporary posting of EU civil servants to the sub-national level (instead of focussing on the national level only) in order to improve knowledge within the European institutions of the practice of implementing EU legislation and projects at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

41.

invites the European Commission to extend the scheme of temporary posting of EU civil servants to the sub-national level (instead of focussing on the national level only) in order to improve knowledge within the European institutions of the practice of implementing EU legislation and projects at local and regional level;

Transport

| 42. | looks forward to the forthcoming proposal on the future of EU ports policy; asks that the proposal be subjected to a territorial impact assessment, and is ready to contribute to this exercise; |
| --- | --- |

42.

looks forward to the forthcoming proposal on the future of EU ports policy; asks that the proposal be subjected to a territorial impact assessment, and is ready to contribute to this exercise;

| 43. | points out the importance of sustainable urban mobility and suggests the promotion of electronic and smart ticketing across all modes of transport, including bus, rail, ferry, car sharing, bike sharing and road tolls, with the aim of encouraging better interoperability between systems and increasing the use of public transport; |
| --- | --- |

43.

points out the importance of sustainable urban mobility and suggests the promotion of electronic and smart ticketing across all modes of transport, including bus, rail, ferry, car sharing, bike sharing and road tolls, with the aim of encouraging better interoperability between systems and increasing the use of public transport;

Environment

| 44. | observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving air-quality problems has been placed on local and regional authorities (11); looks forward to proposals how to address these problems in the forthcoming review of the EU air quality legislation; |
| --- | --- |

44.

observes that the slowdown in improvements to air quality is, to a significant extent, due to a lack of ambition in EU source-based policy and an absence of national measures. Much of the burden and responsibility of solving air-quality problems has been placed on local and regional authorities (11); looks forward to proposals how to address these problems in the forthcoming review of the EU air quality legislation;

| 45. | expects that in this review the levels of ambition and timeframes of EU emissions (source-based) policy and emissions policy are aligned and that in particular the NEC directive (National Emissions Ceiling) is reinforced in order to reduce background concentrations; that standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter are tightened and emissions from shipping, air traffic and agriculture are also tackled, while simplifying the indicators and criteria for measurement; it also calls for the integration of EU air quality policy with other policy areas, in particular transport, housing, industry, energy and climate; |
| --- | --- |

45.

expects that in this review the levels of ambition and timeframes of EU emissions (source-based) policy and emissions policy are aligned and that in particular the NEC directive (National Emissions Ceiling) is reinforced in order to reduce background concentrations; that standards for vehicles with regard to NO2/NOx and particulate matter are tightened and emissions from shipping, air traffic and agriculture are also tackled, while simplifying the indicators and criteria for measurement; it also calls for the integration of EU air quality policy with other policy areas, in particular transport, housing, industry, energy and climate;

| 46. | demands that the EU Adaptation Strategy for climate change include a section on specific adaptation action at regional and municipal level as well as guidelines and support for local and regional decision makers, the setting up of a working group on adaptation strategies in particularly vulnerable European regions, bringing together representatives of the CoR, DG Climate Action, the EEA, the JRC and local and regional networks and associations should also be explored; |
| --- | --- |

46.

demands that the EU Adaptation Strategy for climate change include a section on specific adaptation action at regional and municipal level as well as guidelines and support for local and regional decision makers, the setting up of a working group on adaptation strategies in particularly vulnerable European regions, bringing together representatives of the CoR, DG Climate Action, the EEA, the JRC and local and regional networks and associations should also be explored;

Agriculture and maritime policy

| 47. | stresses the need for a targeted Communication on ‘A new EU quality scheme for local food products’ as local food systems support the local and regional economy by providing employment in agriculture and food production; |
| --- | --- |

47.

stresses the need for a targeted Communication on ‘A new EU quality scheme for local food products’ as local food systems support the local and regional economy by providing employment in agriculture and food production;

| 48. | would advocate greater flexibility on the part of the Commission in helping to overcome the deadlock between the European Parliament and the Council over the legal basis of the multi-annual plans for the fisheries sector, and trusts that the package of proposals on reforming the common fisheries policy will expand initiatives to promote decentralisation of fisheries policy and implementing measures that provide a response geared to the needs of coastal regions and regions bordering inland waterways and the challenges facing them; |
| --- | --- |

48.

would advocate greater flexibility on the part of the Commission in helping to overcome the deadlock between the European Parliament and the Council over the legal basis of the multi-annual plans for the fisheries sector, and trusts that the package of proposals on reforming the common fisheries policy will expand initiatives to promote decentralisation of fisheries policy and implementing measures that provide a response geared to the needs of coastal regions and regions bordering inland waterways and the challenges facing them;

| 49. | supports the development of the sea basin strategy approach as a integrated maritime policy tool but considers that these strategies, such as the strategy that will be adopted for the Atlantic Area in 2013, must include a stronger territorial dimension and learn from the lessons of the macro-regional strategy approach; |
| --- | --- |

49.

supports the development of the sea basin strategy approach as a integrated maritime policy tool but considers that these strategies, such as the strategy that will be adopted for the Atlantic Area in 2013, must include a stronger territorial dimension and learn from the lessons of the macro-regional strategy approach;

EU Citizenship

| 50. | calls for the local and regional dimension to be taken into account in initiatives to build upon and strengthen citizens’ rights and in efforts to restore citizens’ trust in the EU and its institutions, and insists on the need to involve children and young people given their ability to exercise citizenship rights and responsibilities; calls on the Commission to focus on this challenge in the activities planned in the framework of the European Year of Citizens 2013 to which the CoR intends to contribute; |
| --- | --- |

50.

calls for the local and regional dimension to be taken into account in initiatives to build upon and strengthen citizens’ rights and in efforts to restore citizens’ trust in the EU and its institutions, and insists on the need to involve children and young people given their ability to exercise citizenship rights and responsibilities; calls on the Commission to focus on this challenge in the activities planned in the framework of the European Year of Citizens 2013 to which the CoR intends to contribute;

| 51. | is committed to contributing to the follow-up of successful European Citizens’ Initiatives in cooperation with the other EU institutions; |
| --- | --- |

51.

is committed to contributing to the follow-up of successful European Citizens’ Initiatives in cooperation with the other EU institutions;

Wider Europe and Europe in the World

| 52. | requests that the access of local and regional actors in the European neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries to the specific EU funds for this area be facilitated and supports the opening of existing programmes, including EGTC to partners in neighbourhood countries; |
| --- | --- |

52.

requests that the access of local and regional actors in the European neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries to the specific EU funds for this area be facilitated and supports the opening of existing programmes, including EGTC to partners in neighbourhood countries;

| 53. | reaffirms its intention to continue the positive cooperation with the European Commission in the context of the Local Administration Facility programme in order to improve local capacity building and promote knowledge of EU and its procedures in candidate and pre-candidate countries; invites the Commission to explore the possibility of expanding it to local governments in the ENP countries; |
| --- | --- |

53.

reaffirms its intention to continue the positive cooperation with the European Commission in the context of the Local Administration Facility programme in order to improve local capacity building and promote knowledge of EU and its procedures in candidate and pre-candidate countries; invites the Commission to explore the possibility of expanding it to local governments in the ENP countries;

| 54. | trusts that its recommendations will be duly considered in the process of preparing the Commission work programme for 2013 and instructs the President of the Committee of the Regions to submit the present resolution to the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Parliament, the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU and the forthcoming Irish and Lithuanian Presidencies. |
| --- | --- |

54.

trusts that its recommendations will be duly considered in the process of preparing the Commission work programme for 2013 and instructs the President of the Committee of the Regions to submit the present resolution to the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Parliament, the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU and the forthcoming Irish and Lithuanian Presidencies.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  COM(2011)777 final.

1

(2)  CdR 361/2011 fin.

2

(3)  CdR 42/2012 fin.

3

(4)  CdR 318/2010, co-rapporteurs: Ms Mercedes Bresso and Mr Ramon Valcarcel Siso.

4

(5)  Conclusions of the European Council of 28/29 June 2012, page 7.

5

(6)  CdR 72/2011, rapporteur: Mr. Markku Markkula.

6

(7)  CdR 318/2010, co-rapporteurs: M Mercedes Bresso and Mr Ramon Valcarcel Siso.

7

(8)  See COM (2012)299, point 2.1.

8

(9)  CdR 85/2012, rapporteur Brian Meaney.

9

(10)  CdR 273/2011, rapporteur: M Luc Van den Brande.

10

(11)  CdR 329/2011, rapporteur Cor Lamers.

11

---

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/6

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The global approach to migration and mobility’

2012/C 277/02

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | underlines that respect for the human rights of migrants and solidarity with countries from which the majority of migratory flows originate must underpin all aspects of the Union's migration policy, including in relations with third countries, fully respecting the principles laid down in Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

underlines that respect for the human rights of migrants and solidarity with countries from which the majority of migratory flows originate must underpin all aspects of the Union's migration policy, including in relations with third countries, fully respecting the principles laid down in Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union;

| — | believes that careful assessment is needed of all the causes of migration, including climate change, with a view to defining a proper legal framework for those fleeing their country of origin as a result of natural disaster or climate conditions that threaten their survival or physical safety; |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that careful assessment is needed of all the causes of migration, including climate change, with a view to defining a proper legal framework for those fleeing their country of origin as a result of natural disaster or climate conditions that threaten their survival or physical safety;

| — | believes that the global approach to migration requires multi-level governance in order to guarantee that it is managed at the level most appropriate to the circumstances, upholding the principle of subsidiarity, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible well-being for people both in countries of origin and in countries of destination; |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that the global approach to migration requires multi-level governance in order to guarantee that it is managed at the level most appropriate to the circumstances, upholding the principle of subsidiarity, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible well-being for people both in countries of origin and in countries of destination;

| — | calls in particular for regional and local authorities to be taken fully into account in the implementation of the global approach, building on existing decentralised cooperation projects and structured dialogues, such as ARLEM and CORLEAP. |
| --- | --- |

—

calls in particular for regional and local authorities to be taken fully into account in the implementation of the global approach, building on existing decentralised cooperation projects and structured dialogues, such as ARLEM and CORLEAP.

| Rapporteur | Nichi VENDOLA (IT/PES), President of the Puglia Region |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility
  COM(2011) 743 final |

Rapporteur

Nichi VENDOLA (IT/PES), President of the Puglia Region

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility

COM(2011) 743 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments

| 1. | stresses the importance of the global approach as a reference framework for the European Union's action regarding the worldwide governance of migration and mobility, and as an instrument offering an overall view of migration policies, designed to make the European Union's external relations and development policy activities consistent with its immigration policies; |
| --- | --- |

1.

stresses the importance of the global approach as a reference framework for the European Union's action regarding the worldwide governance of migration and mobility, and as an instrument offering an overall view of migration policies, designed to make the European Union's external relations and development policy activities consistent with its immigration policies;

| 2. | welcomes the European Commission's initiative of presenting an updated version of the global approach which is more structured and centred on migrants and on respect for human rights in source, transit and destination countries alike; |
| --- | --- |

2.

welcomes the European Commission's initiative of presenting an updated version of the global approach which is more structured and centred on migrants and on respect for human rights in source, transit and destination countries alike;

| 3. | reaffirms the human right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to that country (1), as the legal basis for any discussion of migration, and the need to promote migration by choice, regardless of the reasons underlying it or the specific requirements of the country of destination (2); |
| --- | --- |

3.

reaffirms the human right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to that country (1), as the legal basis for any discussion of migration, and the need to promote migration by choice, regardless of the reasons underlying it or the specific requirements of the country of destination (2);

| 4. | underlines that respect for the human rights of migrants and solidarity with countries from which the majority of migratory flows originate must underpin all aspects of the Union's migration policy, including in relations with third countries, fully respecting the principles laid down in Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union; |
| --- | --- |

4.

underlines that respect for the human rights of migrants and solidarity with countries from which the majority of migratory flows originate must underpin all aspects of the Union's migration policy, including in relations with third countries, fully respecting the principles laid down in Article 21(1) of the Treaty on European Union;

| 5. | believes that effective protection of human rights must be guaranteed when establishing entry opportunities for third-country nationals and in policies on the reception and integration of migrants; |
| --- | --- |

5.

believes that effective protection of human rights must be guaranteed when establishing entry opportunities for third-country nationals and in policies on the reception and integration of migrants;

| 6. | stresses that readmission agreements and visa facilitation agreements, both of the Union and of the Member States, and all actions to combat irregular immigration, must fully respect human rights, in accordance, in particular, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as consistently stated by the European Court of Human Rights; |
| --- | --- |

6.

stresses that readmission agreements and visa facilitation agreements, both of the Union and of the Member States, and all actions to combat irregular immigration, must fully respect human rights, in accordance, in particular, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as consistently stated by the European Court of Human Rights;

| 7. | stresses that the need to contain migratory flows must never be allowed to take precedence over anybody's right to seek international protection in the Union, which must remain a place of refuge for people fleeing persecution or in need of protection; |
| --- | --- |

7.

stresses that the need to contain migratory flows must never be allowed to take precedence over anybody's right to seek international protection in the Union, which must remain a place of refuge for people fleeing persecution or in need of protection;

| 8. | notes the risk that the economic crisis affecting most countries of the European Union may exacerbate the inherent tension between border control policies and respect for the human rights of migrants; |
| --- | --- |

8.

notes the risk that the economic crisis affecting most countries of the European Union may exacerbate the inherent tension between border control policies and respect for the human rights of migrants;

| 9. | believes that careful assessment is needed of all the causes of migration, including climate change (3), with a view to defining a proper legal framework for those fleeing their country of origin as a result of natural disaster or climate conditions that threaten their survival or physical safety (4); |
| --- | --- |

9.

believes that careful assessment is needed of all the causes of migration, including climate change (3), with a view to defining a proper legal framework for those fleeing their country of origin as a result of natural disaster or climate conditions that threaten their survival or physical safety (4);

| 10. | calls on the European Commission to publish the working paper on migration and climate change originally envisaged in its Communication on migration of 4 May 2011 (5); |
| --- | --- |

10.

calls on the European Commission to publish the working paper on migration and climate change originally envisaged in its Communication on migration of 4 May 2011 (5);

| 11. | considers that in order to make the global approach effective it is necessary to strengthen coordination between the European Union and the national, regional and local levels, and with third countries; |
| --- | --- |

11.

considers that in order to make the global approach effective it is necessary to strengthen coordination between the European Union and the national, regional and local levels, and with third countries;

| 12. | reiterates what the Committee of the Regions has previously stated, i.e. ‘local and regional authorities are first to be significantly affected by a common immigration policy. On the one hand, they are particularly affected by the difficulties of illegal immigration, while, on the other, they are responsible for providing immigrants with a range of services as part of the local integration process. For this reason they must be fully involved in the development of a European framework for legal immigration, in measures to combat illegal immigration and in development cooperation with countries of origin’ (6); |
| --- | --- |

12.

reiterates what the Committee of the Regions has previously stated, i.e. ‘local and regional authorities are first to be significantly affected by a common immigration policy. On the one hand, they are particularly affected by the difficulties of illegal immigration, while, on the other, they are responsible for providing immigrants with a range of services as part of the local integration process. For this reason they must be fully involved in the development of a European framework for legal immigration, in measures to combat illegal immigration and in development cooperation with countries of origin’ (6);

| 13. | welcomes the considerable progress made on making transfers of money by migrants to their countries of origin more transparent and secure and less costly, and supports the initiatives backed by the European Commission to channel remittances of funds from migrants towards productive investment; |
| --- | --- |

13.

welcomes the considerable progress made on making transfers of money by migrants to their countries of origin more transparent and secure and less costly, and supports the initiatives backed by the European Commission to channel remittances of funds from migrants towards productive investment;

| 14. | is pleased that the global approach stresses the role which third-country nationals living outside their countries can play both in development policies and in the regulation of migratory flows, promoting support measures on departure and integration measures in the countries of destination; |
| --- | --- |

14.

is pleased that the global approach stresses the role which third-country nationals living outside their countries can play both in development policies and in the regulation of migratory flows, promoting support measures on departure and integration measures in the countries of destination;

The role of regional and local authorities in the implementation of the global approach

| 15. | believes that the global approach to migration requires multi-level governance in order to guarantee that it is managed at the level most appropriate to the circumstances, upholding the principle of subsidiarity, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible well-being for people both in countries of origin and in countries of destination; |
| --- | --- |

15.

believes that the global approach to migration requires multi-level governance in order to guarantee that it is managed at the level most appropriate to the circumstances, upholding the principle of subsidiarity, with a view to ensuring the greatest possible well-being for people both in countries of origin and in countries of destination;

| 16. | considers that regional and local authorities are key actors in the global approach, as both promoters and implementers of social and employment policies, reception and integration policies, and the management of irregular immigration, and also as organisers of in-depth dialogue and varied forms of cooperation with countries of origin and transit (7); |
| --- | --- |

16.

considers that regional and local authorities are key actors in the global approach, as both promoters and implementers of social and employment policies, reception and integration policies, and the management of irregular immigration, and also as organisers of in-depth dialogue and varied forms of cooperation with countries of origin and transit (7);

| 17. | notes that regional and local authorities already promote dialogue initiatives with their counterparts in third countries, many of which are countries of origin and transit for migrants, and promote decentralised cooperation projects; |
| --- | --- |

17.

notes that regional and local authorities already promote dialogue initiatives with their counterparts in third countries, many of which are countries of origin and transit for migrants, and promote decentralised cooperation projects;

| 18. | believes that ARLEM – the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly – and CORLEAP – the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership – should be seen as ideal fora for dialogue with the regional authorities of the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe on immigration and development policies; |
| --- | --- |

18.

believes that ARLEM – the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly – and CORLEAP – the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership – should be seen as ideal fora for dialogue with the regional authorities of the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe on immigration and development policies;

| 19. | believes that the greatest possible compatibility should be sought between Member States' bilateral initiatives and the existing regional and bilateral dialogues, which are viewed as an instrument of the Union's external policy in the field of immigration, and that one way of ensuring this is through full recognition of the dialogue initiatives promoted by regional and local authorities; |
| --- | --- |

19.

believes that the greatest possible compatibility should be sought between Member States' bilateral initiatives and the existing regional and bilateral dialogues, which are viewed as an instrument of the Union's external policy in the field of immigration, and that one way of ensuring this is through full recognition of the dialogue initiatives promoted by regional and local authorities;

| 20. | urges the institutions to see regional and local authorities as leading players in the global approach, in accordance with their competences in the national context, by means of instruments which allocate Union funds to them, without the intervention of central government authorities, and in accordance with the existing differences within the various Member States; |
| --- | --- |

20.

urges the institutions to see regional and local authorities as leading players in the global approach, in accordance with their competences in the national context, by means of instruments which allocate Union funds to them, without the intervention of central government authorities, and in accordance with the existing differences within the various Member States;

| 21. | urges the Commission to promote innovative projects to help match employment supply and demand, using regional and local authorities as intermediaries, given their competences in this sector in many Member States, with a view to creating an effective instrument for tackling the skills shortage in certain segments of the labour market; |
| --- | --- |

21.

urges the Commission to promote innovative projects to help match employment supply and demand, using regional and local authorities as intermediaries, given their competences in this sector in many Member States, with a view to creating an effective instrument for tackling the skills shortage in certain segments of the labour market;

| 22. | wishes regional and local authorities also to be involved in the updating of the EU immigration portal, thereby ensuring that it offers relevant information for immigrants regarding regions, cities and municipalities of destination; |
| --- | --- |

22.

wishes regional and local authorities also to be involved in the updating of the EU immigration portal, thereby ensuring that it offers relevant information for immigrants regarding regions, cities and municipalities of destination;

The relationship between immigration policies and development cooperation policies

| 23. | stresses the importance of ensuring that the Union's migration and development policy and its external immigration and asylum policy are mutually consistent at all times. In particular, the Union's and the Member States' actions in third countries should always be based primarily on the principles of solidarity and co-development, in order to tackle the underlying causes of migration and to defeat poverty, paying particular attention to the mobilisation of domestic resources in those countries, as well as support for strengthening institutions and improving governance and the rule of law, which are key to fostering economic and social change; |
| --- | --- |

23.

stresses the importance of ensuring that the Union's migration and development policy and its external immigration and asylum policy are mutually consistent at all times. In particular, the Union's and the Member States' actions in third countries should always be based primarily on the principles of solidarity and co-development, in order to tackle the underlying causes of migration and to defeat poverty, paying particular attention to the mobilisation of domestic resources in those countries, as well as support for strengthening institutions and improving governance and the rule of law, which are key to fostering economic and social change;

| 24. | urges the Commission to distribute resources to developing countries, on the basis of development cooperation principles, priorities and strategies, while also taking account of the ‘more for more’ principle; |
| --- | --- |

24.

urges the Commission to distribute resources to developing countries, on the basis of development cooperation principles, priorities and strategies, while also taking account of the ‘more for more’ principle;

| 25. | believes that the principle of reciprocity must dovetail with development cooperation principles, particularly in the context of mobility partnerships and the common agenda on migration and mobility (8); |
| --- | --- |

25.

believes that the principle of reciprocity must dovetail with development cooperation principles, particularly in the context of mobility partnerships and the common agenda on migration and mobility (8);

| 26. | considers that when implementing the global approach, adequate protection must be provided for all vulnerable groups, in particular unaccompanied minors, both by guiding actions properly in third countries and by offering appropriate forms of reception and social integration in Member States, while also fostering the dissemination of the good practices of many regional and local authorities in the Member States; also asks the European Commission to effectively implement the measures contained in the action plan on unaccompanied minors; |
| --- | --- |

26.

considers that when implementing the global approach, adequate protection must be provided for all vulnerable groups, in particular unaccompanied minors, both by guiding actions properly in third countries and by offering appropriate forms of reception and social integration in Member States, while also fostering the dissemination of the good practices of many regional and local authorities in the Member States; also asks the European Commission to effectively implement the measures contained in the action plan on unaccompanied minors;

| 27. | calls for a bona fide gender-based approach with a view to enhancing the specific role played by women in migration and in the social integration of the whole family group in host countries; |
| --- | --- |

27.

calls for a bona fide gender-based approach with a view to enhancing the specific role played by women in migration and in the social integration of the whole family group in host countries;

| 28. | points out that the Union's immigration policy could contradict its development cooperation policies, since it seeks to attract talent from third countries in pursuit of the economic and demographic development objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; |
| --- | --- |

28.

points out that the Union's immigration policy could contradict its development cooperation policies, since it seeks to attract talent from third countries in pursuit of the economic and demographic development objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

| 29. | questions whether the brain drain caused by the policy of selective migration can be contained by means of circular migration, since it is not yet at all clear how effective it will be and what real impact it will have; |
| --- | --- |

29.

questions whether the brain drain caused by the policy of selective migration can be contained by means of circular migration, since it is not yet at all clear how effective it will be and what real impact it will have;

| 30. | believes also that circular migration may be not be compatible with the objective of integrating migrants and that integration strategies should therefore be drawn up which are specifically aimed at these workers, so that they can integrate effectively despite the fact that their stay in the European Union is not intended to be long-lasting (9); |
| --- | --- |

30.

believes also that circular migration may be not be compatible with the objective of integrating migrants and that integration strategies should therefore be drawn up which are specifically aimed at these workers, so that they can integrate effectively despite the fact that their stay in the European Union is not intended to be long-lasting (9);

| 31. | believes that the recognition of diplomas and qualifications under harmonised conditions is crucial in terms of preventing ‘brain waste’, ensuring the proper integration of migrants and their reintegration into the country of origin in the case of circular migration; |
| --- | --- |

31.

believes that the recognition of diplomas and qualifications under harmonised conditions is crucial in terms of preventing ‘brain waste’, ensuring the proper integration of migrants and their reintegration into the country of origin in the case of circular migration;

| 32. | calls on the European Commission to back measures to support States in the process of simplifying the recognition of diplomas and qualifications, and to promote informal recognition of skills, with a view to facilitating the movement of third-country workers within the European labour market; |
| --- | --- |

32.

calls on the European Commission to back measures to support States in the process of simplifying the recognition of diplomas and qualifications, and to promote informal recognition of skills, with a view to facilitating the movement of third-country workers within the European labour market;

| 33. | trusts that requests for third-country cooperation in containing migratory flows will never lead to the denial of each person's human right to leave a country, including their own, particularly when third countries are asked to control emigration on the basis of the laws of the State of destination; |
| --- | --- |

33.

trusts that requests for third-country cooperation in containing migratory flows will never lead to the denial of each person's human right to leave a country, including their own, particularly when third countries are asked to control emigration on the basis of the laws of the State of destination;

| 34. | believes that there must be greater investment in development cooperation projects aimed at the education and health sectors, directly involving universities and promoting the mobility of researchers and all academic staff; |
| --- | --- |

34.

believes that there must be greater investment in development cooperation projects aimed at the education and health sectors, directly involving universities and promoting the mobility of researchers and all academic staff;

| 35. | supports the petition submitted to the European Parliament for the adoption of a Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programme, as a specific instrument for reciprocal mobility between students from each shore of the Mediterranean; |
| --- | --- |

35.

supports the petition submitted to the European Parliament for the adoption of a Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programme, as a specific instrument for reciprocal mobility between students from each shore of the Mediterranean;

| 36. | wishes the mobility of young people, and of students in particular, to be effectively promoted, including by simplifying the issuing of visas, cutting red tape and allocating sufficient financial resources; |
| --- | --- |

36.

wishes the mobility of young people, and of students in particular, to be effectively promoted, including by simplifying the issuing of visas, cutting red tape and allocating sufficient financial resources;

| 37. | believes that the Erasmus for all programme should be fostered and supported, as well as the existing good practices in exchanges amongst young people, such as the Eurodissey programme promoted by the Assembly of European Regions; |
| --- | --- |

37.

believes that the Erasmus for all programme should be fostered and supported, as well as the existing good practices in exchanges amongst young people, such as the Eurodissey programme promoted by the Assembly of European Regions;

| 38. | considers that more analysis is needed of the migratory pressures caused by economic imbalances, with a view to devising effective responses; these should include schemes which also guarantee mobility for unskilled workers, for whom there is still a great demand in certain Member States, which cannot be tackled solely by means of circular migration; |
| --- | --- |

38.

considers that more analysis is needed of the migratory pressures caused by economic imbalances, with a view to devising effective responses; these should include schemes which also guarantee mobility for unskilled workers, for whom there is still a great demand in certain Member States, which cannot be tackled solely by means of circular migration;

| 39. | believes that third-country nationals living outside their countries should also be involved in pre-departure measures, making use of existing websites directly managed by immigrants' associations, which provide ad hoc information in a language understood by potential migrants; |
| --- | --- |

39.

believes that third-country nationals living outside their countries should also be involved in pre-departure measures, making use of existing websites directly managed by immigrants' associations, which provide ad hoc information in a language understood by potential migrants;

| 40. | welcomes the enhancement of pre-departure measures, which require more investment, involving NGOs already operating in the countries of origin of migrants and the local and regional authorities involved in procedures for the reception and integration of migrants and their families; |
| --- | --- |

40.

welcomes the enhancement of pre-departure measures, which require more investment, involving NGOs already operating in the countries of origin of migrants and the local and regional authorities involved in procedures for the reception and integration of migrants and their families;

Combating irregular immigration

| 41. | welcomes the Union's commitment to combating irregular immigration, and in particular the smuggling and trafficking of human beings and measures against employers of irregular workers; |
| --- | --- |

41.

welcomes the Union's commitment to combating irregular immigration, and in particular the smuggling and trafficking of human beings and measures against employers of irregular workers;

| 42. | stresses the importance of an approach to combating irregular immigration which considers that migrants may be possible victims of illegal human trafficking and must therefore be protected; |
| --- | --- |

42.

stresses the importance of an approach to combating irregular immigration which considers that migrants may be possible victims of illegal human trafficking and must therefore be protected;

| 43. | urges the European Commission to continue initiatives to analyse and combat undeclared employment, which is a scourge for the entire Union's economy and provides an incentive for the entry of irregular migrants, who may then be exploited in the labour market or used as a tool of criminal networks; |
| --- | --- |

43.

urges the European Commission to continue initiatives to analyse and combat undeclared employment, which is a scourge for the entire Union's economy and provides an incentive for the entry of irregular migrants, who may then be exploited in the labour market or used as a tool of criminal networks;

| 44. | notes that considerable financial resources have also been invested in measures to combat irregular immigration, not least the border-control operations carried out by the Frontex agency; |
| --- | --- |

44.

notes that considerable financial resources have also been invested in measures to combat irregular immigration, not least the border-control operations carried out by the Frontex agency;

| 45. | stresses the need to respect human rights, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, at every stage in border control, and the related obligation for the EU institutions – in particular the European Parliament – to closely monitor Frontex's activities; |
| --- | --- |

45.

stresses the need to respect human rights, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, at every stage in border control, and the related obligation for the EU institutions – in particular the European Parliament – to closely monitor Frontex's activities;

| 46. | believes that there should be similar checks on international cooperation directly managed by Frontex, which has the power to conclude international agreements of a technical nature with third countries: the content of these should be more transparent and their scope precisely stipulated; |
| --- | --- |

46.

believes that there should be similar checks on international cooperation directly managed by Frontex, which has the power to conclude international agreements of a technical nature with third countries: the content of these should be more transparent and their scope precisely stipulated;

| 47. | considers it necessary to carry out careful cost/benefit assessments of all existing instruments in order to compare their efficiency, including the costs of repatriation procedures (detention and forced removal) and the amount of resources spent by States on voluntary repatriation compared to forced repatriation; |
| --- | --- |

47.

considers it necessary to carry out careful cost/benefit assessments of all existing instruments in order to compare their efficiency, including the costs of repatriation procedures (detention and forced removal) and the amount of resources spent by States on voluntary repatriation compared to forced repatriation;

| 48. | believes that insufficient flexibility in national legislation should not mean that foreign nationals residing legally become irregular and increase the number of ‘overstayers’; |
| --- | --- |

48.

believes that insufficient flexibility in national legislation should not mean that foreign nationals residing legally become irregular and increase the number of ‘overstayers’;

| 49. | believes that the European Union institutions and the Member States should give serious consideration to the possibility of entry into the European Union to seek work, as expressly mentioned in Article 79(5) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

49.

believes that the European Union institutions and the Member States should give serious consideration to the possibility of entry into the European Union to seek work, as expressly mentioned in Article 79(5) TFEU;

| 50. | considers that providing regular entry channels is a key instrument for combating irregular immigration and reducing the number of ‘overstayers’, as well as ensuring a degree of solidarity in relations with countries of origin of migratory flows; |
| --- | --- |

50.

considers that providing regular entry channels is a key instrument for combating irregular immigration and reducing the number of ‘overstayers’, as well as ensuring a degree of solidarity in relations with countries of origin of migratory flows;

| 51. | urges the institutions to incorporate the readmission strategy in the global approach, in order to ensure that the strategy is underpinned by development cooperation principles and does not become a separate or conflicting aspect; |
| --- | --- |

51.

urges the institutions to incorporate the readmission strategy in the global approach, in order to ensure that the strategy is underpinned by development cooperation principles and does not become a separate or conflicting aspect;

| 52. | believes that readmission agreements must be subject to periodic assessments, particularly with regard to the obligation for transit countries to re-admit not just their own nationals but also foreigners who have passed through their country on the way to the Union. These people could find themselves left in no-man's-land, exacerbating the situation in transit countries and putting them at serious risk of human rights violations; |
| --- | --- |

52.

believes that readmission agreements must be subject to periodic assessments, particularly with regard to the obligation for transit countries to re-admit not just their own nationals but also foreigners who have passed through their country on the way to the Union. These people could find themselves left in no-man's-land, exacerbating the situation in transit countries and putting them at serious risk of human rights violations;

External dimension of asylum

| 53. | considers that strengthening third countries' asylum systems must not be seen as a way to avoid recognising the right to international protection in the EU; |
| --- | --- |

53.

considers that strengthening third countries' asylum systems must not be seen as a way to avoid recognising the right to international protection in the EU;

| 54. | welcomes the fact that, in regional protection programmes, the Union has acted in conjunction with the UNHCR, although the protection provided by the Union is greater than that recognised by the Geneva Convention on Refugees, since it also includes subsidiary protection and protection against treatment violating the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

54.

welcomes the fact that, in regional protection programmes, the Union has acted in conjunction with the UNHCR, although the protection provided by the Union is greater than that recognised by the Geneva Convention on Refugees, since it also includes subsidiary protection and protection against treatment violating the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

| 55. | considers that the Union's action must never be aimed at preventing asylum seekers from leaving a country in order to seek protection in an EU Member State; |
| --- | --- |

55.

considers that the Union's action must never be aimed at preventing asylum seekers from leaving a country in order to seek protection in an EU Member State;

| 56. | believes that the Dublin II regulation must be revised, particularly in view of the clear criticism from the Court of Justice of the European Union, in order to guarantee effective solidarity between the Member States, while fully respecting human rights, including the right to family reunification; |
| --- | --- |

56.

believes that the Dublin II regulation must be revised, particularly in view of the clear criticism from the Court of Justice of the European Union, in order to guarantee effective solidarity between the Member States, while fully respecting human rights, including the right to family reunification;

| 57. | calls on the Commission to include clauses to protect asylum seekers and refugees in mobility partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

57.

calls on the Commission to include clauses to protect asylum seekers and refugees in mobility partnerships;

| 58. | urges the institutions, together with the Member States, to make the sea search and rescue system more effective, in particular by improving coordination and setting common criteria for identifying the most appropriate safe location for rescued migrants to disembark; |
| --- | --- |

58.

urges the institutions, together with the Member States, to make the sea search and rescue system more effective, in particular by improving coordination and setting common criteria for identifying the most appropriate safe location for rescued migrants to disembark;

Final considerations

| 59. | calls on the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to keep open the debate on the four pillars of the global approach, so that all potential stakeholders can be fully involved in its implementation; |
| --- | --- |

59.

calls on the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to keep open the debate on the four pillars of the global approach, so that all potential stakeholders can be fully involved in its implementation;

| 60. | calls in particular for regional and local authorities to be taken fully into account in the implementation of the global approach, building on existing decentralised cooperation projects and structured dialogues, such as ARLEM and CORLEAP; |
| --- | --- |

60.

calls in particular for regional and local authorities to be taken fully into account in the implementation of the global approach, building on existing decentralised cooperation projects and structured dialogues, such as ARLEM and CORLEAP;

| 61. | calls on the European Commission to continue its analysis of the causes and characteristics of migration worldwide, with a view to devising effective strategies for dealing with it which are based on solidarity with third countries; |
| --- | --- |

61.

calls on the European Commission to continue its analysis of the causes and characteristics of migration worldwide, with a view to devising effective strategies for dealing with it which are based on solidarity with third countries;

| 62. | deplores policies which criminalise migrants and welcomes measures to combat the criminal networks to which they fall victim; |
| --- | --- |

62.

deplores policies which criminalise migrants and welcomes measures to combat the criminal networks to which they fall victim;

| 63. | calls for a policy to combat irregular immigration which is not based solely on border controls and the interception of migrants on departure, but also on effective legal entry opportunities which are also open to less-skilled workers, taking into account the specificities of the individual Member States. |
| --- | --- |

63.

calls for a policy to combat irregular immigration which is not based solely on border controls and the interception of migrants on departure, but also on effective legal entry opportunities which are also open to less-skilled workers, taking into account the specificities of the individual Member States.

Brussels, 18 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 2(2) of Protocol 4 to the ECHR; Article 12(2) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

1

(2)  Resolution of the European Parliament P6_TA(2006)0319 on Development and Migration adopted on 6 July 2006.

2

(3)  CoR Opinion ENVE-V-008 on The role of regional and local authorities in promoting the sustainable management of water, 30 June–1 July 2011, point 14; ARLEM SUDEV opinion on The link between desertification and climate change in the Mediterranean, 31 January 2012.

3

The role of regional and local authorities in promoting the sustainable management of water

The link between desertification and climate change in the Mediterranean

(4)  http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4a5096.html.

4

(5)  Communication on migration, COM(2011) 248, p. 21.

5

(6)  Opinion CONST-IV-017 on A Common immigration policy for Europe, adopted at the plenary session of 26-27 November 2008, rapporteur: Mr Jostmeier.

6

A Common immigration policy for Europe

(7)  CoR opinion CONST-IV-017 on A Common immigration policy for Europe, 26-27 November 2008, point 5.

7

A Common immigration policy for Europe

(8)  The Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (COM(2011) 290) is based entirely on this approach.

8

Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

(9)  Draft CoR opinion on The renewed EU agenda for integration, point 60; draft CIVEX opinion on The right to family reunification, rapporteur: Mr Soave, point 11.

9

The renewed EU agenda for integration

The right to family reunification

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/12

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum’

2012/C 277/03

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

| — | points to the capital importance of asylum as a human right, but also as an achievement of civilisation, enshrined in international legal documents such as the Geneva Convention, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and in the legislation of all the Member States bar none, the cornerstone of the asylum system being the principle of non-refoulement; |
| --- | --- |

—

points to the capital importance of asylum as a human right, but also as an achievement of civilisation, enshrined in international legal documents such as the Geneva Convention, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and in the legislation of all the Member States bar none, the cornerstone of the asylum system being the principle of non-refoulement;

| — | points out that with reference to Article 80 TFEU, solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility together form the institutional concepts governing the whole range of European policies which, in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), cover the movement of persons, in this case, the management and crossing of external borders, asylum and international protection and immigration. This article provides an adequate legal basis for European legislative measures aimed at increasing solidarity and encouraging the fair sharing of responsibilities; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that with reference to Article 80 TFEU, solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility together form the institutional concepts governing the whole range of European policies which, in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), cover the movement of persons, in this case, the management and crossing of external borders, asylum and international protection and immigration. This article provides an adequate legal basis for European legislative measures aimed at increasing solidarity and encouraging the fair sharing of responsibilities;

| — | points out that the current situation shows that in matters of asylum, practical solidarity is needed between the EU and the Member States and expresses its conviction that it will not be possible to achieve a common and high level of international protection for those seeking international protection or entitled to it unless mechanisms are in place that take account of the major disparities between the individual Member States, in terms both of the number of third-country nationals they receive on their soil and of the financial, technical and other options available for managing these migratory flows; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that the current situation shows that in matters of asylum, practical solidarity is needed between the EU and the Member States and expresses its conviction that it will not be possible to achieve a common and high level of international protection for those seeking international protection or entitled to it unless mechanisms are in place that take account of the major disparities between the individual Member States, in terms both of the number of third-country nationals they receive on their soil and of the financial, technical and other options available for managing these migratory flows;

| — | underlines the local and regional dimension of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities in terms of political asylum, and points out that local authorities play a major role in informing their citizens and that they can help raise awareness regarding questions of asylum and international protection, thereby positively influencing the way the local community receives and accepts incomers; |
| --- | --- |

—

underlines the local and regional dimension of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities in terms of political asylum, and points out that local authorities play a major role in informing their citizens and that they can help raise awareness regarding questions of asylum and international protection, thereby positively influencing the way the local community receives and accepts incomers;

| Rapporteur | Theodoros GKOTSOPOULOS (EL/PES), Municipal Councillor, Pallini, Attica |
| --- | --- |
| Reference | Communication from the Commission on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum – An EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust
  COM(2011) 835 final |

Rapporteur

Theodoros GKOTSOPOULOS (EL/PES), Municipal Councillor, Pallini, Attica

Reference

Communication from the Commission on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum – An EU agenda for better responsibility-sharing and more mutual trust

COM(2011) 835 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

General comments

| 1. | points out that mixed migration flows are a feature of everyday life in all the EU Member States where they are currently making the headlines, mainly because of the political upheavals in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, but also because of the broader political situation in areas such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Iraq and Iran, which is prompting fresh displacements of people towards Europe. These migration flows are placing a burden to differing degrees on the EU's external borders and, as a consequence, on the asylum facilities of some Member States, thereby generating humanitarian challenges; |
| --- | --- |

1.

points out that mixed migration flows are a feature of everyday life in all the EU Member States where they are currently making the headlines, mainly because of the political upheavals in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, but also because of the broader political situation in areas such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Iraq and Iran, which is prompting fresh displacements of people towards Europe. These migration flows are placing a burden to differing degrees on the EU's external borders and, as a consequence, on the asylum facilities of some Member States, thereby generating humanitarian challenges;

| 2. | emphasises that the acute economic crisis affecting the EU's Mediterranean countries in particular, which are receiving a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, and their subsequent inability to manage this issue as effectively as is needed, are negative factors in terms of taking the situation in hand and are worsening an already bleak situation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

emphasises that the acute economic crisis affecting the EU's Mediterranean countries in particular, which are receiving a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, and their subsequent inability to manage this issue as effectively as is needed, are negative factors in terms of taking the situation in hand and are worsening an already bleak situation;

| 3. | deems it necessary to draw up a meaningful common European migration and asylum policy, in accordance with the provisions of the Stockholm programme. It should be anchored in an integrated approach, based partly on the effective management of legal immigration and combating illegal immigration, but also and above all on strengthening asylum systems; |
| --- | --- |

3.

deems it necessary to draw up a meaningful common European migration and asylum policy, in accordance with the provisions of the Stockholm programme. It should be anchored in an integrated approach, based partly on the effective management of legal immigration and combating illegal immigration, but also and above all on strengthening asylum systems;

| 4. | points to the capital importance of asylum as a human right, but also as an achievement of civilisation, enshrined in international legal documents such as the Geneva Convention, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and in the legislation of all the Member States bar none, the cornerstone of the asylum system being the principle of non-refoulement; |
| --- | --- |

4.

points to the capital importance of asylum as a human right, but also as an achievement of civilisation, enshrined in international legal documents such as the Geneva Convention, the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and in the legislation of all the Member States bar none, the cornerstone of the asylum system being the principle of non-refoulement;

| 5. | refers to the rights associated with the right to asylum, i.e. the right to dignity, the prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment, the protection to be given in the event of removal or expulsion, separation or extradition and the right to effective remedy and fair judgment, together with the right to family reunification; |
| --- | --- |

5.

refers to the rights associated with the right to asylum, i.e. the right to dignity, the prohibition of torture and inhumane treatment, the protection to be given in the event of removal or expulsion, separation or extradition and the right to effective remedy and fair judgment, together with the right to family reunification;

| 6. | recognises that progress has been made in establishing a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) but believes that it is necessary to repeat the call made by the Stockholm programme for this to be completed by 2012 and to call on the Member States, the Council and the European Parliament to demonstrate the political commitment needed to conclude negotiations on reviewing the directives governing reception conditions and asylum procedures, together with the reform of the Dublin Regulation and the Eurodac system; |
| --- | --- |

6.

recognises that progress has been made in establishing a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) but believes that it is necessary to repeat the call made by the Stockholm programme for this to be completed by 2012 and to call on the Member States, the Council and the European Parliament to demonstrate the political commitment needed to conclude negotiations on reviewing the directives governing reception conditions and asylum procedures, together with the reform of the Dublin Regulation and the Eurodac system;

| 7. | stresses that it is intended that the CEAS be guided in its action by the practical defence of the rights of individuals who need international protection and not just by the desire for security in the narrow sense of the term or to safeguard national sovereignty; |
| --- | --- |

7.

stresses that it is intended that the CEAS be guided in its action by the practical defence of the rights of individuals who need international protection and not just by the desire for security in the narrow sense of the term or to safeguard national sovereignty;

| 8. | wishes to affirm that a truly common asylum system is based on uniform rights and procedures across the whole of the EU, in order to eliminate the risk of major disparities in the way such cases are handled, and therefore approves of the efforts being made to amend existing legislation with a view to moving towards the introduction of common rules rather than minimum standards; |
| --- | --- |

8.

wishes to affirm that a truly common asylum system is based on uniform rights and procedures across the whole of the EU, in order to eliminate the risk of major disparities in the way such cases are handled, and therefore approves of the efforts being made to amend existing legislation with a view to moving towards the introduction of common rules rather than minimum standards;

| 9. | points to the recent rulings by the courts in Strasbourg and Luxembourg (1) which, more than anything else, highlight (a) the major shortcomings in existing legal arrangements and more specifically, the Dublin Regulation and (b) the loopholes which, in the current tense climate, seriously threaten the protection of the rights of those seeking international protection and which stem from differences in the political, legal and practical approaches pursued by the various Member States. These rulings underline the need to establish a common European asylum system in due and proper form and, as part of this undertaking, to strengthen the Dublin Regulation with provisions that address the causes of the crises and thereby ensure that the shortcomings inherent in the individual Member States' systems do not have damaging effects, either on the systems as a whole, or on the protection of human rights; |
| --- | --- |

9.

points to the recent rulings by the courts in Strasbourg and Luxembourg (1) which, more than anything else, highlight (a) the major shortcomings in existing legal arrangements and more specifically, the Dublin Regulation and (b) the loopholes which, in the current tense climate, seriously threaten the protection of the rights of those seeking international protection and which stem from differences in the political, legal and practical approaches pursued by the various Member States. These rulings underline the need to establish a common European asylum system in due and proper form and, as part of this undertaking, to strengthen the Dublin Regulation with provisions that address the causes of the crises and thereby ensure that the shortcomings inherent in the individual Member States' systems do not have damaging effects, either on the systems as a whole, or on the protection of human rights;

| 10. | feels that, faced with the scale of migration, major changes must be made to EU asylum policy and that the need to implement effective policies and methods is becoming urgent; |
| --- | --- |

10.

feels that, faced with the scale of migration, major changes must be made to EU asylum policy and that the need to implement effective policies and methods is becoming urgent;

| 11. | points out that with reference to Article 80 TFEU, solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility together form the institutional concepts governing the whole range of European policies which, in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), cover the movement of persons, in this case, the management and crossing of external borders, asylum and international protection and immigration. This article provides an adequate legal basis for European legislative measures aimed at increasing solidarity and encouraging the fair sharing of responsibilities; |
| --- | --- |

11.

points out that with reference to Article 80 TFEU, solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility together form the institutional concepts governing the whole range of European policies which, in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), cover the movement of persons, in this case, the management and crossing of external borders, asylum and international protection and immigration. This article provides an adequate legal basis for European legislative measures aimed at increasing solidarity and encouraging the fair sharing of responsibilities;

| 12. | recognises that solidarity is closely linked to responsibility and encourages all Member States to put their own house in order by honouring and enforcing the commitments they have made at international and EU levels. Nevertheless, the Committee emphasises that a narrow concept of responsibility must not be set up as a prerequisite for solidarity in legal or practical terms; there are cases in which a practical show of solidarity can be useful in helping to ensure compliance with commitments; |
| --- | --- |

12.

recognises that solidarity is closely linked to responsibility and encourages all Member States to put their own house in order by honouring and enforcing the commitments they have made at international and EU levels. Nevertheless, the Committee emphasises that a narrow concept of responsibility must not be set up as a prerequisite for solidarity in legal or practical terms; there are cases in which a practical show of solidarity can be useful in helping to ensure compliance with commitments;

| 13. | points out that the current situation shows that in matters of asylum, practical solidarity, as set out in Article 80 TFUE, is needed between the EU and the Member States and expresses its conviction that it will not be possible to achieve a common and high level of international protection for those seeking international protection or entitled to it unless mechanisms are in place that take account of the major disparities between the individual Member States, in terms both of the number of third-country nationals they receive on their soil - whether they be economic migrants or applicants for international protection – and of the financial, technical and other options available for managing these migratory flows; |
| --- | --- |

13.

points out that the current situation shows that in matters of asylum, practical solidarity, as set out in Article 80 TFUE, is needed between the EU and the Member States and expresses its conviction that it will not be possible to achieve a common and high level of international protection for those seeking international protection or entitled to it unless mechanisms are in place that take account of the major disparities between the individual Member States, in terms both of the number of third-country nationals they receive on their soil - whether they be economic migrants or applicants for international protection – and of the financial, technical and other options available for managing these migratory flows;

| 14. | notes that the Commission communication provides an analytical description of the current situation and lists the tools available for enhancing solidarity, but nevertheless laments the absence of proposals for positive measures to encourage solidarity and make it easier to share responsibilities; |
| --- | --- |

14.

notes that the Commission communication provides an analytical description of the current situation and lists the tools available for enhancing solidarity, but nevertheless laments the absence of proposals for positive measures to encourage solidarity and make it easier to share responsibilities;

| 15. | welcomes the Council initiative to establish a ‘common framework for solidarity towards Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems, including through mixed migration flows’ (2); |
| --- | --- |

15.

welcomes the Council initiative to establish a ‘common framework for solidarity towards Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems, including through mixed migration flows’ (2);

| 16. | nevertheless emphasises that positive measures to encourage solidarity and shared responsibilities would mean stricter observance of human rights and the concepts of justice, fairness, cooperation and political involvement. These provisions would need to comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

16.

nevertheless emphasises that positive measures to encourage solidarity and shared responsibilities would mean stricter observance of human rights and the concepts of justice, fairness, cooperation and political involvement. These provisions would need to comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

| 17. | points out in this respect that it is not possible to consider the European Commission's communication entirely in terms of complying with the subsidiarity principle, insofar as it essentially describes the way in which the existing instruments and EU legislation can help enhance solidarity. However, to the extent that it refers to possible future initiatives, relating, for example, to programmes for relocating recognised refugees, or regulations for jointly considering asylum requests where there are grounds for believing that they would have repercussions on matters which had hitherto been closely linked with questions of Member States' national sovereignty (such as considering asylum applications or the reception of asylum seekers) and which could have broader political, legal or financial implications, the Committee calls on the European Commission to pay the due and necessary attention to their drafting; |
| --- | --- |

17.

points out in this respect that it is not possible to consider the European Commission's communication entirely in terms of complying with the subsidiarity principle, insofar as it essentially describes the way in which the existing instruments and EU legislation can help enhance solidarity. However, to the extent that it refers to possible future initiatives, relating, for example, to programmes for relocating recognised refugees, or regulations for jointly considering asylum requests where there are grounds for believing that they would have repercussions on matters which had hitherto been closely linked with questions of Member States' national sovereignty (such as considering asylum applications or the reception of asylum seekers) and which could have broader political, legal or financial implications, the Committee calls on the European Commission to pay the due and necessary attention to their drafting;

| 18. | points out that the concept of solidarity also has an external component which, in this case, relates to the solidarity between the EU and other regions of the world affected by humanitarian crises and which, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), take in the overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking international protection. It is therefore essential for Member States to work with third countries on development cooperation in an attempt to create better economic and social conditions and to consolidate peace. However, support for third-country asylum systems cannot be considered as a means of avoiding granting the right to international protection within the EU or of transferring procedures outside its borders, but must be seen simply as a tool for improving economic and social conditions in third countries; |
| --- | --- |

18.

points out that the concept of solidarity also has an external component which, in this case, relates to the solidarity between the EU and other regions of the world affected by humanitarian crises and which, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), take in the overwhelming majority of refugees and those seeking international protection. It is therefore essential for Member States to work with third countries on development cooperation in an attempt to create better economic and social conditions and to consolidate peace. However, support for third-country asylum systems cannot be considered as a means of avoiding granting the right to international protection within the EU or of transferring procedures outside its borders, but must be seen simply as a tool for improving economic and social conditions in third countries;

| 19. | calls on the relevant institutions and the EU Member States to do more to actively urge the countries bordering the EU to meet the obligations they assume both under international law and vis-à-vis the EU and the Member States, particularly relating to countries that have reached readmission agreements with the EU; |
| --- | --- |

19.

calls on the relevant institutions and the EU Member States to do more to actively urge the countries bordering the EU to meet the obligations they assume both under international law and vis-à-vis the EU and the Member States, particularly relating to countries that have reached readmission agreements with the EU;

The role of local and regional authorities

| 20. | emphasises the local and regional dimension of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities in terms of political asylum. Local and regional authorities situated close to the EU's external borders particularly find themselves on the front line as regards implementing European asylum legislation and the CEAS. The same applies to municipal authorities and major conurbations, which record a constant increase in flows of refugees and asylum seekers. Local and regional authorities play an important role in the reception of asylum seekers, refugees and beneficiaries of international protection and, in some Member States, are responsible for initial contacts with the new arrivals; |
| --- | --- |

20.

emphasises the local and regional dimension of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities in terms of political asylum. Local and regional authorities situated close to the EU's external borders particularly find themselves on the front line as regards implementing European asylum legislation and the CEAS. The same applies to municipal authorities and major conurbations, which record a constant increase in flows of refugees and asylum seekers. Local and regional authorities play an important role in the reception of asylum seekers, refugees and beneficiaries of international protection and, in some Member States, are responsible for initial contacts with the new arrivals;

| 21. | underlines that, despite the well-established role they play, local and regional authorities are not included at all in the concepts of solidarity and the sharing of responsibilities, which at present apply only to the Member States. Furthermore, programming and discussions at political level only take account of the financial impact on Member States and not the repercussions for social cohesion felt at local and regional levels when receiving third country nationals, whereas it is the regional authorities that are called upon in the first instance to deal with the issue; |
| --- | --- |

21.

underlines that, despite the well-established role they play, local and regional authorities are not included at all in the concepts of solidarity and the sharing of responsibilities, which at present apply only to the Member States. Furthermore, programming and discussions at political level only take account of the financial impact on Member States and not the repercussions for social cohesion felt at local and regional levels when receiving third country nationals, whereas it is the regional authorities that are called upon in the first instance to deal with the issue;

| 22. | consequently plans to directly draft positions and proposals calling for local and regional authorities to be able to be actively involved in the arrangements for relocating refugees and in operating the mechanisms for delivering help, support and solidarity for people seeking the right to asylum or who have been granted it; indeed, in some Member States, legislative measures have already been adopted which recognise this type of responsibility for regional governments; |
| --- | --- |

22.

consequently plans to directly draft positions and proposals calling for local and regional authorities to be able to be actively involved in the arrangements for relocating refugees and in operating the mechanisms for delivering help, support and solidarity for people seeking the right to asylum or who have been granted it; indeed, in some Member States, legislative measures have already been adopted which recognise this type of responsibility for regional governments;

| 23. | points out that local authorities play a major role in informing their citizens and that, with their long and remarkable history of cooperation with NGOs and civil society organisations they can help raise awareness regarding questions of asylum and international protection, thereby positively influencing the way the local community receives and accepts incomers; |
| --- | --- |

23.

points out that local authorities play a major role in informing their citizens and that, with their long and remarkable history of cooperation with NGOs and civil society organisations they can help raise awareness regarding questions of asylum and international protection, thereby positively influencing the way the local community receives and accepts incomers;

Better shared responsibilities and governance for asylum

| 24. | stresses the need to thoroughly overhaul the Dublin Regulation, within the framework of the European Commission's 2008 proposal (3). To date, merely the fact of implementing the criterion of the first point of entry in the Union has helped to increase tensions in certain Member States' asylum systems and means that implementing this regulation is simply a matter of geographic location, which makes a mockery of the concept of solidarity. The Committee therefore urges Member States, the Council and the European Parliament to draw up a new procedure for crisis management and examine some positive solidarity measures likely to mitigate the harmful consequences these arrangements have so far had; |
| --- | --- |

24.

stresses the need to thoroughly overhaul the Dublin Regulation, within the framework of the European Commission's 2008 proposal (3). To date, merely the fact of implementing the criterion of the first point of entry in the Union has helped to increase tensions in certain Member States' asylum systems and means that implementing this regulation is simply a matter of geographic location, which makes a mockery of the concept of solidarity. The Committee therefore urges Member States, the Council and the European Parliament to draw up a new procedure for crisis management and examine some positive solidarity measures likely to mitigate the harmful consequences these arrangements have so far had;

| 25. | recalls that in a previous opinion (4), it had welcomed the European Commission's proposal that transfers of those seeking international protection under the terms of the revised Dublin Regulation should be temporarily suspended when a Member State is faced with a particularly urgent situation which might place an increased burden on its reception facilities or asylum infrastructure. However, it completely understands the difficulty involved in gaining acceptance for and implementing such a measure and appreciates the relevance of the counter-proposal advocating the creation of an early warning and assessment mechanism that would cover all operational aspects of the Member States' asylum systems; |
| --- | --- |

25.

recalls that in a previous opinion (4), it had welcomed the European Commission's proposal that transfers of those seeking international protection under the terms of the revised Dublin Regulation should be temporarily suspended when a Member State is faced with a particularly urgent situation which might place an increased burden on its reception facilities or asylum infrastructure. However, it completely understands the difficulty involved in gaining acceptance for and implementing such a measure and appreciates the relevance of the counter-proposal advocating the creation of an early warning and assessment mechanism that would cover all operational aspects of the Member States' asylum systems;

| 26. | given the comments above, considers it appropriate to emphasise that the effectiveness of this proposed early warning and assessment mechanism will depend to a large extent on the availability of reliable and up-to-date information, sound cooperation between the Member States and the EU's ability to make good any shortcomings and rectify as quickly as possible any potential problems flagged up. Moreover, the Committee draws attention to the invaluable help that might be provided by organisations such as the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and national refugee councils, together with other NGOs and, above all, local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

26.

given the comments above, considers it appropriate to emphasise that the effectiveness of this proposed early warning and assessment mechanism will depend to a large extent on the availability of reliable and up-to-date information, sound cooperation between the Member States and the EU's ability to make good any shortcomings and rectify as quickly as possible any potential problems flagged up. Moreover, the Committee draws attention to the invaluable help that might be provided by organisations such as the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and national refugee councils, together with other NGOs and, above all, local and regional authorities;

| 27. | believes that the proposal to extend the voluntary relocation of recognised refugees, using the pilot programme operated in Malta as a model, is a positive step towards enhancing solidarity. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission and the Member States to consider the possibility that such relocation might become mandatory under certain circumstances (for example, when requested by the Member State in question, or when a conclusion to this effect has been reached previously in the context of the early warning mechanism and the European Asylum Support Office has given its opinion on the matter, or even when the persons in question agree to the measure). It calls on the European Commission and the Member States to seriously consider whether those seeking international protection might also be the subject of relocation and, accordingly, calls on the European Commission to review the legal, economic and technical study that has been carried out (5); |
| --- | --- |

27.

believes that the proposal to extend the voluntary relocation of recognised refugees, using the pilot programme operated in Malta as a model, is a positive step towards enhancing solidarity. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission and the Member States to consider the possibility that such relocation might become mandatory under certain circumstances (for example, when requested by the Member State in question, or when a conclusion to this effect has been reached previously in the context of the early warning mechanism and the European Asylum Support Office has given its opinion on the matter, or even when the persons in question agree to the measure). It calls on the European Commission and the Member States to seriously consider whether those seeking international protection might also be the subject of relocation and, accordingly, calls on the European Commission to review the legal, economic and technical study that has been carried out (5);

| 28. | notes that practical and legal difficulties have been observed with regard to relocation due to the lack of a system for the mutual recognition of international protection decisions; for this reason calls on the European Commission to consider the necessary measures to address the situation; |
| --- | --- |

28.

notes that practical and legal difficulties have been observed with regard to relocation due to the lack of a system for the mutual recognition of international protection decisions; for this reason calls on the European Commission to consider the necessary measures to address the situation;

| 29. | agrees with the UNHCR's proposal for establishing a ‘formula’ for ensuring that a relocation system works and takes account of aspects such as the GDP of the country concerned, its surface area, its natural and other resources, its population, reception facilities, the total number of arrivals requesting asylum and its resettlement commitments, to list just a few criteria (6); |
| --- | --- |

29.

agrees with the UNHCR's proposal for establishing a ‘formula’ for ensuring that a relocation system works and takes account of aspects such as the GDP of the country concerned, its surface area, its natural and other resources, its population, reception facilities, the total number of arrivals requesting asylum and its resettlement commitments, to list just a few criteria (6);

| 30. | welcomes the recent decision of the European Parliament leading to the conclusion of the common European resettlement programme, which it feels will help enhance the external dimension of solidarity, and calls on Member States to honour the commitments they have entered into as part of the UNHCR's programmes in the meantime; |
| --- | --- |

30.

welcomes the recent decision of the European Parliament leading to the conclusion of the common European resettlement programme, which it feels will help enhance the external dimension of solidarity, and calls on Member States to honour the commitments they have entered into as part of the UNHCR's programmes in the meantime;

| 31. | welcomes the prospect of a joint examination of asylum applications involving as many Member States as possible, the EASO and possibly the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, whilst nevertheless pointing out that this must be done in compliance with the principle that those requesting international protection must be examined individually. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission to carry out a legal, economic and technical study and to inform it of the findings; |
| --- | --- |

31.

welcomes the prospect of a joint examination of asylum applications involving as many Member States as possible, the EASO and possibly the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, whilst nevertheless pointing out that this must be done in compliance with the principle that those requesting international protection must be examined individually. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission to carry out a legal, economic and technical study and to inform it of the findings;

| 32. | also considers that Directive 2001/55/EC, which provides for a specific and exceptional solidarity measure to give temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and to ensure a balance of efforts between Member States, is of the utmost importance, even though it has not been implemented to date. The Committee therefore considers it appropriate to revise the Directive so that it is easier to determine, on the basis of objective and quantitative criteria, that a mass influx of displaced persons is actually taking place, and to consider, moreover, whether the system might be triggered by a request to this effect from one or several regions; |
| --- | --- |

32.

also considers that Directive 2001/55/EC, which provides for a specific and exceptional solidarity measure to give temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and to ensure a balance of efforts between Member States, is of the utmost importance, even though it has not been implemented to date. The Committee therefore considers it appropriate to revise the Directive so that it is easier to determine, on the basis of objective and quantitative criteria, that a mass influx of displaced persons is actually taking place, and to consider, moreover, whether the system might be triggered by a request to this effect from one or several regions;

| 33. | welcomes the fact that Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of long-term residents has been amended so that it also covers beneficiaries of international protection. In practice, this extension will mean that after a five-year residence period and subject to certain conditions, recognised refugees will be able to settle in a Member State other than that which first conferred international protection. Although this does not, strictly speaking, constitute a solidarity measure, this decision could conceivably help to reduce pressure and improve integration. The Committee accordingly calls on Member States to swiftly transpose amending directive 2011/51/EU (7) into their national legislation; |
| --- | --- |

33.

welcomes the fact that Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of long-term residents has been amended so that it also covers beneficiaries of international protection. In practice, this extension will mean that after a five-year residence period and subject to certain conditions, recognised refugees will be able to settle in a Member State other than that which first conferred international protection. Although this does not, strictly speaking, constitute a solidarity measure, this decision could conceivably help to reduce pressure and improve integration. The Committee accordingly calls on Member States to swiftly transpose amending directive 2011/51/EU (7) into their national legislation;

Cooperation on the ground

| 34. | notes that practical cooperation is a basic pillar of the CEAS and welcomes the substantial contribution made by EU bodies, one of the foremost of which is the EASO, and also Frontex, which helps to deal with certain practical situations of an exceptional nature, for example in the cases of Malta and Greece, whilst pointing out that the actions of these specialised bodies must be accompanied by guarantees for maintaining the rights of those seeking international protection; |
| --- | --- |

34.

notes that practical cooperation is a basic pillar of the CEAS and welcomes the substantial contribution made by EU bodies, one of the foremost of which is the EASO, and also Frontex, which helps to deal with certain practical situations of an exceptional nature, for example in the cases of Malta and Greece, whilst pointing out that the actions of these specialised bodies must be accompanied by guarantees for maintaining the rights of those seeking international protection;

| 35. | believes that it is particularly important to avoid practices that result in making it impossible to exercise the right to apply for asylum. The Committee consequently calls on Frontex to focus more clearly on respect for human rights when undertaking the tasks conferred on it in terms of protecting the EU's external borders. It considers that a first step has been taken in this direction with the recent amendment of the regulation establishing Frontex, which makes it compulsory for this body to draw up a fundamental rights strategy, set up an advisory forum and create a post with responsibility for fundamental rights (8). In this respect, it recognises the role likely to be played by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), which has already looked into the human rights situation at the EU's external borders (9), and encourages it to broaden its investigations in this area and to allow Frontex and the EASO to benefit from its advice and know-how; |
| --- | --- |

35.

believes that it is particularly important to avoid practices that result in making it impossible to exercise the right to apply for asylum. The Committee consequently calls on Frontex to focus more clearly on respect for human rights when undertaking the tasks conferred on it in terms of protecting the EU's external borders. It considers that a first step has been taken in this direction with the recent amendment of the regulation establishing Frontex, which makes it compulsory for this body to draw up a fundamental rights strategy, set up an advisory forum and create a post with responsibility for fundamental rights (8). In this respect, it recognises the role likely to be played by the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), which has already looked into the human rights situation at the EU's external borders (9), and encourages it to broaden its investigations in this area and to allow Frontex and the EASO to benefit from its advice and know-how;

| 36. | underlines the need to enhance the EASO's operational capabilities in order to render it more effective in assisting local and regional authorities with its immediate support, expertise and technical know-how and calls for a closer involvement of LRAs in the EASO's consultative forum; welcomes the European Commission's stated intention to assess the effects of the EASO's activities in 2013 and expresses its desire to be involved in this initiative; |
| --- | --- |

36.

underlines the need to enhance the EASO's operational capabilities in order to render it more effective in assisting local and regional authorities with its immediate support, expertise and technical know-how and calls for a closer involvement of LRAs in the EASO's consultative forum; welcomes the European Commission's stated intention to assess the effects of the EASO's activities in 2013 and expresses its desire to be involved in this initiative;

| 37. | deems education to be of supreme importance as a more specific practical cooperation measure on the part of the EASO and insists on the possibility of greater practical harmonisation that will finalise and comprehensively implement the European asylum curriculum. With this in mind, the Committee proposes that the EASO create training programmes that could be useful for officials in local and regional administrations when they are involved in receiving those seeking international protection; |
| --- | --- |

37.

deems education to be of supreme importance as a more specific practical cooperation measure on the part of the EASO and insists on the possibility of greater practical harmonisation that will finalise and comprehensively implement the European asylum curriculum. With this in mind, the Committee proposes that the EASO create training programmes that could be useful for officials in local and regional administrations when they are involved in receiving those seeking international protection;

Economic and financial solidarity

| 38. | recognises that the EU has created a range of useful instruments over the past few years, the foremost of which is the European Refugee Fund, which enables Member States to implement European asylum policy more effectively; |
| --- | --- |

38.

recognises that the EU has created a range of useful instruments over the past few years, the foremost of which is the European Refugee Fund, which enables Member States to implement European asylum policy more effectively;

| 39. | welcomes the proposed simplification in the architecture of the European funding mechanisms for asylum and migration through the proposal to create a Fund for migration and asylum, which will have a budget of EUR 3,87 billion for the integrated management of migratory flows and will cover various aspects of the common asylum and migration policy over the period 2014-2020. The Committee hopes that this development will go hand in hand with a streamlining of procedures; |
| --- | --- |

39.

welcomes the proposed simplification in the architecture of the European funding mechanisms for asylum and migration through the proposal to create a Fund for migration and asylum, which will have a budget of EUR 3,87 billion for the integrated management of migratory flows and will cover various aspects of the common asylum and migration policy over the period 2014-2020. The Committee hopes that this development will go hand in hand with a streamlining of procedures;

| 40. | stresses the need for sufficient funding to be allocated to measures to enhance solidarity, which could involve supporting the efforts agreed for improving the basic conditions of asylum systems when necessary, giving practical assistance to Member States and regions under exceptional pressure or implementing relocation or resettlement programmes; |
| --- | --- |

40.

stresses the need for sufficient funding to be allocated to measures to enhance solidarity, which could involve supporting the efforts agreed for improving the basic conditions of asylum systems when necessary, giving practical assistance to Member States and regions under exceptional pressure or implementing relocation or resettlement programmes;

| 41. | emphasises that it is essential that the funding allocated to asylum and international protection match the EU's international commitments so that a due and proper balance may be created between expenditure on security and border management and spending on areas such as reception conditions for asylum seekers, which are areas in which local and regional authorities can provide significant added value; |
| --- | --- |

41.

emphasises that it is essential that the funding allocated to asylum and international protection match the EU's international commitments so that a due and proper balance may be created between expenditure on security and border management and spending on areas such as reception conditions for asylum seekers, which are areas in which local and regional authorities can provide significant added value;

| 42. | urges the European Commission and the Member States to do their utmost to fully implement the principle of partnership on which the operation of the Fund is based, so as to guarantee that all local and regional stakeholders are involved in identifying funding priorities and assessing the initiatives undertaken; this implementation should adhere to the implementing framework laid down in Chapter IV of the proposed regulation laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund (COM(2011) 752 final); |
| --- | --- |

42.

urges the European Commission and the Member States to do their utmost to fully implement the principle of partnership on which the operation of the Fund is based, so as to guarantee that all local and regional stakeholders are involved in identifying funding priorities and assessing the initiatives undertaken; this implementation should adhere to the implementing framework laid down in Chapter IV of the proposed regulation laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund (COM(2011) 752 final);

| 43. | therefore calls on each Member State to make provision for representatives from their local and regional authorities to be involved in the political dialogue for establishing the Fund's annual priorities (10). |
| --- | --- |

43.

therefore calls on each Member State to make provision for representatives from their local and regional authorities to be involved in the political dialogue for establishing the Fund's annual priorities (10).

Brussels, 18 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  In the case M.S.S v Belgium and Greece, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 21 January 2011 and in the case N. S. v the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department and others, judgment of the European Court of Justice on 21 December 2011 on the joined cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 regarding references for a preliminary ruling.

1

(2)  3151st Justice and Home Affairs Council, Brussels, 8 March 2012.

2

(3)  COM(2008) 820 final.

3

(4)  CdR 90/2009, The future Common European Asylum System II.

4

(5)  Study on the feasibility of establishing a mechanism for the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection, point 27, JLS/2009/ERFX/PR/1005 – 70092056:

5

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/asylum/docs/final_report_relocation_of_refugees.pdf.

(6)  The challenges of mixed migration, access to protection and responsibility-sharing in the EU – UNHCR non-paper, paragraph 28: http://www.unhcr.org/4a44dd756.html.

6

(7)  OJ L 132, 19.5.2001, p. 1.

7

(8)  Regulation (EU) 1168/2011, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 1.

8

(9)  Report on Coping with a fundamental rights emergency – The situation of persons crossing the Greek land border in an irregular manner.

9

(10)  Article 13 of the proposal for a regulation laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund, COM(2011) 752 final.

10

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/18

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Future cities: Environmentally and socially sustainable cities’

2012/C 277/04

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | supports the call for holistic strategies for sustainable urban development and for horizontal and vertical cooperation in a participatory governance system that takes account of the diversity of cities and the importance of social innovation and future-oriented planning; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the call for holistic strategies for sustainable urban development and for horizontal and vertical cooperation in a participatory governance system that takes account of the diversity of cities and the importance of social innovation and future-oriented planning;

| — | underlines the need to counter the widening economic and social divisions in our society with investment in education for everyone from early childhood onwards, inclusive labour market measures, lifelong learning, an active integration policy and pay that is fair, meets people’s needs and is equal for women and men; |
| --- | --- |

—

underlines the need to counter the widening economic and social divisions in our society with investment in education for everyone from early childhood onwards, inclusive labour market measures, lifelong learning, an active integration policy and pay that is fair, meets people’s needs and is equal for women and men;

| — | highlights the importance of catering to needs that are vital for society – i.e. providing access to housing, crèches, kindergartens, areas where children can play safely and develop – and which can help remove the barriers to people starting or extending a family; |
| --- | --- |

—

highlights the importance of catering to needs that are vital for society – i.e. providing access to housing, crèches, kindergartens, areas where children can play safely and develop – and which can help remove the barriers to people starting or extending a family;

| — | emphasises the challenges posed by climate change and the need to cut back energy consumption by means of energy recovery processes and improved energy efficiency, interconnected systems, the expansion of green-field sites and open spaces, new construction methods and resource-neutral, health-promoting and safe forms of transport; |
| --- | --- |

—

emphasises the challenges posed by climate change and the need to cut back energy consumption by means of energy recovery processes and improved energy efficiency, interconnected systems, the expansion of green-field sites and open spaces, new construction methods and resource-neutral, health-promoting and safe forms of transport;

| — | highlights the importance of culture and creativity, not only for economic growth, but also for generating a good quality of life, practical democracy, peace and mutual respect; |
| --- | --- |

—

highlights the importance of culture and creativity, not only for economic growth, but also for generating a good quality of life, practical democracy, peace and mutual respect;

| — | stresses the fundamental importance of public participation in shaping policies; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses the fundamental importance of public participation in shaping policies;

| — | deems the European institutions’ various efforts to support cities to be necessary and calls for a clear signal to be sent out in the next funding period to the effect that cities are to be supported through a strong urban dimension, flexibility in resource deployment and a central role for local authorities in the implementation of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

deems the European institutions’ various efforts to support cities to be necessary and calls for a clear signal to be sent out in the next funding period to the effect that cities are to be supported through a strong urban dimension, flexibility in resource deployment and a central role for local authorities in the implementation of cohesion policy;

| — | welcomes the further development of sustainable funding instruments in structural policy which constitute creative, stable funding mechanisms. |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the further development of sustainable funding instruments in structural policy which constitute creative, stable funding mechanisms.

| Rapporteur | Hella DUNGER-LÖPER (DE/PES), Plenipotentiary of the Land of Berlin for Federal and European Affairs |
| --- | --- |

Rapporteur

Hella DUNGER-LÖPER (DE/PES), Plenipotentiary of the Land of Berlin for Federal and European Affairs

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Background and reason for drawing up an opinion

| 1. | appreciates the fact that the Danish presidency of the EU has referred this subject to the Committee for an opinion and also that the presidency played an active part in the 5th Summit of the Regions and Cities, held in Copenhagen on 22 and 23 March 2012, the topic of which was ‘The European urban fabric in the 21st century’, thus expressing recognition of the contribution that cities and regions make to European integration and their key role in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy goals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

appreciates the fact that the Danish presidency of the EU has referred this subject to the Committee for an opinion and also that the presidency played an active part in the 5th Summit of the Regions and Cities, held in Copenhagen on 22 and 23 March 2012, the topic of which was ‘The European urban fabric in the 21st century’, thus expressing recognition of the contribution that cities and regions make to European integration and their key role in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy goals;

| 2. | is interested to note the European Commission’s report on Cities of Tomorrow: Challenges, visions, ways forward (October 2011) and shares the view set out therein that the city of tomorrow will be ‘a place of advanced social progress with a high degree of social cohesion, socially balanced housing as well as social, health and “education for all” Services’, ‘a platform for democracy, cultural dialogue and diversity’, ‘a place of green, ecological or environmental regeneration’ and ‘a place of attraction and an engine of economic growth’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

is interested to note the European Commission’s report on Cities of Tomorrow: Challenges, visions, ways forward (October 2011) and shares the view set out therein that the city of tomorrow will be ‘a place of advanced social progress with a high degree of social cohesion, socially balanced housing as well as social, health and “education for all” Services’, ‘a platform for democracy, cultural dialogue and diversity’, ‘a place of green, ecological or environmental regeneration’ and ‘a place of attraction and an engine of economic growth’;

| 3. | shares the concern expressed in the above-mentioned report about the future of cities, in terms of potential threats from demographic change, negative growth and the weakening links between economic growth, employment and social progress. Further potential threats are to be seen in growing income disparities, increasing social polarisation and segregation and the rising number of ‘dropouts from society’, as well as in urban sprawl and the increasing pressure on urban ecosystems; |
| --- | --- |

3.

shares the concern expressed in the above-mentioned report about the future of cities, in terms of potential threats from demographic change, negative growth and the weakening links between economic growth, employment and social progress. Further potential threats are to be seen in growing income disparities, increasing social polarisation and segregation and the rising number of ‘dropouts from society’, as well as in urban sprawl and the increasing pressure on urban ecosystems;

| 4. | stresses that the European Union as a whole can only achieve the Europe 2020 strategy goals if cities, in their capacity as a locus of social and economic innovation, are in a position to contribute fully to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and to economic, social and territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

4.

stresses that the European Union as a whole can only achieve the Europe 2020 strategy goals if cities, in their capacity as a locus of social and economic innovation, are in a position to contribute fully to smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and to economic, social and territorial cohesion;

| 5. | therefore welcomes the recommendations of the Cities of tomorrow report that cities be strengthened by promoting sustainable local structures to create a resilient, inclusive economy, by making use of the potential offered by different generations and socio-economic, cultural and ethnic diversity and by combating social exclusion and poverty through: improvements to housing; a holistic approach to environmental and energy policy strategies; the creation and upkeep of attractive open public spaces; support for sustainable, inclusive and health-promoting transport systems; and the promotion of balanced territorial development; |
| --- | --- |

5.

therefore welcomes the recommendations of the Cities of tomorrow report that cities be strengthened by promoting sustainable local structures to create a resilient, inclusive economy, by making use of the potential offered by different generations and socio-economic, cultural and ethnic diversity and by combating social exclusion and poverty through: improvements to housing; a holistic approach to environmental and energy policy strategies; the creation and upkeep of attractive open public spaces; support for sustainable, inclusive and health-promoting transport systems; and the promotion of balanced territorial development;

| 6. | supports the call for holistic strategies for sustainable urban development and for horizontal and vertical cooperation in a participatory governance system that includes all levels of government and policy areas and takes account of the diversity of cities and the importance of social innovation and future-oriented planning; |
| --- | --- |

6.

supports the call for holistic strategies for sustainable urban development and for horizontal and vertical cooperation in a participatory governance system that includes all levels of government and policy areas and takes account of the diversity of cities and the importance of social innovation and future-oriented planning;

| 7. | refers to the Committee of the Regions’ Copenhagen Declaration of 23 March 2012, which called for greener, more socially inclusive and more economically competitive cities, urging the EU institutions to embed the Europe 2020 strategy locally, provide adequate financial resources for a cross-cutting urban policy, give greater priority to territorial cooperation between European cities and give cities and regions a bigger role in shaping European policies, undertake more efforts to promote decentralisation in EU Member States and provide cities and regions with more financial leeway; |
| --- | --- |

7.

refers to the Committee of the Regions’ Copenhagen Declaration of 23 March 2012, which called for greener, more socially inclusive and more economically competitive cities, urging the EU institutions to embed the Europe 2020 strategy locally, provide adequate financial resources for a cross-cutting urban policy, give greater priority to territorial cooperation between European cities and give cities and regions a bigger role in shaping European policies, undertake more efforts to promote decentralisation in EU Member States and provide cities and regions with more financial leeway;

| 8. | points out that its opinion on The role of urban regeneration in the future of urban development in Europe of 10 June 2010 advocated strengthening the urban dimension of all European Union policy areas; |
| --- | --- |

8.

points out that its opinion on The role of urban regeneration in the future of urban development in Europe of 10 June 2010 advocated strengthening the urban dimension of all European Union policy areas;

Comments

| 9. | notes that cities have always reflected the social conditions of the time. The shape of the cities of the future and the quality of life they provide will be hallmarked by economic and social decisions and developments at all levels of political and economic responsibility; |
| --- | --- |

9.

notes that cities have always reflected the social conditions of the time. The shape of the cities of the future and the quality of life they provide will be hallmarked by economic and social decisions and developments at all levels of political and economic responsibility;

| 10. | points out that the importance of cities for the European Union goes far beyond economic and demographic aspects. Beautiful, smart, energy- and resource-efficient, green and inclusive cities provide a basis for people in our society to live together in harmony with mutual support; |
| --- | --- |

10.

points out that the importance of cities for the European Union goes far beyond economic and demographic aspects. Beautiful, smart, energy- and resource-efficient, green and inclusive cities provide a basis for people in our society to live together in harmony with mutual support;

| 11. | highlights that cities are closely and inextricably linked with their surrounding areas through social and economic ties, and for this reason too have an important role to play in balanced territorial development; |
| --- | --- |

11.

highlights that cities are closely and inextricably linked with their surrounding areas through social and economic ties, and for this reason too have an important role to play in balanced territorial development;

| 12. | stresses in this connection that the rigid distinction hitherto drawn between cities and their surrounding areas will no longer be suitable for dealing with the issues that will crop up in the future and must give way to an approach to interaction based on functionality and interdependence; |
| --- | --- |

12.

stresses in this connection that the rigid distinction hitherto drawn between cities and their surrounding areas will no longer be suitable for dealing with the issues that will crop up in the future and must give way to an approach to interaction based on functionality and interdependence;

| 13. | underlines the fact that European cities, in comparison to other cities across the world, are hallmarked by democratic self-determination, strong civil society, social integration, effective interaction between what is private and what is public, an assurance of freedom and emancipation and a highly developed urban planning culture; |
| --- | --- |

13.

underlines the fact that European cities, in comparison to other cities across the world, are hallmarked by democratic self-determination, strong civil society, social integration, effective interaction between what is private and what is public, an assurance of freedom and emancipation and a highly developed urban planning culture;

| 14. | has noticed that de-industrialisation and globalisation have meant that key foundations for social and economic integration have disappeared. In both prosperous and poorer areas, new strategies are being deployed to reinforce social cohesion, which until now, at least, have barely managed to stem the trend towards increasing segmentation of society. Instead, social divisions and segregation are on the increase in many places, despite the afore-mentioned efforts to the contrary, and they pose a major challenge for people living together in urban areas; |
| --- | --- |

14.

has noticed that de-industrialisation and globalisation have meant that key foundations for social and economic integration have disappeared. In both prosperous and poorer areas, new strategies are being deployed to reinforce social cohesion, which until now, at least, have barely managed to stem the trend towards increasing segmentation of society. Instead, social divisions and segregation are on the increase in many places, despite the afore-mentioned efforts to the contrary, and they pose a major challenge for people living together in urban areas;

| 15. | points out that it is urgent that we counter the widening economic and social divisions in our society with investment in education for everyone from early childhood onwards, inclusive labour market measures, lifelong learning, an active integration policy and pay that is fair, meets people’s needs and is equal for women and men; points out that economic development and the creation of more jobs in cities are crucial in this respect; |
| --- | --- |

15.

points out that it is urgent that we counter the widening economic and social divisions in our society with investment in education for everyone from early childhood onwards, inclusive labour market measures, lifelong learning, an active integration policy and pay that is fair, meets people’s needs and is equal for women and men; points out that economic development and the creation of more jobs in cities are crucial in this respect;

| 16. | is concerned to note that these problems have been exacerbated in some big cities, resulting in violent protests. They also express many people’s distrust of the political establishment; |
| --- | --- |

16.

is concerned to note that these problems have been exacerbated in some big cities, resulting in violent protests. They also express many people’s distrust of the political establishment;

| 17. | points out the local impact of demographic change and an ageing population, which is creating new demands on social infrastructures and public areas. The growing phenomenon of poverty in old age is creating a need for sustainable social security systems and services which are accessible, sensitive to cultural differences and affordable; |
| --- | --- |

17.

points out the local impact of demographic change and an ageing population, which is creating new demands on social infrastructures and public areas. The growing phenomenon of poverty in old age is creating a need for sustainable social security systems and services which are accessible, sensitive to cultural differences and affordable;

| 18. | stresses in this connection that Europe, despite today’s drastically high levels of youth unemployment, will in the coming decades depend on young immigrants to generate economic growth and to cushion the impact of the aging population on social security and health systems. Open, attractive cities are necessary to encourage immigration. Nevertheless, in cities immigrants and ethnic minorities have until now often suffered significant discrimination in access to education, employment, housing and medical care. Effective local integration strategies are therefore a necessary integral part of any forward-looking migration policy; |
| --- | --- |

18.

stresses in this connection that Europe, despite today’s drastically high levels of youth unemployment, will in the coming decades depend on young immigrants to generate economic growth and to cushion the impact of the aging population on social security and health systems. Open, attractive cities are necessary to encourage immigration. Nevertheless, in cities immigrants and ethnic minorities have until now often suffered significant discrimination in access to education, employment, housing and medical care. Effective local integration strategies are therefore a necessary integral part of any forward-looking migration policy;

| 19. | highlights the importance of catering to needs that are vital for society – i.e. providing access to housing, crèches, kindergartens, areas where children can play safely and develop – and which can help remove the barriers to people starting or extending a family. That is why any measures that contribute to a positive population growth should be supported; |
| --- | --- |

19.

highlights the importance of catering to needs that are vital for society – i.e. providing access to housing, crèches, kindergartens, areas where children can play safely and develop – and which can help remove the barriers to people starting or extending a family. That is why any measures that contribute to a positive population growth should be supported;

| 20. | emphasises the challenges posed by climate change and the need to cut back energy consumption by means of energy recovery processes and improved energy efficiency, interconnected systems, the expansion of green-field sites and open spaces, new construction methods and resource-neutral, health-promoting and safe forms of transport; |
| --- | --- |

20.

emphasises the challenges posed by climate change and the need to cut back energy consumption by means of energy recovery processes and improved energy efficiency, interconnected systems, the expansion of green-field sites and open spaces, new construction methods and resource-neutral, health-promoting and safe forms of transport;

| 21. | highlights the importance of culture and creativity, not only for economic growth, but also for generating a good quality of life, practical democracy, peace and mutual respect. Urban culture also covers the preservation of urban architecture and planning concepts, good quality public spaces accessible to everyone and consideration of local and regional features; |
| --- | --- |

21.

highlights the importance of culture and creativity, not only for economic growth, but also for generating a good quality of life, practical democracy, peace and mutual respect. Urban culture also covers the preservation of urban architecture and planning concepts, good quality public spaces accessible to everyone and consideration of local and regional features;

| 22. | stresses the fundamental importance of public participation in shaping policies, so as to win people’s trust and strengthen social cohesion; this participation of citizens is only possible if cities’ administrations are open and transparent about the principles underlying their decisions and policies; |
| --- | --- |

22.

stresses the fundamental importance of public participation in shaping policies, so as to win people’s trust and strengthen social cohesion; this participation of citizens is only possible if cities’ administrations are open and transparent about the principles underlying their decisions and policies;

| 23. | deems the European institutions’ various efforts to support cities through programmes and initiatives to be necessary, since local authorities which do not have adequate financial resources of their own are dependent on such support; |
| --- | --- |

23.

deems the European institutions’ various efforts to support cities through programmes and initiatives to be necessary, since local authorities which do not have adequate financial resources of their own are dependent on such support;

| 24. | is concerned to note that despite the declarations of intent contained in the Leipzig Charter, and the associated political process, Member States’ commitment to urban policy in the last few years has waned rather than waxed. This is illustrated by the fact that to date it has scarcely been possible to give priority to urban policy issues in relevant policy areas such as employment, the environment, education and science, and housing. This problem is also reflected in reduced budgets for urban policy programmes. EU level resources should be identified and deployed as quickly as possible to allow cities to respond flexibly to these different problems; |
| --- | --- |

24.

is concerned to note that despite the declarations of intent contained in the Leipzig Charter, and the associated political process, Member States’ commitment to urban policy in the last few years has waned rather than waxed. This is illustrated by the fact that to date it has scarcely been possible to give priority to urban policy issues in relevant policy areas such as employment, the environment, education and science, and housing. This problem is also reflected in reduced budgets for urban policy programmes. EU level resources should be identified and deployed as quickly as possible to allow cities to respond flexibly to these different problems;

| 25. | is concerned at the fact that local authorities’ budget allocations are catastrophically low in most Member States and that, given national budgetary priorities, this is not going to improve unless the Member States change tack on this issue; |
| --- | --- |

25.

is concerned at the fact that local authorities’ budget allocations are catastrophically low in most Member States and that, given national budgetary priorities, this is not going to improve unless the Member States change tack on this issue;

| 26. | sees that, given the current acute social, economic and environmental threats, efforts to date have been woefully inadequate for shaping European cities in such a way as to put them in good stead for future, so that they are competitive, beautiful, smart, energy- and resource-efficient, green, inclusive places where social innovation flourishes, thus able to make a full contribution to strengthening the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European Union and to implementing the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy; |
| --- | --- |

26.

sees that, given the current acute social, economic and environmental threats, efforts to date have been woefully inadequate for shaping European cities in such a way as to put them in good stead for future, so that they are competitive, beautiful, smart, energy- and resource-efficient, green, inclusive places where social innovation flourishes, thus able to make a full contribution to strengthening the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European Union and to implementing the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy;

Policy Challenges

General

| 27. | assumes, given the social challenges faced today, that there is general interest at all political levels in cities being robust and underpinned by democratic self-determination, providing a solid foundation for European society. Strong, responsive and effective local democracy can make a decisive contribution to restoring people’s confidence in the institutions of representative democracy at all levels; |
| --- | --- |

27.

assumes, given the social challenges faced today, that there is general interest at all political levels in cities being robust and underpinned by democratic self-determination, providing a solid foundation for European society. Strong, responsive and effective local democracy can make a decisive contribution to restoring people’s confidence in the institutions of representative democracy at all levels;

| 28. | reiterates its call for an approach to social development which does more than measure gross domestic product (GDP), but takes public concerns and needs seriously and does more to involve the public in the planning of programmes and measures; |
| --- | --- |

28.

reiterates its call for an approach to social development which does more than measure gross domestic product (GDP), but takes public concerns and needs seriously and does more to involve the public in the planning of programmes and measures;

| 29. | expects elected representatives to be confident and bold in taking the lead at all political levels, working to ensure that people can live together in peace and solidarity. Smart, inclusive and sustainable growth can only develop out of peace and real solidarity which stretches across borders. This means having a culture which actively welcomes immigrants, entailing measures to promote intercultural responsibility in public administrations and institutions. It also means ensuring that a clear commitment is made to the protection of refugees and others who, because of their origins, beliefs, sexual orientation, membership of a certain social group or political persuasion, suffer political persecution and discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

29.

expects elected representatives to be confident and bold in taking the lead at all political levels, working to ensure that people can live together in peace and solidarity. Smart, inclusive and sustainable growth can only develop out of peace and real solidarity which stretches across borders. This means having a culture which actively welcomes immigrants, entailing measures to promote intercultural responsibility in public administrations and institutions. It also means ensuring that a clear commitment is made to the protection of refugees and others who, because of their origins, beliefs, sexual orientation, membership of a certain social group or political persuasion, suffer political persecution and discrimination;

| 30. | stresses the importance of integrated local strategies for a coordinated, efficient use of resources and calls for all relevant sectoral policies to be brought into play here. Constructive, self-evident cooperation between all political levels and departments is important for showing the public that institutions know how to handle the trust placed in them responsibly and are sensitive to local needs; |
| --- | --- |

30.

stresses the importance of integrated local strategies for a coordinated, efficient use of resources and calls for all relevant sectoral policies to be brought into play here. Constructive, self-evident cooperation between all political levels and departments is important for showing the public that institutions know how to handle the trust placed in them responsibly and are sensitive to local needs;

| 31. | calls on decision-makers at all levels to strive to secure healthy, sustainable mobility within and between cities. Public transport should be encouraged, making it accessible to the whole population; also calls on them to continue to develop cities in line with the traditional European urban model by integrating different uses, density and (urban and architectural) quality; |
| --- | --- |

31.

calls on decision-makers at all levels to strive to secure healthy, sustainable mobility within and between cities. Public transport should be encouraged, making it accessible to the whole population; also calls on them to continue to develop cities in line with the traditional European urban model by integrating different uses, density and (urban and architectural) quality;

| 32. | advocates renewed efforts to consolidate knowledge about technical, social, economic and environmental aspects of urban development. This has to explicitly include the importance of virtual forums for life and work in cities and the regions; |
| --- | --- |

32.

advocates renewed efforts to consolidate knowledge about technical, social, economic and environmental aspects of urban development. This has to explicitly include the importance of virtual forums for life and work in cities and the regions;

| 33. | underlines the significance of partnerships between cities, European city networks such as EUROCITIES, and transnational inter-municipal cooperation projects under the URBACT, INTERREG and EGTC programmes, designed to improve urban development policy know-how and approaches; it also stresses the need to ensure that this exchange of knowledge bears fruit and helps shape policies, especially on the Structural Funds, but also in other relevant areas such as services of general interest, transport and environmental protection; |
| --- | --- |

33.

underlines the significance of partnerships between cities, European city networks such as EUROCITIES, and transnational inter-municipal cooperation projects under the URBACT, INTERREG and EGTC programmes, designed to improve urban development policy know-how and approaches; it also stresses the need to ensure that this exchange of knowledge bears fruit and helps shape policies, especially on the Structural Funds, but also in other relevant areas such as services of general interest, transport and environmental protection;

To the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament

| 34. | calls for cities and regions to be involved in the European Union’s multi-level structures as a matter of course in all policy areas where decisions made at EU level affect sub-national authorities’ power to act; |
| --- | --- |

34.

calls for cities and regions to be involved in the European Union’s multi-level structures as a matter of course in all policy areas where decisions made at EU level affect sub-national authorities’ power to act;

| 35. | urges the European institutions to make a clear commitment to making cities stronger, reflected in the priorities of the upcoming EU budget; |
| --- | --- |

35.

urges the European institutions to make a clear commitment to making cities stronger, reflected in the priorities of the upcoming EU budget;

| 36. | underlines its call for structural support policies which continue to allow local authorities enough leeway to adopt a multi-fund, integrated approach geared to local priorities, which is based on investment and social initiatives and meets local needs. So that it is also actually possible for local authorities to implement Structural Fund policy, expenditure on administration and monitoring activities should be pruned; |
| --- | --- |

36.

underlines its call for structural support policies which continue to allow local authorities enough leeway to adopt a multi-fund, integrated approach geared to local priorities, which is based on investment and social initiatives and meets local needs. So that it is also actually possible for local authorities to implement Structural Fund policy, expenditure on administration and monitoring activities should be pruned;

| 37. | emphasises the importance of cohesion policy as a key instrument for consolidating social, economic and territorial cohesion, and calls for a clear signal to be sent out in the next funding period to the effect that cities are to be supported through a strong urban dimension, flexibility in resource deployment and a central role for local authorities in implementation. Given the major importance of cities for social, economic and territorial cohesion, such support must go far beyond the minimum quota of 5 % proposed to date; |
| --- | --- |

37.

emphasises the importance of cohesion policy as a key instrument for consolidating social, economic and territorial cohesion, and calls for a clear signal to be sent out in the next funding period to the effect that cities are to be supported through a strong urban dimension, flexibility in resource deployment and a central role for local authorities in implementation. Given the major importance of cities for social, economic and territorial cohesion, such support must go far beyond the minimum quota of 5 % proposed to date;

| 38. | stresses the calls made by the Committee of the Regions in its opinion on the Commission proposal on the ERDF, particularly as regards the possibility of resource deployment being ‘flexible and used without giving preference to certain types of area or discriminating against them’, so that rural and peri-urban regions are not prevented from benefiting from the ERDF. The various types of priority area into which ERDF resources will be channelled should be determined as part of a partnership-based planning process, and not be determined beforehand. The delegation of tasks to cities under the ‘integrated territorial investment’ instrument defined in Article 99 of the Common Provisions Regulation should be viewed as optional and not made mandatory; |
| --- | --- |

38.

stresses the calls made by the Committee of the Regions in its opinion on the Commission proposal on the ERDF, particularly as regards the possibility of resource deployment being ‘flexible and used without giving preference to certain types of area or discriminating against them’, so that rural and peri-urban regions are not prevented from benefiting from the ERDF. The various types of priority area into which ERDF resources will be channelled should be determined as part of a partnership-based planning process, and not be determined beforehand. The delegation of tasks to cities under the ‘integrated territorial investment’ instrument defined in Article 99 of the Common Provisions Regulation should be viewed as optional and not made mandatory;

| 39. | welcomes the further development of sustainable funding instruments in structural policy which, over and above public subsidies, constitute creative, stable funding mechanisms; |
| --- | --- |

39.

welcomes the further development of sustainable funding instruments in structural policy which, over and above public subsidies, constitute creative, stable funding mechanisms;

| 40. | calls for cities and regions to play a major role in further developing the EU’s immigration and integration policy, taking account of the key importance of local administration for integration; |
| --- | --- |

40.

calls for cities and regions to play a major role in further developing the EU’s immigration and integration policy, taking account of the key importance of local administration for integration;

To the Member States

| 41. | urges Member States to impart new dynamism to their urban policy endeavours and also to incorporate policy areas other than spatial planning into these initiatives. Sustainable urban development depends on supportive framework conditions, especially in employment, social, educational and environmental policy; |
| --- | --- |

41.

urges Member States to impart new dynamism to their urban policy endeavours and also to incorporate policy areas other than spatial planning into these initiatives. Sustainable urban development depends on supportive framework conditions, especially in employment, social, educational and environmental policy;

| 42. | urges a livelier debate on actions to be taken in and with cities. Cooperation between cities and urban agglomerations is vital for ensuring cohesion and sustainable development. |
| --- | --- |

42.

urges a livelier debate on actions to be taken in and with cities. Cooperation between cities and urban agglomerations is vital for ensuring cohesion and sustainable development.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

III Preparatory acts

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

96th plenary session held on 18 and 19 July 2012

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/23

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘EU financial instruments in home affairs’

2012/C 277/05

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the step to achieve a genuine area of freedom, security and justice through budgetary proposals recognising the importance of providing the necessary resources for the immigration, asylum and security budget; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the step to achieve a genuine area of freedom, security and justice through budgetary proposals recognising the importance of providing the necessary resources for the immigration, asylum and security budget;

| — | affirms the importance of the proposed changes for Local and Regional Authorities (LRA), having a direct impact on their duties and on the everyday life of people living in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

affirms the importance of the proposed changes for Local and Regional Authorities (LRA), having a direct impact on their duties and on the everyday life of people living in the European Union;

| — | stresses the importance of responding to security concerns, arising from an increased global mobility, within the context of the universal protection of fundamental rights and freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses the importance of responding to security concerns, arising from an increased global mobility, within the context of the universal protection of fundamental rights and freedoms;

| — | welcomes the focus on flexibility and achieving results, highlighting that this requires good planning as well as participation and ownership and by all stakeholders. Therefore stresses the need to involve LRAs as well as other stakeholders such as specialised international organisations, civil society and the beneficiaries themselves from the planning stage, since they often implement the programmes and projects; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the focus on flexibility and achieving results, highlighting that this requires good planning as well as participation and ownership and by all stakeholders. Therefore stresses the need to involve LRAs as well as other stakeholders such as specialised international organisations, civil society and the beneficiaries themselves from the planning stage, since they often implement the programmes and projects;

| — | believes that access to funding is vastly improved through the proposed reforms. However, it encourages further development of mechanisms to distribute information on funding opportunities. In larger countries, LRAs could be used to organise regional and local consultations to allow participation of those organisations and stakeholders which operate further away from the main cities. |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that access to funding is vastly improved through the proposed reforms. However, it encourages further development of mechanisms to distribute information on funding opportunities. In larger countries, LRAs could be used to organise regional and local consultations to allow participation of those organisations and stakeholders which operate further away from the main cities.

| Rapporteur | Samuel AZZOPARDI (MT/EPP) Mayor of Victoria, Gozo |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents | | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Building an open and secure Europe: the home affairs budget for 2014-2020
  COM(2011) 749 final |

Rapporteur

Samuel AZZOPARDI (MT/EPP) Mayor of Victoria, Gozo

Reference documents

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Building an open and secure Europe: the home affairs budget for 2014-2020

COM(2011) 749 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa
  COM(2011) 750 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa

COM(2011) 750 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund
  COM(2011) 751 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund

COM(2011) 751 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management
  COM(2011) 752 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management

COM(2011) 752 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management
  COM(2011) 753 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council – establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management

COM(2011) 753 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General assessment

| 1. | welcomes the step to achieve a genuine area of freedom, security and justice through budgetary proposals recognising the importance of providing the necessary resources for the immigration, asylum and security budget (1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the step to achieve a genuine area of freedom, security and justice through budgetary proposals recognising the importance of providing the necessary resources for the immigration, asylum and security budget (1);

| 2. | supports the simplification of the existing instruments, merging them into 2 funds; |
| --- | --- |

2.

supports the simplification of the existing instruments, merging them into 2 funds;

| 3. | affirms the importance of the proposed changes for Local and Regional Authorities (LRA), having a direct impact on their duties and on the everyday life of people living in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

affirms the importance of the proposed changes for Local and Regional Authorities (LRA), having a direct impact on their duties and on the everyday life of people living in the European Union;

| 4. | stresses the importance of responding to security concerns, arising from an increased global mobility, within the context of the universal protection of fundamental rights and freedoms; |
| --- | --- |

4.

stresses the importance of responding to security concerns, arising from an increased global mobility, within the context of the universal protection of fundamental rights and freedoms;

| 5. | underlines that this can be achieved through the implementation of coherent instruments in the field of freedom, security and justice based on respect for human rights, solidarity and responsibility with particular attention given to gender equality and non-discrimination (2); |
| --- | --- |

5.

underlines that this can be achieved through the implementation of coherent instruments in the field of freedom, security and justice based on respect for human rights, solidarity and responsibility with particular attention given to gender equality and non-discrimination (2);

| 6. | believes that a balance is needed between the security and border related parts of the expenditure, and expenditure in areas such as integration of migrants and reception conditions for asylum seekers; |
| --- | --- |

6.

believes that a balance is needed between the security and border related parts of the expenditure, and expenditure in areas such as integration of migrants and reception conditions for asylum seekers;

| 7. | supports the creation of a needs-based budget that helps to develop synergies between EU financial instruments, notably between the structural funds and funds in the area of home affairs. The Union budget should attribute adequate resources to the area of home affairs, both through the structural funds and through specialised instruments within the area of freedom, security and justice; |
| --- | --- |

7.

supports the creation of a needs-based budget that helps to develop synergies between EU financial instruments, notably between the structural funds and funds in the area of home affairs. The Union budget should attribute adequate resources to the area of home affairs, both through the structural funds and through specialised instruments within the area of freedom, security and justice;

| 8. | points out that the repeal of Council Decision 2007/125/JHA, which takes away the possibility of making complementary use of other Union and Community instruments, significantly restricts the desired flexibility in the use of financial instruments and threatens the seamless continuation of cross-border regional projects in the field of internal security that have previously been funded via ERDF-based objective 3 support; therefore advocates retaining complementarity between Community instruments; |
| --- | --- |

8.

points out that the repeal of Council Decision 2007/125/JHA, which takes away the possibility of making complementary use of other Union and Community instruments, significantly restricts the desired flexibility in the use of financial instruments and threatens the seamless continuation of cross-border regional projects in the field of internal security that have previously been funded via ERDF-based objective 3 support; therefore advocates retaining complementarity between Community instruments;

| 9. | points out that a certain degree of flexibility is needed in the operation of the budget and financial instruments, making a genuine midterm revision possible in accordance with the political priorities identified, whilst stressing that such flexibility must be developed to co-exist with the fair allocation of resources; |
| --- | --- |

9.

points out that a certain degree of flexibility is needed in the operation of the budget and financial instruments, making a genuine midterm revision possible in accordance with the political priorities identified, whilst stressing that such flexibility must be developed to co-exist with the fair allocation of resources;

| 10. | welcomes an immigration policy starting in countries of origin and taking account of European labour market needs and demographic change, leading to a system which is beneficial to all parties, including countries of origin so often benefiting from remittances from the EU (3); |
| --- | --- |

10.

welcomes an immigration policy starting in countries of origin and taking account of European labour market needs and demographic change, leading to a system which is beneficial to all parties, including countries of origin so often benefiting from remittances from the EU (3);

| 11. | emphasises the necessity for strong cooperation at EU level to achieve better coordination between Members States on managing the Union’s external borders, as well as moving towards a Common European Asylum System; |
| --- | --- |

11.

emphasises the necessity for strong cooperation at EU level to achieve better coordination between Members States on managing the Union’s external borders, as well as moving towards a Common European Asylum System;

| 12. | stresses the need for transparency in the use of the budget with proposals, projects and results achieved visible and easily accessible to and understandable for the ordinary citizen; |
| --- | --- |

12.

stresses the need for transparency in the use of the budget with proposals, projects and results achieved visible and easily accessible to and understandable for the ordinary citizen;

On the programming and managing of Funds

| 13. | welcomes the focus on flexibility and achieving results, highlighting that this requires good planning as well as participation and ownership and by all stakeholders. Therefore stresses the need to involve LRAs as well as other stakeholders such as specialised international organisations, civil society and the beneficiaries themselves from the planning stage, since they often implement the programmes and projects; |
| --- | --- |

13.

welcomes the focus on flexibility and achieving results, highlighting that this requires good planning as well as participation and ownership and by all stakeholders. Therefore stresses the need to involve LRAs as well as other stakeholders such as specialised international organisations, civil society and the beneficiaries themselves from the planning stage, since they often implement the programmes and projects;

| 14. | highlights the need for independent monitoring and evaluation to ensure efficient use of funds and strong management by implementing organisations. This may be an incentive for improving institutional performance. Qualitative as well as quantitative indicators must be selected in a participatory way by all stakeholders. The Committee points out that certain qualitative indicators can be efficient and cost effective. The Committee also calls for a strengthened European Commission and Parliament oversight of the Funds to help bring about the independent element of monitoring and evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

14.

highlights the need for independent monitoring and evaluation to ensure efficient use of funds and strong management by implementing organisations. This may be an incentive for improving institutional performance. Qualitative as well as quantitative indicators must be selected in a participatory way by all stakeholders. The Committee points out that certain qualitative indicators can be efficient and cost effective. The Committee also calls for a strengthened European Commission and Parliament oversight of the Funds to help bring about the independent element of monitoring and evaluation;

Access to funding

| 15. | believes that access to funding is vastly improved through the proposed reforms. However, it encourages further development of mechanisms to distribute information on funding opportunities. In larger countries, LRAs could be used to organise regional and local consultations to allow participation of those organisations and stakeholders which operate further away from the main cities; |
| --- | --- |

15.

believes that access to funding is vastly improved through the proposed reforms. However, it encourages further development of mechanisms to distribute information on funding opportunities. In larger countries, LRAs could be used to organise regional and local consultations to allow participation of those organisations and stakeholders which operate further away from the main cities;

Allocation of resources

| 16. | points out that with the positive aspects of simplification and flexibility, the proposed reforms also bring uncertainty regarding allocation of resources between different sectors and thematic issues. It therefore stresses the importance for funds to be allocated on a needs-basis through a thorough needs-analysis with prioritisation following a rights-based approach. This can be achieved through mechanisms and safeguards put in place to ensure efficient prioritisation, including LRA and other stakeholders’ participation when drawing up national strategies; |
| --- | --- |

16.

points out that with the positive aspects of simplification and flexibility, the proposed reforms also bring uncertainty regarding allocation of resources between different sectors and thematic issues. It therefore stresses the importance for funds to be allocated on a needs-basis through a thorough needs-analysis with prioritisation following a rights-based approach. This can be achieved through mechanisms and safeguards put in place to ensure efficient prioritisation, including LRA and other stakeholders’ participation when drawing up national strategies;

| 17. | highlights the need to distribute funds evenly according to institutional capacity and project proposals and not to focus the funds on just a few recipients; |
| --- | --- |

17.

highlights the need to distribute funds evenly according to institutional capacity and project proposals and not to focus the funds on just a few recipients;

| 18. | in case of insufficient funds, believes that funds aimed at protecting people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, including those dealing with basic living standards, gender specific issues and the right to asylum, should be prioritised, together with resources for capacity building of LRAs to manage migration flows; |
| --- | --- |

18.

in case of insufficient funds, believes that funds aimed at protecting people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, including those dealing with basic living standards, gender specific issues and the right to asylum, should be prioritised, together with resources for capacity building of LRAs to manage migration flows;

Obligation of stakeholder participation

| 19. | stresses the importance of a participatory approach in achieving effective results, and supports proposals that oblige the Member States to organise partnerships with all public authorities concerned and with relevant stakeholders, including civil society and international organisations, for the development, implementation and monitoring of the national programmes; |
| --- | --- |

19.

stresses the importance of a participatory approach in achieving effective results, and supports proposals that oblige the Member States to organise partnerships with all public authorities concerned and with relevant stakeholders, including civil society and international organisations, for the development, implementation and monitoring of the national programmes;

| 20. | therefore it urges that partnership of stakeholders is strengthened and made mandatory. It points out that currently, the principle in the Draft Regulation laying down the general provisions (4) might not bring about participation in a sufficiently binding manner. Whilst coordination mechanisms are bound, in other areas there is a lot of discretion as to whether a meaningful partnership will actually take place or not; |
| --- | --- |

20.

therefore it urges that partnership of stakeholders is strengthened and made mandatory. It points out that currently, the principle in the Draft Regulation laying down the general provisions (4) might not bring about participation in a sufficiently binding manner. Whilst coordination mechanisms are bound, in other areas there is a lot of discretion as to whether a meaningful partnership will actually take place or not;

| 21. | suggests that it may not be appropriate to nominate a single Responsible Authority for all actions supported by the funds, despite the simplification that this may bring with it. Transparency and the checks and balances must be in place to ensure fairness in decisions. It is concerned that there may be legal issues that do not allow a delegated authority to work under the supervision of the national Responsible Authority and therefore suggests that regulations should be flexible enough to cater for all national rules in place in the EU and must not force the Member States to change their constitutional structures if the objectives can just as well be achieved in a partnership approach; |
| --- | --- |

21.

suggests that it may not be appropriate to nominate a single Responsible Authority for all actions supported by the funds, despite the simplification that this may bring with it. Transparency and the checks and balances must be in place to ensure fairness in decisions. It is concerned that there may be legal issues that do not allow a delegated authority to work under the supervision of the national Responsible Authority and therefore suggests that regulations should be flexible enough to cater for all national rules in place in the EU and must not force the Member States to change their constitutional structures if the objectives can just as well be achieved in a partnership approach;

Common European Asylum System

| 22. | welcomes steps towards a ‘Common European Asylum System’ whilst stressing that it must aim to achieve the standards of those with better systems and structures and not lead to a general reduction in quality in line with those with less strong systems; |
| --- | --- |

22.

welcomes steps towards a ‘Common European Asylum System’ whilst stressing that it must aim to achieve the standards of those with better systems and structures and not lead to a general reduction in quality in line with those with less strong systems;

| 23. | would like to see greater clarity as to whether EASO will only use the funds directly allocated to it or whether it will also be able to access the Home Affairs Funds; |
| --- | --- |

23.

would like to see greater clarity as to whether EASO will only use the funds directly allocated to it or whether it will also be able to access the Home Affairs Funds;

Reception and integration of persons with international protection and third-country nationals

| 24. | notes with approval the acknowledgment of the importance of LRAs in the reception and asylum systems as well as in the integration of third-country nationals and legal migrants; |
| --- | --- |

24.

notes with approval the acknowledgment of the importance of LRAs in the reception and asylum systems as well as in the integration of third-country nationals and legal migrants;

| 25. | praises the idea of focusing on the most vulnerable, including victims of trafficking; |
| --- | --- |

25.

praises the idea of focusing on the most vulnerable, including victims of trafficking;

| 26. | highlights that integration must focus on long-term sustainable actions, keeping in mind that integration is a two-way process where actions can be targeted towards host and migrant communities; |
| --- | --- |

26.

highlights that integration must focus on long-term sustainable actions, keeping in mind that integration is a two-way process where actions can be targeted towards host and migrant communities;

| 27. | suggests that the Home Affairs Funds should also support actions recommended by the European Commission, recognising the multilevel governance approach in the 2nd European Agenda for Integration (5); |
| --- | --- |

27.

suggests that the Home Affairs Funds should also support actions recommended by the European Commission, recognising the multilevel governance approach in the 2nd European Agenda for Integration (5);

| 28. | points out that administrative detention practices around the EU have been under scrutiny by the ECHR and human rights authorities and stresses that funding of projects linked to detaining people must ensure that such detention is in line with EU law and ECHR decisions; |
| --- | --- |

28.

points out that administrative detention practices around the EU have been under scrutiny by the ECHR and human rights authorities and stresses that funding of projects linked to detaining people must ensure that such detention is in line with EU law and ECHR decisions;

| 29. | stresses that family members benefitting from international protection in different Member States should be allowed to live together and benefit from protection in the same Member State; |
| --- | --- |

29.

stresses that family members benefitting from international protection in different Member States should be allowed to live together and benefit from protection in the same Member State;

Responsibility sharing and intra-EU relocation

| 30. | emphasises that Europe's border regions must receive more adequate support with regards to asylum and migration, especially in times of particular difficulty (6); |
| --- | --- |

30.

emphasises that Europe's border regions must receive more adequate support with regards to asylum and migration, especially in times of particular difficulty (6);

| 31. | stresses that criteria and mechanisms for relocation must be of a non-discriminatory nature and focus on the most vulnerable, whilst also keeping in mind EU labour market considerations, particularly for persons currently stuck in areas where access to the labour market is limited. They should not focus on prioritising those highly skilled and already integrated into the host society; |
| --- | --- |

31.

stresses that criteria and mechanisms for relocation must be of a non-discriminatory nature and focus on the most vulnerable, whilst also keeping in mind EU labour market considerations, particularly for persons currently stuck in areas where access to the labour market is limited. They should not focus on prioritising those highly skilled and already integrated into the host society;

| 32. | points out that LRAs are in good position to participate in establishing such mechanisms (7); |
| --- | --- |

32.

points out that LRAs are in good position to participate in establishing such mechanisms (7);

| 33. | is of the view that solidarity in supporting burdened countries should be conditional on human rights records and respect for EU reception standards, thus providing incentives for improvement; |
| --- | --- |

33.

is of the view that solidarity in supporting burdened countries should be conditional on human rights records and respect for EU reception standards, thus providing incentives for improvement;

EU resettlement programme

| 34. | welcomes the establishing of an EU resettlement programme and encourages the creation of a clear framework to be developed by a partnership between EASO, UNHCR and NGOs, keeping in mind the best practices in other parts of the world. The EU should lead by example, seeking to identify and provide protection to those most forgotten by the international community; |
| --- | --- |

34.

welcomes the establishing of an EU resettlement programme and encourages the creation of a clear framework to be developed by a partnership between EASO, UNHCR and NGOs, keeping in mind the best practices in other parts of the world. The EU should lead by example, seeking to identify and provide protection to those most forgotten by the international community;

| 35. | highlights the need for incentives and information on benefits to increase the number of places pledged by Member States for resettlement; |
| --- | --- |

35.

highlights the need for incentives and information on benefits to increase the number of places pledged by Member States for resettlement;

| 36. | stresses the need to maintain a clear distinction between resettlement from third countries and intra-EU relocation, as well as the number of persons allocated for these two programmes; |
| --- | --- |

36.

stresses the need to maintain a clear distinction between resettlement from third countries and intra-EU relocation, as well as the number of persons allocated for these two programmes;

Assisted voluntary return

| 37. | reaffirms that programmes should, as a matter of principle, be operated on a purely voluntary basis and in line with the goals of development cooperation, resulting in the long-term social integration of the people concerned (8). Return must be viable and ensure that no new migration project is initiated (9). This could be achieved through partnerships with a specialised international organisation such as IOM; |
| --- | --- |

37.

reaffirms that programmes should, as a matter of principle, be operated on a purely voluntary basis and in line with the goals of development cooperation, resulting in the long-term social integration of the people concerned (8). Return must be viable and ensure that no new migration project is initiated (9). This could be achieved through partnerships with a specialised international organisation such as IOM;

| 38. | points out that successful return strategies cannot be sufficiently measured with the purely quantitative indicator of the number of returnees. The indicator could be chosen as the number of returnees in relation to the number of cases and taking into account long-term quality factors; |
| --- | --- |

38.

points out that successful return strategies cannot be sufficiently measured with the purely quantitative indicator of the number of returnees. The indicator could be chosen as the number of returnees in relation to the number of cases and taking into account long-term quality factors;

Internal security strategy

| 39. | highlights its own indispensable involvement in the process of improving Europe's internal security together with the need for capacity building of LRAs; |
| --- | --- |

39.

highlights its own indispensable involvement in the process of improving Europe's internal security together with the need for capacity building of LRAs;

| 40. | stresses that ISF funding must keep in mind the necessity to invest in further research and to carry out innovations and sharing of expertise in fields such as cyber security, forensics, the protection of vital infrastructure and urban security and that the European Commission promotes this in line with the increased need to address ever more specific and complex problems; |
| --- | --- |

40.

stresses that ISF funding must keep in mind the necessity to invest in further research and to carry out innovations and sharing of expertise in fields such as cyber security, forensics, the protection of vital infrastructure and urban security and that the European Commission promotes this in line with the increased need to address ever more specific and complex problems;

| 41. | reaffirms the importance of LRA involvement for police and security cooperation which can occur through training, sharing of best practices and prevention programmes as well as through the development of common tools and IT systems as well as better communication; |
| --- | --- |

41.

reaffirms the importance of LRA involvement for police and security cooperation which can occur through training, sharing of best practices and prevention programmes as well as through the development of common tools and IT systems as well as better communication;

Fight against terrorism and organised crime

| 42. | recommends that current local and regional authority networks are strengthened and used in each Member State, or if the need arises new ones are set up, to facilitate the exchange of good practice in relation to social integration, professional learning and understanding of violent extremism growing out of local districts and neighbourhoods. This could support the work undertaken through the recently created European anti-radicalisation network; |
| --- | --- |

42.

recommends that current local and regional authority networks are strengthened and used in each Member State, or if the need arises new ones are set up, to facilitate the exchange of good practice in relation to social integration, professional learning and understanding of violent extremism growing out of local districts and neighbourhoods. This could support the work undertaken through the recently created European anti-radicalisation network;

| 43. | suggests that funding under the ISF includes public consultation at a local level in Member States and reaching out to those who feel disconnected from society. This can help to establish a multifaceted understanding of local experiences and concepts of terrorism and motivations towards extremism; |
| --- | --- |

43.

suggests that funding under the ISF includes public consultation at a local level in Member States and reaching out to those who feel disconnected from society. This can help to establish a multifaceted understanding of local experiences and concepts of terrorism and motivations towards extremism;

| 44. | highlights the importance of increased scrutiny of bank and business practices to identify and target the finances of terrorism and organised crime through money laundering and coupling of criminal activities with businesses with a legitimate aim; |
| --- | --- |

44.

highlights the importance of increased scrutiny of bank and business practices to identify and target the finances of terrorism and organised crime through money laundering and coupling of criminal activities with businesses with a legitimate aim;

| 45. | equally recalls the importance of the confiscation of criminal assets, which is indubitably an important avenue for combating any kind of crime right across the board, and therefore welcomes the fact that the European Commission has proposed legislation to strengthen the EU legal framework on confiscation (10); |
| --- | --- |

45.

equally recalls the importance of the confiscation of criminal assets, which is indubitably an important avenue for combating any kind of crime right across the board, and therefore welcomes the fact that the European Commission has proposed legislation to strengthen the EU legal framework on confiscation (10);

| 46. | points out that whilst public-private partnerships could have positive impacts, privatisation of security should be avoided; |
| --- | --- |

46.

points out that whilst public-private partnerships could have positive impacts, privatisation of security should be avoided;

Border Control and Rescue

| 47. | emphasises the need to fund border control adequately (11). Simultaneously considers that, in view of tackling irregular migration, it is questionable whether investing heavily on border control is the most effective and efficient way to bring about long term and meaningful change; |
| --- | --- |

47.

emphasises the need to fund border control adequately (11). Simultaneously considers that, in view of tackling irregular migration, it is questionable whether investing heavily on border control is the most effective and efficient way to bring about long term and meaningful change;

| 48. | highlights the need for independent monitoring of border actions by an organisation such as UNHCR to ensure that fundamental human rights, including gender sensitivity, are being respected; |
| --- | --- |

48.

highlights the need for independent monitoring of border actions by an organisation such as UNHCR to ensure that fundamental human rights, including gender sensitivity, are being respected;

| 49. | stresses that consideration for human lives should take precedence over all other issues and calls for more collaboration and sharing of responsibilities amongst Member States of rescued people to provide incentives to rescue. It feels that automatic responsibility sharing could help save more lives at sea; |
| --- | --- |

49.

stresses that consideration for human lives should take precedence over all other issues and calls for more collaboration and sharing of responsibilities amongst Member States of rescued people to provide incentives to rescue. It feels that automatic responsibility sharing could help save more lives at sea;

Responding to emergencies

| 50. | welcomes changes aimed at increasing the speed of response to emergency situations; |
| --- | --- |

50.

welcomes changes aimed at increasing the speed of response to emergency situations;

| 51. | urges the Commission to commit itself to the planning and development of cross-border operations that involve the active participation of border regions. This would enable regions to pool their experience in civil protection and provide a solid operational base on which to build a European emergency response force; |
| --- | --- |

51.

urges the Commission to commit itself to the planning and development of cross-border operations that involve the active participation of border regions. This would enable regions to pool their experience in civil protection and provide a solid operational base on which to build a European emergency response force;

| 52. | calls on the Commission to take on a role of increased direct management in emergency situations to maintain a level of over-sight and help with cross-border coordination; |
| --- | --- |

52.

calls on the Commission to take on a role of increased direct management in emergency situations to maintain a level of over-sight and help with cross-border coordination;

| 53. | encourages Member States to set up multi-disciplinary teams for rapid emergency response, especially when the emergency situation has elements such as mixed flows of migration where expertise in asylum law and human rights are essential; |
| --- | --- |

53.

encourages Member States to set up multi-disciplinary teams for rapid emergency response, especially when the emergency situation has elements such as mixed flows of migration where expertise in asylum law and human rights are essential;

| 54. | points out that some emergencies may be longer term situations and that funds for emergencies must be available as long as the emergency lasts; |
| --- | --- |

54.

points out that some emergencies may be longer term situations and that funds for emergencies must be available as long as the emergency lasts;

External aspects of migration management

| 55. | welcomes a more coherent approach to the internal and external aspects of migration management and internal security, pointing out that cooperation and dialogue with third countries are necessary to both deal with irregular immigration and focus on legal migration; |
| --- | --- |

55.

welcomes a more coherent approach to the internal and external aspects of migration management and internal security, pointing out that cooperation and dialogue with third countries are necessary to both deal with irregular immigration and focus on legal migration;

| 56. | points out that local and regional authorities that are closest to or have the strongest links with third countries can provide the vital links for EU cooperation with those countries, making a substantial contribution to improving relations and living conditions in cities and regions of origin and transit (12). Through its cooperation with local and regional authorities in enlargement and neighbourhood countries (e.g. Working Groups and Joint Consultative Committees, CORLEAP, ARLEM), the CoR is well placed to promote the objectives of the funds beyond the EU borders; |
| --- | --- |

56.

points out that local and regional authorities that are closest to or have the strongest links with third countries can provide the vital links for EU cooperation with those countries, making a substantial contribution to improving relations and living conditions in cities and regions of origin and transit (12). Through its cooperation with local and regional authorities in enlargement and neighbourhood countries (e.g. Working Groups and Joint Consultative Committees, CORLEAP, ARLEM), the CoR is well placed to promote the objectives of the funds beyond the EU borders;

| 57. | does not see a clear line between development and non-development activities with regards to third countries and calls for coherence and coordination between aid and development funded projects and home affairs projects, driven through a spirit of solidarity and responsibility sharing with third countries; |
| --- | --- |

57.

does not see a clear line between development and non-development activities with regards to third countries and calls for coherence and coordination between aid and development funded projects and home affairs projects, driven through a spirit of solidarity and responsibility sharing with third countries;

| 58. | calls for safeguards to prevent Members States from pursuing their own national interests through the external aspect of the Home Affairs Funds as well as for mechanisms to ensure transparency in bilateral cooperation between Member States and third countries. |
| --- | --- |

58.

calls for safeguards to prevent Members States from pursuing their own national interests through the external aspect of the Home Affairs Funds as well as for mechanisms to ensure transparency in bilateral cooperation between Member States and third countries.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

COM(2011) 750 final

Regulation on establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa

Amendment 1

Article 3

Amend paragraph 2(b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | supporting borders management, to ensure, on one hand, a high level of protection of external borders and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b)

supporting borders management, to ensure, on one hand, a high level of protection of external borders and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis

| (b) | supporting borders management, to ensure, on one hand, a high level of protection of external borders and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis |
| --- | --- |

(b)

supporting borders management, to ensure, on one hand, a high level of protection of external borders and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis

The achievement of this objective shall be measured against indicators such as, inter alia, the development of equipment for border control and the apprehensions of irregular third-country nationals at the external border in correspondence with the risk of the relevant section of the external border.

The achievement of this objective shall be measured against indicators such as, inter alia, the development of equipment for border control the apprehensions of irregular third-country nationals at the external border in correspondence with the risk of the relevant section of the external border.

Reason

See point 5. Those dealing with mixed flows of migration need a level of knowledge of the right to asylum in order to fulfil this right.

Amendment 2

Article 3

Insert paragraph 2(c)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 48.

Amendment 3

Article 3

Amend paragraph 3(f)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (f) | reinforcing the co-operation between Member States operating in third countries as regards the flows of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States, as well as the co-operation with third countries in this regard. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(f)

reinforcing the co-operation between Member States operating in third countries as regards the flows of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States, as well as the co-operation with third countries in this regard.

| (f) | reinforcing the co-operation between Member States operating in third countries as regards the flows of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States, as well as the co-operation with third countries in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

(f)

reinforcing the co-operation between Member States operating in third countries as regards the flows of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States, as well as the co-operation with third countries in this regard.

Reason

See point 55.

Amendment 4

Article 3

Insert paragraph 3(g)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 47.

Amendment 5

Article 4

Insert paragraph 1(f)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 48.

Amendment 6

Article 4

Insert paragraph 1(g)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See points 47 and 48.

Amendment 7

Article 4

Insert paragraph 1(h)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 5.

Amendment 8

Article 9

Amend paragraph 2(b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | supporting and expanding the existing capacity at national level in the management of the external borders, bearing in mind inter alia new technology, developments and/or standards in relation to the management of migration flows; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b)

supporting and expanding the existing capacity at national level in the management of the external borders, bearing in mind inter alia new technology, developments and/or standards in relation to the management of migration flows;

| (b) | supporting and expanding the existing capacity at national level in the management of the external borders, bearing in mind inter alia new technology, developments and/or standards in relation to the management of migration flows |
| --- | --- |

(b)

supporting and expanding the existing capacity at national level in the management of the external borders, bearing in mind inter alia new technology, developments and/or standards in relation to the management of migration flows

Reason

See point 5.

Amendment 9

Article 13

Amend paragraph 2(g)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (g) | to boost the capacity of European networks to promote, support and further develop Union policies and objectives; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(g)

to boost the capacity of European networks to promote, support and further develop Union policies and objectives;

| (g) | to boost the capacity of European networks to promote, support and further develop Union policies and objectives; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

to boost the capacity of European networks to promote, support and further develop Union policies and objectives;

Reason

See Points 3 and 55.

COM(2011) 751 final

Regulation on establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund

Amendment 1

Article 3

Amend paragraph 2(c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (c) | to enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States with emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(c)

to enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States with emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin;

| (c) | to enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States with emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States with emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin;

The achievement of this objective shall be measured by indicators, inter alia, the number of returnees.

The achievement of this objective shall be measured by indicators, inter alia, the number of returnees

Reason

See point 37.

Amendment 2

Article 5

Amend paragraph 1(e)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (e) | information for local communities as well as training for the staff of local authorities, who will be interacting with those being received; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(e)

information for local communities as well as training for the staff of local authorities, who will be interacting with those being received;

| (e) | information for local communities as well as training for the staff of local authorities, who will be interacting with those being received; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

information for local communities as well as training for the staff of local authorities, who will be interacting with those being received;

Reason

Civil society actors often implement integration projects.

Amendment 3

Article 5

Insert paragraph 1 (g)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 28.

Amendment 4

Article 6

Amend paragraph (b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | actions directly contributing to the evaluation of asylum policies, such as national impact assessments, surveys amongst target groups, the development of indicators and benchmarking. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b)

actions directly contributing to the evaluation of asylum policies, such as national impact assessments, surveys amongst target groups, the development of indicators and benchmarking.

| (b) | actions directly contributing to the evaluation of asylum policies, such as national impact assessments, surveys amongst target groups, the development of indicators and benchmarking. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

actions directly contributing to the evaluation of asylum policies, such as national impact assessments, surveys amongst target groups, the development of indicators and benchmarking.

Reason

See point 13.

Amendment 5

Article 7

Insert paragraph (h)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 30.

Amendment 6

Article 8

Amend paragraph (a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | information packages and awareness-raising campaigns, including via user friendly communication and information technology and websites; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

information packages and awareness-raising campaigns, including via user friendly communication and information technology and websites;

| (a) | information packages awareness-raising campaigns, including via user friendly communication and information technology and websites; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

information packages awareness-raising campaigns, including via user friendly communication and information technology and websites;

Reason

See point 25.

Amendment 7

Article 9

Amend paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Within the specific objective defined in point (b) of Article 3(2), eligible actions shall take place in the framework of consistent strategies, implemented by non-governmental organisations, local and/or regional authorities and specifically designed for the integration, at the local and/or regional level, as appropriate, of persons referred to in points (a) to (g) of Article 4(1). In this context, eligible actions shall in particular include the following: | 1.   Within the specific objective defined in point (b) of Article 3(2), eligible actions shall take place in the framework of consistent strategies, implemented by non-governmental organisations, local and/or regional authorities and specifically designed for the integration, at the local and/or regional level, as appropriate, of persons referred to in points (a) to (g) of Article 4(1). In this context, eligible actions shall in particular include the following: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Within the specific objective defined in point (b) of Article 3(2), eligible actions shall take place in the framework of consistent strategies, implemented by non-governmental organisations, local and/or regional authorities and specifically designed for the integration, at the local and/or regional level, as appropriate, of persons referred to in points (a) to (g) of Article 4(1). In this context, eligible actions shall in particular include the following:

1.   Within the specific objective defined in point (b) of Article 3(2), eligible actions shall take place in the framework of consistent strategies, implemented by non-governmental organisations, local and/or regional authorities and specifically designed for the integration, at the local and/or regional level, as appropriate, of persons referred to in points (a) to (g) of Article 4(1). In this context, eligible actions shall in particular include the following:

Reason

See point 25.

Amendment 8

Article 9

Amend paragraph 1(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | setting up and developing such integration strategies, including needs analysis, the improvement of indicators and evaluation; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

setting up and developing such integration strategies, including needs analysis, the improvement of indicators and evaluation;

| (a) | setting up and developing such integration strategies, including needs analysis, the improvement of indicators and evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

setting up and developing such integration strategies, including needs analysis, the improvement of indicators and evaluation;

Reason

See points 18 and 23.

Amendment 9

Article 9

Insert paragraph 1(i)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 10

Article 9

Insert paragraph 1(j)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 11

Article 10

Insert paragraph (f)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See points 46 and 54.

Amendment 12

Article 11

Amend paragraph (a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | establishment and improvement of accommodation infrastructure or services and reception or detention conditions; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

establishment and improvement of accommodation infrastructure or services and reception or detention conditions;

| (a) | establishment and improvement of accommodation infrastructure or services and reception or detention conditions |
| --- | --- |

(a)

establishment and improvement of accommodation infrastructure or services and reception or detention conditions

Reason

See point 27.

Amendment 13

Article 12

Amend paragraph (b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | assisted voluntary return measures, including medical examinations and assistance, travel arrangements, financial contributions, pre- and post-return counselling and assistance; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b)

assisted voluntary return measures, including medical examinations and assistance, travel arrangements, financial contributions, pre- and post-return counselling and assistance;

| (b) | assisted voluntary return measures, including medical examinations and assistance, travel arrangements, financial contributions, pre- and post-return counselling and assistance; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

assisted voluntary return measures, including medical examinations and assistance, travel arrangements, financial contributions, pre- and post-return counselling and assistance;

Reason

See points 36 and 37.

Amendment 14

Article 13

Amend paragraph (a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | actions to promote and reinforce the operational cooperation between the return services of Member States, including as regards cooperation with consular authorities and immigration services of third countries; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

actions to promote and reinforce the operational cooperation between the return services of Member States, including as regards cooperation with consular authorities and immigration services of third countries;

| (a) | actions to promote and reinforce the operational cooperation between the return services of Member States, including as regards cooperation with consular authorities and immigration services of third countries; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

actions to promote and reinforce the operational cooperation between the return services of Member States, including as regards cooperation with consular authorities and immigration services of third countries;

Reason

See point 36.

Amendment 15

Article 17

Amend paragraph 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 4.   The following vulnerable groups of refugees shall in any event be included in the common Union resettlement priorities and qualify for the lump sum provided for in paragraph 2:






  — | women and children at risk, |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

4.   The following vulnerable groups of refugees shall in any event be included in the common Union resettlement priorities and qualify for the lump sum provided for in paragraph 2:

—

women and children at risk,

| — | unaccompanied minors, |
| --- | --- |

—

unaccompanied minors,

| — | persons having medical needs that can be addressed only through resettlement, |
| --- | --- |

—

persons having medical needs that can be addressed only through resettlement,

| — | persons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for legal or physical protection needs. |
| --- | --- |

—

persons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for legal or physical protection needs.

4.   The following vulnerable groups of refugees shall in any event be included in the common Union resettlement priorities and qualify for the lump sum provided for in paragraph 2:

| — | women and children at risk, |
| --- | --- |

—

women and children at risk,

| — | unaccompanied minors, |
| --- | --- |

—

unaccompanied minors,

| — | persons having medical needs that can be addressed only through resettlement, |
| --- | --- |

—

persons having medical needs that can be addressed only through resettlement,

| — | persons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for legal or physical protection needs. |
| --- | --- |

—

persons in need of emergency resettlement or urgent resettlement for legal or physical protection needs.

Reason

See point 33. Prioritising persons with psychological needs is a good practice used by UNHCR and others.

Amendment 16

Article 18

Insert paragraph 5

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 32.

Amendment 17

Article 18

Insert paragraph 6

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 30.

Amendment 18

Article 19

Amend paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   In order to allocate the amount indicated in point (c) of Article 15(1), by 31 May 2017 the Commission shall assess the needs of Member States as regards their asylum and reception systems, their situation concerning migration flows in the period 2014 to 2016 and the expected developments. | 1.   In order to allocate the amount indicated in point (c) of Article 15(1), by 31 May 2017 the Commission shall assess the needs of Member States as regards their asylum and reception systems, their situation concerning migration flows in the period 2014 to 2016 and the expected developments. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   In order to allocate the amount indicated in point (c) of Article 15(1), by 31 May 2017 the Commission shall assess the needs of Member States as regards their asylum and reception systems, their situation concerning migration flows in the period 2014 to 2016 and the expected developments.

1.   In order to allocate the amount indicated in point (c) of Article 15(1), by 31 May 2017 the Commission shall assess the needs of Member States as regards their asylum and reception systems, their situation concerning migration flows in the period 2014 to 2016 and the expected developments.

Reason

Situations in the migration field can change overnight and the system should be flexible enough to cope with these changes.

Amendment 19

Article 22

Amend paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The Fund shall provide financial assistance to address urgent and specific needs in the event of an emergency situation. | 1.   The Fund shall provide financial assistance to address urgent and specific needs in the event of an emergency situation. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The Fund shall provide financial assistance to address urgent and specific needs in the event of an emergency situation.

1.   The Fund shall provide financial assistance to address urgent and specific needs in the event of an emergency situation.

Reason

See point 53.

Amendment 20

Article 23

Amend paragraph 2(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | to serve as an Union advisory council for migration and asylum through coordination and cooperation at both national and Union level with representatives of Member States, academia, civil society, think-tanks and other Union/international entities; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

to serve as an Union advisory council for migration and asylum through coordination and cooperation at both national and Union level with representatives of Member States, academia, civil society, think-tanks and other Union/international entities;

| (a) | to serve as an Union advisory council for migration and asylum through coordination and cooperation at both national and Union level with representatives of Member States, academia, civil society, think-tanks and other Union/international entities; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

to serve as an Union advisory council for migration and asylum through coordination and cooperation at both national and Union level with representatives of Member States, academia, civil society, think-tanks and other Union/international entities;

Reason

See point 15.

Amendment 21

Article 23

Amend paragraph 5(c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (c) | National Contact Points designated by the Member States, each one comprising of at least three experts who collectively have expertise in the area of asylum and migration, covering aspects of policymaking, law, research and statistics, and who shall co-ordinate and provide the national contributions to the activities referred to in Article 19(1) in order to have contributions from all relevant stakeholders; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(c)

National Contact Points designated by the Member States, each one comprising of at least three experts who collectively have expertise in the area of asylum and migration, covering aspects of policymaking, law, research and statistics, and who shall co-ordinate and provide the national contributions to the activities referred to in Article 19(1) in order to have contributions from all relevant stakeholders;

| (c) | National Contact Points designated by the Member States, each one comprising of at least three experts who collectively have expertise in the area of asylum and migration, covering aspects of policymaking, law, research and statistics, and who shall co-ordinate and provide the national contributions to the activities referred to in Article 19(1) in order to have contributions from all relevant stakeholders; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

National Contact Points designated by the Member States, each one comprising of at least three experts who collectively have expertise in the area of asylum and migration, covering aspects of policymaking, law, research and statistics, and who shall co-ordinate and provide the national contributions to the activities referred to in Article 19(1) in order to have contributions from all relevant stakeholders;

Reason

See point 13. This would help increase transparency of the mechanisms.

COM(2011) 752 final

Regulation on laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management

Amendment 1

Article 4

Amend

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Actions financed by the Specific Regulations shall comply with applicable Union and national law. | Actions financed by the Specific Regulations shall comply with applicable Union and national Law. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Actions financed by the Specific Regulations shall comply with applicable Union and national law.

Actions financed by the Specific Regulations shall comply with applicable Union and national Law.

Reason

ECHR case law is part of EU but at times, the outcomes of such decisions are not put into practice by Member States. It is helpful to highlight their importance.

Amendment 2

Article 8

Insert paragraph 5

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 53.

Amendment 3

Article 12

Amend paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Each Member State shall organise, in accordance with its national rules and practices, a partnership with the authorities and bodies concerned to develop and implement national programmes. | 1.   Each Member State shall organise, in accordance with its national rules and practices, a partnership with the authorities and bodies concerned to develop and implement national programmes. |
| Such authorities and bodies shall include the competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities, and, where appropriate, international organisations and bodies representing civil society, such as non-governmental organisations or social partners. | Such authorities and bodies shall include the competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities, and, international organisations and bodies representing civil society, such as non-governmental organisations or social partners. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Each Member State shall organise, in accordance with its national rules and practices, a partnership with the authorities and bodies concerned to develop and implement national programmes.

1.   Each Member State shall organise, in accordance with its national rules and practices, a partnership with the authorities and bodies concerned to develop and implement national programmes.

Such authorities and bodies shall include the competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities, and, where appropriate, international organisations and bodies representing civil society, such as non-governmental organisations or social partners.

Such authorities and bodies shall include the competent regional, local, urban and other public authorities, and, international organisations and bodies representing civil society, such as non-governmental organisations or social partners.

Reason

The word ‘relevant’ as opposed to ‘where appropriate’ removes an element of discretion which could lead to a lack of clarity. Target group contribution is a corner-stone in EU programming.

Amendment 4

Article 12

Amend paragraph 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 4.   Each Member State shall set up a monitoring committee to support the implementation of national programmes. | 4.   Each Member State shall set up a monitoring committee to support the implementation of national programmes. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

4.   Each Member State shall set up a monitoring committee to support the implementation of national programmes.

4.   Each Member State shall set up a monitoring committee to support the implementation of national programmes.

Reason

See point 13. This would lead to increased transparency and avoid possible conflicts of interest.

Amendment 5

Article 12

Amend paragraph 5

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 5.   The Commission may participate in the work of the monitoring committee in an advisory capacity. | 5.   The Commission participate in the work of the monitoring committee in an advisory capacity. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

5.   The Commission may participate in the work of the monitoring committee in an advisory capacity.

5.   The Commission participate in the work of the monitoring committee in an advisory capacity.

Reason

Commission participation is very important and should not be made discretionary.

Amendment 6

Article 14

Insert paragraph 5(g)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See points 18 and 19.

Amendment 7

Article 20

Amend paragraph 2(c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (c) | expenditure relating to evaluations of actions or projects; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(c)

expenditure relating to evaluations of actions or projects;

| (c) | expenditure relating to evaluations of actions or projects; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

expenditure relating to evaluations of actions or projects;

Reason

See points 18 and 19. Relevant stakeholders are in a good position to judge the performance of a project.

Amendment 8

Article 23

Amend paragraph 1(b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | an accredited Responsible Authority: a public sector body of the Member State, which shall be solely responsible for the proper management and control of the national programme and shall handle all communication with the Commission; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b)

an accredited Responsible Authority: a public sector body of the Member State, which shall be solely responsible for the proper management and control of the national programme and shall handle all communication with the Commission;

| (b) | an accredited Responsible Authority: a public sector body of the Member State, which shall be solely responsible for the proper management and control of the national programme and shall handle all communication with the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

an accredited Responsible Authority: a public sector body of the Member State, which shall be solely responsible for the proper management and control of the national programme and shall handle all communication with the Commission;

Reason

See points 18 and 19.

Amendment 9

Article 25

Insert paragraph 5(d)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See points 18 and 19. Relevant stakeholders are in a good position to judge the performance of a project.

Amendment 10

Article 48

Amend paragraph 1(b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under the national programmes; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b)

informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under the national programmes;

| (b) | informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under the national programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

informing potential beneficiaries about funding opportunities under the national programmes;

Reason

See point 14.

Amendment 11

Article 50

Insert paragraph 7

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See points 18 and 19.

Amendment 12

Article 51

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   Member States shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and programme specific indicators. | 2.   Member States shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and programme specific indicators. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2.   Member States shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and programme specific indicators.

2.   Member States shall ensure that procedures are in place to produce and collect the data necessary for evaluations, including data related to common and programme specific indicators.

Reason

See point 13.

Amendment 13

Article 55

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The Commission shall be assisted by the common Committee ‘Asylum, Migration and Security’ established by this Regulation. That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. | 1.   The Commission shall be assisted by the common Committee ‘Asylum, Migration and Security’ established by this Regulation . That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by the common Committee ‘Asylum, Migration and Security’ established by this Regulation. That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by the common Committee ‘Asylum, Migration and Security’ established by this Regulation . That Committee shall be a Committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

Reason

See points 18 and 19.

COM(2011) 753 final

Regulation on establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management

Amendment 1

Article 3

Amend paragraph 2(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | preventing and combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities of Member States and with relevant third-countries. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

preventing and combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities of Member States and with relevant third-countries.

| (a) | preventing and combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities of Member States and with relevant third-countries. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

preventing and combating cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law enforcement authorities of Member States and with relevant third-countries.

Reason

See point 41 and 55.

Amendment 2

Article 3

Amend paragraph 3(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | measures (methodologies, tools, structures) strengthening Member States' capability to prevent and combat cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, in particular through public-private partnerships, the exchange of information and best practices, access to data, interoperable technologies, comparable statistics, applied criminology, public communication and awareness raising. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

measures (methodologies, tools, structures) strengthening Member States' capability to prevent and combat cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, in particular through public-private partnerships, the exchange of information and best practices, access to data, interoperable technologies, comparable statistics, applied criminology, public communication and awareness raising.

| (a) | measures (methodologies, tools, structures) strengthening Member States' capability to prevent and combat cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, in particular through public-private partnerships, the exchange of information and best practices, access to data interoperable technologies, comparable statistics, applied criminology, public communication and awareness raising. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

measures (methodologies, tools, structures) strengthening Member States' capability to prevent and combat cross-border, serious and organised crime including terrorism, in particular through public-private partnerships, the exchange of information and best practices, access to data interoperable technologies, comparable statistics, applied criminology, public communication and awareness raising.

Reason

See points 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 and 44.

Amendment 3

Article 4

Amend paragraph 1(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | actions improving police cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities, including joint investigation teams and any other form of cross-border joint operation, the access to and exchange of information and interoperable technologies; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

actions improving police cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities, including joint investigation teams and any other form of cross-border joint operation, the access to and exchange of information and interoperable technologies;

| (a) | actions improving police cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities, including joint investigation teams and any other form of cross-border joint operation, the access to and exchange of information and interoperable technologies; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

actions improving police cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities, including joint investigation teams and any other form of cross-border joint operation, the access to and exchange of information and interoperable technologies;

Reason

See points 38 and 40.

Amendment 4

Article 4

Insert paragraph 1(h)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

;

Reason

See point 42.

Amendment 5

Article 4

Insert paragraph 1(i)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 41.

Amendment 6

Article 6

Amend paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The national programme to be prepared under the Instrument and the one to be prepared under Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa shall be drawn up jointly by Member States and proposed to the Commission as one single national programme for the Fund, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [Horizontal Regulation]. | 1.   The national programme to be prepared under the Instrument and the one to be prepared under Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa shall be drawn up jointly by Member States and proposed to the Commission as one single national programme for the Fund, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [Horizontal Regulation]. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The national programme to be prepared under the Instrument and the one to be prepared under Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa shall be drawn up jointly by Member States and proposed to the Commission as one single national programme for the Fund, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [Horizontal Regulation].

1.   The national programme to be prepared under the Instrument and the one to be prepared under Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa shall be drawn up jointly by Member States and proposed to the Commission as one single national programme for the Fund, in accordance with Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [Horizontal Regulation].

Reason

See points 18 and 19.

Amendment 7

Article 14a

Insert new point

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

Until now, support for cross-border policing measures could come either from the ISEC programme (Commission programme for the Prevention of and Fight against Crime) or from Objective 3 support (ERDF funded) (complementarity principle – Article 11 of Council Decision 2007/125/JHA). While action under ISEC was centrally funded by the EU, management of Objective 3 funding was decentralised. Under Article 14 of the draft ISF Regulation, the Council Decision from 2007 will be repealed in the forthcoming financial period, which means that the principle of complementarity between Community instruments will also be repealed and it will no longer be possible to choose between the ISF and Objective 3 support. However, the advantages of flexibility in using different support instruments ought not to be lost. Insofar as repealing complementarity is intended to avoid duplicating support, this can be dealt with quite adequately in the process of implementation. We therefore suggest that the complementarity principle and the safeguard clause in Article 11(3) ISEC should be set out in a new Article 14a of the ISF Regulation.

Brussels, 18 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 201/2009, point 1.

1

(2)  CdR 201/2009, points 8 and 9.

2

(3)  CdR 170/2010, point 43.

3

(4)  COM(2011) 752 final.

4

(5)  Commission Communication: European Agenda for the integration of third-country nationals – COM(2011) 455 final.

5

(6)  CdR 170/2010, point 41 and 42.

6

(7)  CdR 201/2009, point 92.

7

(8)  CdR 170/2010, point 48.

8

(9)  CdR 201/2009, point 87.

9

(10)  COM(2012) 85 final.

10

(11)  CdR 210/2008, point 30.

11

(12)  CdR 201/2009, points 76 and 77.

12

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/43

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘EU financial instruments in justice and citizenship’

2012/C 277/06

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | considers that the proposed programmes are important instruments for supporting the implementation of EU policies in the fields of justice, rights and citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the proposed programmes are important instruments for supporting the implementation of EU policies in the fields of justice, rights and citizenship;

| — | believes that the proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity, owing to the significant cross-border dimension to the policy areas involved and the planned implementation of the European area of justice and rights, which require transnational cooperation mechanisms and networking opportunities for the professionals concerned, and typically cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone; |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that the proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity, owing to the significant cross-border dimension to the policy areas involved and the planned implementation of the European area of justice and rights, which require transnational cooperation mechanisms and networking opportunities for the professionals concerned, and typically cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone;

| — | finds that the provisions contained in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 could lead to the pursuit of actions with added value at European level, with the aim of extending the European area of justice and improving the promotion and protection of the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

finds that the provisions contained in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 could lead to the pursuit of actions with added value at European level, with the aim of extending the European area of justice and improving the promotion and protection of the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| — | reiterates its commitment and willingness to supporting the area of freedom, security and justice and promoting European citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

—

reiterates its commitment and willingness to supporting the area of freedom, security and justice and promoting European citizenship;

| — | calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve local and regional authorities in implementing the programmes, particularly in developing the annual work programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve local and regional authorities in implementing the programmes, particularly in developing the annual work programmes;

| — | suggests that one representative of the Committee of the Regions may be involved in the advisory procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

suggests that one representative of the Committee of the Regions may be involved in the advisory procedure.

| Rapporteur | Mr VARACALLI (IT/ALDE) Mayor of Gerace |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents | | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Citizenship Programme
  COM(2011) 758 final |

Rapporteur

Mr VARACALLI (IT/ALDE) Mayor of Gerace

Reference documents

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Rights and Citizenship Programme

COM(2011) 758 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme
  COM(2011) 759 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme

COM(2011) 759 final

| | Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme ‘Europe for Citizens’
  COM(2011) 884 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme ‘Europe for Citizens’

COM(2011) 884 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General remarks

| 1. | considers that the proposed programmes are important instruments for supporting the implementation of EU policies in the fields of justice, rights and citizenship; together, these programmes intend to support activities carried out in the Member States with a view to raising awareness and understanding, supporting the implementation of Union law and policies in the Member States, promoting transnational cooperation and improving the knowledge and understanding of potential issues in the relevant policy areas with a view to ensuring evidence-based policy making and legislation. The Europe for Citizens programme, in particular, aims at promoting the development of a European citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

1.

considers that the proposed programmes are important instruments for supporting the implementation of EU policies in the fields of justice, rights and citizenship; together, these programmes intend to support activities carried out in the Member States with a view to raising awareness and understanding, supporting the implementation of Union law and policies in the Member States, promoting transnational cooperation and improving the knowledge and understanding of potential issues in the relevant policy areas with a view to ensuring evidence-based policy making and legislation. The Europe for Citizens programme, in particular, aims at promoting the development of a European citizenship;

| 2. | believes that the proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity, owing to the significant cross-border dimension to the policy areas involved and the planned implementation of the European area of justice and rights, which require transnational cooperation mechanisms and networking opportunities for the professionals concerned, and typically cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone; |
| --- | --- |

2.

believes that the proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity, owing to the significant cross-border dimension to the policy areas involved and the planned implementation of the European area of justice and rights, which require transnational cooperation mechanisms and networking opportunities for the professionals concerned, and typically cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone;

| 3. | considers that the proposals are also in line with the proportionality principle, having verified in particular that their form and content correspond to what is likely to be required in order to achieve the intended objectives, and that the total financial envelope for the three programmes appears sufficient for their effective implementation, given that this envelope has been maintained in line with that granted to the programmes currently in force for the same areas of action and that, inter alia, provision has been expressly made for upward revision in the event of accession of a new Member State; |
| --- | --- |

3.

considers that the proposals are also in line with the proportionality principle, having verified in particular that their form and content correspond to what is likely to be required in order to achieve the intended objectives, and that the total financial envelope for the three programmes appears sufficient for their effective implementation, given that this envelope has been maintained in line with that granted to the programmes currently in force for the same areas of action and that, inter alia, provision has been expressly made for upward revision in the event of accession of a new Member State;

| 4. | appreciates, with a view to the improvement of regulations, the impact assessments accompanying the proposals, which are deemed sufficiently justified and comprehensive, taking into account the fact that the Commission also consulted stakeholders during the preparatory phrase and the relevant results were fed into the impact assessment, and a similar consultation was held at various levels with local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

4.

appreciates, with a view to the improvement of regulations, the impact assessments accompanying the proposals, which are deemed sufficiently justified and comprehensive, taking into account the fact that the Commission also consulted stakeholders during the preparatory phrase and the relevant results were fed into the impact assessment, and a similar consultation was held at various levels with local and regional authorities;

| 5. | finds that the provisions contained in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 could lead to the pursuit of actions with added value at European level, with the aim of extending the European area of justice and improving the promotion and protection of the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

5.

finds that the provisions contained in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 could lead to the pursuit of actions with added value at European level, with the aim of extending the European area of justice and improving the promotion and protection of the rights of persons as enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

| 6. | hopes that the programmes will continue to contribute to the gradual achievement of a better understanding of the EU by citizens, particularly by providing incentives for active civic involvement, and to significantly strengthen awareness; |
| --- | --- |

6.

hopes that the programmes will continue to contribute to the gradual achievement of a better understanding of the EU by citizens, particularly by providing incentives for active civic involvement, and to significantly strengthen awareness;

| 7. | also hopes that the implementation of the Rights and Citizenship Programme (with regard to the specific objective of ‘[contributing] to enhancing the exercise of rights deriving from the citizenship of the Union’) and the Europe for Citizens Programme (with regard to the general objective of ‘... [enhancing] capacity for civic participation at the Union level’ and the specific objective of ‘[encouraging] democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, ...’) can also help develop Europeans' awareness of the recent opportunity brought by Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens' initiative enabling them to make legislative proposals to the Commission on issues in which the EU is competent, with the possibility for such initiatives to be promoted or supported by organisations; |
| --- | --- |

7.

also hopes that the implementation of the Rights and Citizenship Programme (with regard to the specific objective of ‘[contributing] to enhancing the exercise of rights deriving from the citizenship of the Union’) and the Europe for Citizens Programme (with regard to the general objective of ‘... [enhancing] capacity for civic participation at the Union level’ and the specific objective of ‘[encouraging] democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, ...’) can also help develop Europeans' awareness of the recent opportunity brought by Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens' initiative enabling them to make legislative proposals to the Commission on issues in which the EU is competent, with the possibility for such initiatives to be promoted or supported by organisations;

| 8. | reiterates its commitment and willingness to support the area of freedom, security and justice and promoting European citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

8.

reiterates its commitment and willingness to support the area of freedom, security and justice and promoting European citizenship;

| 9. | considers it necessary, with specific reference to the Rights and Citizenship Programme, regarding gender mainstreaming, to ensure the adequate and effective application of the points made in the proposal for a regulation in Recital 12 regarding the continuation and development of activities previously carried out on the basis of three programmes, in particular the programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme), as well as the sections on ‘gender equality’ and ‘diversity and antidiscrimination’ of the EU Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (Progress), and in Article 4(b) (Specific objectives), with specific reference to non-discrimination on grounds of sex and the principle of equality between women and men; |
| --- | --- |

9.

considers it necessary, with specific reference to the Rights and Citizenship Programme, regarding gender mainstreaming, to ensure the adequate and effective application of the points made in the proposal for a regulation in Recital 12 regarding the continuation and development of activities previously carried out on the basis of three programmes, in particular the programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (Daphne III programme), as well as the sections on ‘gender equality’ and ‘diversity and antidiscrimination’ of the EU Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (Progress), and in Article 4(b) (Specific objectives), with specific reference to non-discrimination on grounds of sex and the principle of equality between women and men;

| 10. | appreciates, in principle, the plans to replace the six operational programmes for 2007-2013 with two programmes, bearing in mind that the reduction could lead to leaner and more efficient management of the actions planned also with a view to the desirable improved focus in the distribution of funds and the avoidance of geographical imbalances identified among the current programmes by the Commission in the legislative financial statements appended to the proposals; |
| --- | --- |

10.

appreciates, in principle, the plans to replace the six operational programmes for 2007-2013 with two programmes, bearing in mind that the reduction could lead to leaner and more efficient management of the actions planned also with a view to the desirable improved focus in the distribution of funds and the avoidance of geographical imbalances identified among the current programmes by the Commission in the legislative financial statements appended to the proposals;

| 11. | calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve local and regional authorities in implementing the programmes, particularly in developing the annual work programmes; |
| --- | --- |

11.

calls on the Commission and the Member States to involve local and regional authorities in implementing the programmes, particularly in developing the annual work programmes;

| 12. | recommends, particularly as regards the planned and indeed timely possibility of private bodies benefiting from the proposed actions, that the Commission also aim to further refine the mechanisms for the preliminary verification of the quality of requests; |
| --- | --- |

12.

recommends, particularly as regards the planned and indeed timely possibility of private bodies benefiting from the proposed actions, that the Commission also aim to further refine the mechanisms for the preliminary verification of the quality of requests;

| 13. | stresses that local and regional authorities have a special interest in the issues dealt with in the area for freedom, security and justice, owing above all to the direct impact that these have on the everyday life of people living in the European Union and on the duties of local and regional authorities themselves, and the fact that these authorities have many key powers in policy fields falling within the area; |
| --- | --- |

13.

stresses that local and regional authorities have a special interest in the issues dealt with in the area for freedom, security and justice, owing above all to the direct impact that these have on the everyday life of people living in the European Union and on the duties of local and regional authorities themselves, and the fact that these authorities have many key powers in policy fields falling within the area;

| 14. | emphasises that, for local and regional authorities, subsidiarity and proximity towards citizens and residents require a direct approach to the concerns and aspirations of these citizens, for whom local bodies often implement innovative, appropriate solutions; |
| --- | --- |

14.

emphasises that, for local and regional authorities, subsidiarity and proximity towards citizens and residents require a direct approach to the concerns and aspirations of these citizens, for whom local bodies often implement innovative, appropriate solutions;

| 15. | points out, with particular regard to the Europe for Citizens programme, that involvement in town twinning schemes, as expressly encouraged by the programme itself, has resulted in extremely valuable exchanges of experiences between communities in different geographical areas, strengthening experimentation with successful initiatives through which authorities have also put themselves forward as promoters and facilitators of citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

15.

points out, with particular regard to the Europe for Citizens programme, that involvement in town twinning schemes, as expressly encouraged by the programme itself, has resulted in extremely valuable exchanges of experiences between communities in different geographical areas, strengthening experimentation with successful initiatives through which authorities have also put themselves forward as promoters and facilitators of citizenship;

| 16. | endorses the possibility set down in the three proposals that all public bodies, including local and regional authorities, could have access to the programmes; points out, however, that the application procedures should not be too costly, particularly with regard to the planned complementarity between the programmes themselves and the related and relevant possibility of using resources allocated to different programmes, provided that the financing covers different items of expenditure; |
| --- | --- |

16.

endorses the possibility set down in the three proposals that all public bodies, including local and regional authorities, could have access to the programmes; points out, however, that the application procedures should not be too costly, particularly with regard to the planned complementarity between the programmes themselves and the related and relevant possibility of using resources allocated to different programmes, provided that the financing covers different items of expenditure;

| 17. | supports the objectives set down in the programme, as it has expressed in previous opinions, and pledges its ongoing commitment to promoting and fostering their use in neighbouring countries through its cooperation bodies (working groups, joint consultative committees, CORLEAP, ARLEM) in line with the relevant cooperation agreements and in cooperation with the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

17.

supports the objectives set down in the programme, as it has expressed in previous opinions, and pledges its ongoing commitment to promoting and fostering their use in neighbouring countries through its cooperation bodies (working groups, joint consultative committees, CORLEAP, ARLEM) in line with the relevant cooperation agreements and in cooperation with the Commission;

| 18. | stresses the particular importance of creating a genuine area of freedom, security and justice for citizens in a world characterised by increasing mobility; welcomes, in line with the ongoing efforts by the Committee of the Regions to promote a system of multilevel protection of fundamental rights, the fact that the progress made towards this area of freedom, security and justice places citizens at the centre of the project; |
| --- | --- |

18.

stresses the particular importance of creating a genuine area of freedom, security and justice for citizens in a world characterised by increasing mobility; welcomes, in line with the ongoing efforts by the Committee of the Regions to promote a system of multilevel protection of fundamental rights, the fact that the progress made towards this area of freedom, security and justice places citizens at the centre of the project;

| 19. | considers that the issues of security and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms must be brought together in a balanced way, by implementing coherent instruments in the field of freedom, security and justice: in this regard it cannot be denied that while Europe has a solid legal framework for the protection of human rights, in practice this must continue to be improved with a view to guaranteeing the effective exercise of these rights; |
| --- | --- |

19.

considers that the issues of security and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms must be brought together in a balanced way, by implementing coherent instruments in the field of freedom, security and justice: in this regard it cannot be denied that while Europe has a solid legal framework for the protection of human rights, in practice this must continue to be improved with a view to guaranteeing the effective exercise of these rights;

| 20. | welcomes the fact that the three programmes, while displaying objective differences, together contribute to raising public awareness of the European dimension of citizenship, as a means for involvement in the European integration process and contribution to European democracy; |
| --- | --- |

20.

welcomes the fact that the three programmes, while displaying objective differences, together contribute to raising public awareness of the European dimension of citizenship, as a means for involvement in the European integration process and contribution to European democracy;

| 21. | reiterates certain points made in its recent opinion on the new Multiannual Financial Framework post-2013, in which it underlined the significance of providing adequate resources to foster fundamental rights, democracy and citizens' participation in the effort to build European citizenship, and considered of paramount importance the emphasis given in the Europe for Citizens Programme to partnerships in support of EU level civil society, highlighting that the EU's security is closely linked to the furtherance of democracy, good governance and the rule of law in third countries, and that it is incumbent upon the Union to promote these values globally; |
| --- | --- |

21.

reiterates certain points made in its recent opinion on the new Multiannual Financial Framework post-2013, in which it underlined the significance of providing adequate resources to foster fundamental rights, democracy and citizens' participation in the effort to build European citizenship, and considered of paramount importance the emphasis given in the Europe for Citizens Programme to partnerships in support of EU level civil society, highlighting that the EU's security is closely linked to the furtherance of democracy, good governance and the rule of law in third countries, and that it is incumbent upon the Union to promote these values globally;

| 22. | stresses, as it has previously pointed out, that it would be helpful to support the various forms of territorial cooperation to implement projects and measures aimed at making European citizenship a reality and which could help reduce obstacles and red tape, including by disseminating the various best practices relating to cross-border services, for example in the areas of health and multilingualism; |
| --- | --- |

22.

stresses, as it has previously pointed out, that it would be helpful to support the various forms of territorial cooperation to implement projects and measures aimed at making European citizenship a reality and which could help reduce obstacles and red tape, including by disseminating the various best practices relating to cross-border services, for example in the areas of health and multilingualism;

| 23. | hopes that the actions taken in these fundamental areas can be taken into account as priorities for the annual work programmes, especially in relation to the Rights and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programmes; |
| --- | --- |

23.

hopes that the actions taken in these fundamental areas can be taken into account as priorities for the annual work programmes, especially in relation to the Rights and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programmes;

| 24. | acknowledges that merging the previous six programmes for Justice and Rights and Citizenship into two and restructuring the Europe for Citizens Programme could create more flexibility when it comes to setting priorities over the seven year programming period, reducing management costs at European level, lessening bureaucratic burdens for the beneficiaries and allowing for more cross-cutting projects that cover several objectives of the programmes; |
| --- | --- |

24.

acknowledges that merging the previous six programmes for Justice and Rights and Citizenship into two and restructuring the Europe for Citizens Programme could create more flexibility when it comes to setting priorities over the seven year programming period, reducing management costs at European level, lessening bureaucratic burdens for the beneficiaries and allowing for more cross-cutting projects that cover several objectives of the programmes;

| 25. | reiterates the position it has expressed in the past, particularly with regard to the issue of justice, that policies developed in the fields of justice and internal affairs should be coordinated and integrated with other Union policies (especially its economic and social and external policies), as improved coordination of these policies is bound to strengthen their overall effectiveness; |
| --- | --- |

25.

reiterates the position it has expressed in the past, particularly with regard to the issue of justice, that policies developed in the fields of justice and internal affairs should be coordinated and integrated with other Union policies (especially its economic and social and external policies), as improved coordination of these policies is bound to strengthen their overall effectiveness;

| 26. | agrees that promoting citizenship is a horizontal issue that must be taken into account in the European Union's other actions, which is why synergies with the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) are important in order to ensure that future EU citizens are informed about European citizenship and know their rights and responsibilities; |
| --- | --- |

26.

agrees that promoting citizenship is a horizontal issue that must be taken into account in the European Union's other actions, which is why synergies with the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) are important in order to ensure that future EU citizens are informed about European citizenship and know their rights and responsibilities;

| 27. | hopes, therefore, that practical solutions will be implemented that allow for complementarity and synergies between the three proposed programmes and with other Union instruments, and invites the Commission to provide information on the means it intends to employ in order to guarantee these synergies and complementarity; |
| --- | --- |

27.

hopes, therefore, that practical solutions will be implemented that allow for complementarity and synergies between the three proposed programmes and with other Union instruments, and invites the Commission to provide information on the means it intends to employ in order to guarantee these synergies and complementarity;

| 28. | is concerned that it will not be sufficiently possible for local and regional authorities to be effectively involved in devising the annual work programmes and evaluating at least two out of the three specific programmes: the process of building a citizens' Europe must go hand in hand with the concrete participation of local and regional authorities at every phase, as they represent vital institutional levels through which to guarantee more democratically legitimate decision-making; |
| --- | --- |

28.

is concerned that it will not be sufficiently possible for local and regional authorities to be effectively involved in devising the annual work programmes and evaluating at least two out of the three specific programmes: the process of building a citizens' Europe must go hand in hand with the concrete participation of local and regional authorities at every phase, as they represent vital institutional levels through which to guarantee more democratically legitimate decision-making;

| 29. | therefore calls for a guarantee that local and regional authorities, through the Committee of the Regions, will formally participate in the drafting of the annual programmes of activities for the Rights and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programmes; |
| --- | --- |

29.

therefore calls for a guarantee that local and regional authorities, through the Committee of the Regions, will formally participate in the drafting of the annual programmes of activities for the Rights and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programmes;

| 30. | furthermore, considers, with regard to the interim evaluation reports and the ex-post evaluation reports provided by the Commission for the Rights and Citizenship programme, that it should be able to express its own opinion, as is formally provided for with regard to the Europe for Citizens programme, and therefore calls for a specific provision in this connection to be included in the proposal on the Rights and Citizenship programme; |
| --- | --- |

30.

furthermore, considers, with regard to the interim evaluation reports and the ex-post evaluation reports provided by the Commission for the Rights and Citizenship programme, that it should be able to express its own opinion, as is formally provided for with regard to the Europe for Citizens programme, and therefore calls for a specific provision in this connection to be included in the proposal on the Rights and Citizenship programme;

| 31. | requests that the measurement of the achievement of the specific objectives of the Rights and Citizenship programme also be contingent on the collection of qualitative and quantitative data on the respect, exercise and implementation of these rights, given that the reference to perception at European level is not an adequate measure in terms of results; also refers in this connection to the activities of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Institute for Gender Equality in drawing up corresponding indicators and comparative studies; |
| --- | --- |

31.

requests that the measurement of the achievement of the specific objectives of the Rights and Citizenship programme also be contingent on the collection of qualitative and quantitative data on the respect, exercise and implementation of these rights, given that the reference to perception at European level is not an adequate measure in terms of results; also refers in this connection to the activities of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Institute for Gender Equality in drawing up corresponding indicators and comparative studies;

| 32. | supports the important role that the programme proposals should play through awareness raising and information activities for European citizens, particularly as regards wide-ranging access to information, which is increasingly important if they are to play an active part in the political process. The Committee has already highlighted this point, calling on its members to strive to ensure that access to information is effectively guaranteed in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

32.

supports the important role that the programme proposals should play through awareness raising and information activities for European citizens, particularly as regards wide-ranging access to information, which is increasingly important if they are to play an active part in the political process. The Committee has already highlighted this point, calling on its members to strive to ensure that access to information is effectively guaranteed in the Member States;

| 33. | believes, with regard to the Justice programme, that the planned continuation of exchanges of staff from national judicial systems, within the broader scope of the European justice network, will gradually strengthen mutual recognition of judicial systems and improve trust between them; |
| --- | --- |

33.

believes, with regard to the Justice programme, that the planned continuation of exchanges of staff from national judicial systems, within the broader scope of the European justice network, will gradually strengthen mutual recognition of judicial systems and improve trust between them;

| 34. | strongly supports, therefore, the specific proposal to fund training activities for judicial staff as laid down in Article 6 of the proposal for the Justice programme, as such training and awareness are key elements in building a Europe of justice; |
| --- | --- |

34.

strongly supports, therefore, the specific proposal to fund training activities for judicial staff as laid down in Article 6 of the proposal for the Justice programme, as such training and awareness are key elements in building a Europe of justice;

| 35. | recommends paying particular attention to this aspect in order to guarantee effective participation from all staff working within the judicial system, in the public and private sectors; |
| --- | --- |

35.

recommends paying particular attention to this aspect in order to guarantee effective participation from all staff working within the judicial system, in the public and private sectors;

| 36. | considers that the training activities funded under the Rights and Citizenship Programme should include training in European citizenship for those planning to obtain the citizenship of a Member State, and for schoolchildren, supporting the principle of active citizenship of young people through education; |
| --- | --- |

36.

considers that the training activities funded under the Rights and Citizenship Programme should include training in European citizenship for those planning to obtain the citizenship of a Member State, and for schoolchildren, supporting the principle of active citizenship of young people through education;

| 37. | is in favour of the funding support for the development of online training modules provided for in the programme proposal, which coincides with the CoR's call to promote measures aimed at citizenship training via the media and ICT; |
| --- | --- |

37.

is in favour of the funding support for the development of online training modules provided for in the programme proposal, which coincides with the CoR's call to promote measures aimed at citizenship training via the media and ICT;

| 38. | believes that the Justice programme and Rights and Citizenship programme are also a viable means of strengthening local and regional authorities' considerable potential in cross-border cooperation on issues relating to the area of freedom, security and justice; |
| --- | --- |

38.

believes that the Justice programme and Rights and Citizenship programme are also a viable means of strengthening local and regional authorities' considerable potential in cross-border cooperation on issues relating to the area of freedom, security and justice;

| 39. | fully endorses, in principle, the more result-oriented approach chosen by the Commission for the programmes, focused on the use of indicators to measure the achievement of the programmes' objectives; highlights, however, that while a comprehensive list of indicators is contained in the Europe for Citizens proposal, the proposal for the Justice Programme, for example, only mentions a single indicator for each objective and hints to an undefined set of further indicators; suggests, therefore, a specification which is broader in general, preferably referring to qualitative parameters as well as quantitative ones; |
| --- | --- |

39.

fully endorses, in principle, the more result-oriented approach chosen by the Commission for the programmes, focused on the use of indicators to measure the achievement of the programmes' objectives; highlights, however, that while a comprehensive list of indicators is contained in the Europe for Citizens proposal, the proposal for the Justice Programme, for example, only mentions a single indicator for each objective and hints to an undefined set of further indicators; suggests, therefore, a specification which is broader in general, preferably referring to qualitative parameters as well as quantitative ones;

| 40. | highlights that the proposal on the Europe for Citizens programme provides for a more flexible structure than the programme currently underway; it is therefore not necessary to allocate quotas in advance for individual actions that can be carried out under the new programme; |
| --- | --- |

40.

highlights that the proposal on the Europe for Citizens programme provides for a more flexible structure than the programme currently underway; it is therefore not necessary to allocate quotas in advance for individual actions that can be carried out under the new programme;

| 41. | points out, in this connection, that town twinning schemes, as well as continuing to benefit from the programme, could also have available a fixed quota set in advance, which in the current programme is equivalent to almost one third of the total budget and could be maintained at this level; |
| --- | --- |

41.

points out, in this connection, that town twinning schemes, as well as continuing to benefit from the programme, could also have available a fixed quota set in advance, which in the current programme is equivalent to almost one third of the total budget and could be maintained at this level;

| 42. | therefore calls for a good part of the overall budget of the Europe for Citizens programme to be allocated to activities that take place in the context of town twinning, particularly given the recognised, important role that twinning plays in building strong and sustainable contacts between citizens, including those of third countries; |
| --- | --- |

42.

therefore calls for a good part of the overall budget of the Europe for Citizens programme to be allocated to activities that take place in the context of town twinning, particularly given the recognised, important role that twinning plays in building strong and sustainable contacts between citizens, including those of third countries;

| 43. | reiterates that, as the Parliament and the Council have recently introduced the European Heritage Label as an instrument to enhance the shared cultural heritage of the Member States while respecting national and regional diversity, the Europe for Citizens programme could, in order to pursue its stated objectives, also tap into the potential of the sites that will receive this new label, in the same way that the European Cities of Culture promote European identity and citizenship. |
| --- | --- |

43.

reiterates that, as the Parliament and the Council have recently introduced the European Heritage Label as an instrument to enhance the shared cultural heritage of the Member States while respecting national and regional diversity, the Europe for Citizens programme could, in order to pursue its stated objectives, also tap into the potential of the sites that will receive this new label, in the same way that the European Cities of Culture promote European identity and citizenship.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP – COM(2011) 758 final

Amendment 1

Article 4(2)

Specific objectives

| Text proposed by Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   The indicators to measure the achievement of the objectives set out in paragraph 1 shall be, inter alia, the European perception of the respect, exercise and implementation of these rights and the number of complaints. | 2.   The indicators to measure the achievement of the objectives set out in paragraph 1 shall be, inter alia, the respect, exercise and implementation of these rights and the number of complaints. |

Text proposed by Commission

CoR amendment

2.   The indicators to measure the achievement of the objectives set out in paragraph 1 shall be, inter alia, the European perception of the respect, exercise and implementation of these rights and the number of complaints.

2.   The indicators to measure the achievement of the objectives set out in paragraph 1 shall be, inter alia, the respect, exercise and implementation of these rights and the number of complaints.

Reason

With a view to effectively measuring the achievement of the specific objectives of the programme, it seems clearer to refer to the collection of qualitative and quantitative data, given that the concept of ‘perception’ could be interpreted less clearly, in a way that does not sufficiently reflect the achievement of the objectives.

RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP – COM(2011) 758 final

Amendment 2

Article 9(1)

Committee procedure

| Text proposed by Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011. | 1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011. |

Text proposed by Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011.

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011.

Reason

The adoption of the annual work programmes, through which the entire programme is implemented, should involve the participation of a representative of the Committee of the Regions, alongside the Committee comprising representatives of the Member States and assisting the Commission.

As this relates to the implementation of programmes in which local and regional authorities are strongly involved, their participation in devising the annual work programmes through the European institution (Committee of the Regions) representing them, will enable the programmes to be built from the ground up, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the European citizens.

Moreover, the participation of the Committee of the Regions in drawing up the annual programmes is in line with Committee's power, in the framework of the legislative procedure for the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, to formally issue this opinion.

RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP – COM(2011) 758 final

Amendment 3

Article 12(2)

Monitoring and evaluation

| Text proposed by Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   The Commission shall provide the European Parliament and the Council with:






  (a) | an interim evaluation report, by mid-2018 at the latest; |

Text proposed by Commission

CoR amendment

2.   The Commission shall provide the European Parliament and the Council with:

(a)

an interim evaluation report, by mid-2018 at the latest;

| (b) | an ex-post evaluation report. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

an ex-post evaluation report.

2.   The Commission shall provide the European Parliament the Council with:

| (a) | an interim evaluation report, by mid-2018 at the latest; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

an interim evaluation report, by mid-2018 at the latest;

| (b) | an ex-post evaluation report. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

an ex-post evaluation report.

Reason

It is particularly important to validate the monitoring and evaluation process for the Rights and Citizenship and Europe for Citizens programmes: indeed, for the latter, it is expressly stated in Article 14(3) (Monitoring and evaluation) of the Commission proposal that the Commission shall provide an interim evaluation report and an ex-post evaluation report not only to the European Parliament and the Council but also to the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

Therefore, there are no valid reasons to maintain the provision of Article 12(2) of the proposal on the Rights and Citizenship programme which does not include the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions among the recipients of the interim evaluation report and an ex-post evaluation report. The amendment duly incorporates these two bodies.

JUSTICE – COM(2011) 759 final

Amendment 1

Article 7

Participation

| Text proposed by Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Access to the Programme shall be open to all public and/or private bodies and entities legally established in:






  a) | the Member States; |

Text proposed by Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Access to the Programme shall be open to all public and/or private bodies and entities legally established in:

a)

the Member States;

| b) | EFTA countries which are party to the EEA Agreement, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

b)

EFTA countries which are party to the EEA Agreement, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the EEA Agreement;

| c) | accession countries, candidate countries and potential candidates, in accordance with the general principles and the general terms and conditions laid down in the framework agreements concluded with them on their participation in Union programmes; |
| --- | --- |

c)

accession countries, candidate countries and potential candidates, in accordance with the general principles and the general terms and conditions laid down in the framework agreements concluded with them on their participation in Union programmes;

| d) | Denmark, on the basis of an international agreement. |
| --- | --- |

d)

Denmark, on the basis of an international agreement.

2.   Public and/or private bodies and entities legally established in other third countries, notably countries where the European Neighbourhood Policy applies, may be associated to actions of the Programme, if this serves the purpose of these actions.

1.   Access to the Programme shall be open to all public and/or private bodies and entities legally established in:

| a) | the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the Member States;

| b) | EFTA countries which are party to the EEA Agreement, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

b)

EFTA countries which are party to the EEA Agreement, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the EEA Agreement;

| c) | accession countries, candidate countries and potential candidates, in accordance with the general principles and the general terms and conditions laid down in the framework agreements concluded with them on their participation in Union programmes; |
| --- | --- |

c)

accession countries, candidate countries and potential candidates, in accordance with the general principles and the general terms and conditions laid down in the framework agreements concluded with them on their participation in Union programmes;

| d) | Denmark, on the basis of an international agreement. |
| --- | --- |

d)

Denmark, on the basis of an international agreement.

2.   Public and/or private bodies and entities legally established in other third countries, notably countries where the European Neighbourhood Policy applies, may be associated to actions of the Programme, if this serves the purpose of these actions.

Reason

Points 1 and 2 include in the list of potential beneficiaries of the programme entities which are not clearly defined; as both paragraphs refer to public and/or private bodies, the addition of ‘entities’ seems superfluous and should therefore be removed (1).

EUROPE FOR CITIZENS – COM(2011) 884 final

Amendment 1

Article 9(1)

Committee

| Text proposed by Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011. | 1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011. |

Text proposed by Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011.

1.   The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation 182/2011.

Reason

The adoption of the annual work programmes, through which the entire programme is implemented, should involve the participation of a representative of the Committee of the Regions, alongside the Committee comprising representatives of the Member States and assisting the Commission.

As this relates to the implementation of programmes in which local and regional authorities are strongly involved, their participation in devising the annual work programmes through the European institution (Committee of the Regions) representing them, will enable the programmes to be built from the ground up, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the European citizens.

Brussels, 18 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  Translator's note: this amendment does not concern the English version of the text, in which the word ‘entities’ is not repeated.

1

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/51

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘A mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions’

2012/C 277/07

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the Commission's attempts to streamline and simplify greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting requirements but requests amendments to the Commission's proposal to provide a spatial/regional context for greenhouse gas emissions and projections and low carbon development plans (PLCDs); |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the Commission's attempts to streamline and simplify greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting requirements but requests amendments to the Commission's proposal to provide a spatial/regional context for greenhouse gas emissions and projections and low carbon development plans (PLCDs);

| — | requests that all the data/methodologies used be publicly available and not privately owned, that they be transparent and therefore replicable, and set by a body such as the EEA to avoid problems of multiplicity and to facilitate policy in a multi-level governance policy setting; |
| --- | --- |

—

requests that all the data/methodologies used be publicly available and not privately owned, that they be transparent and therefore replicable, and set by a body such as the EEA to avoid problems of multiplicity and to facilitate policy in a multi-level governance policy setting;

| — | calls for the spatial impact on emissions to be a material consideration in the wider policies, programmes, funding allocations and projects of the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for the spatial impact on emissions to be a material consideration in the wider policies, programmes, funding allocations and projects of the Commission;

| — | refers the Commission to the initiatives of the Covenant of Mayors, ClimAct Regions, carbonn and the EUCO2 80/50 as examples of international excellence of work undertaken at a regional level to reduce CO2 emissions; |
| --- | --- |

—

refers the Commission to the initiatives of the Covenant of Mayors, ClimAct Regions, carbonn and the EUCO2 80/50 as examples of international excellence of work undertaken at a regional level to reduce CO2 emissions;

| — | recommends harmonising the projections of Member States to provide a set of consistent projections, including reporting on the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency; |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends harmonising the projections of Member States to provide a set of consistent projections, including reporting on the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency;

| — | reiterates its call at COP 17 in Durban, as well as at previous UNFCCC conferences, for the recognition of climate mitigation and adaptation actions at the local and regional level. |
| --- | --- |

—

reiterates its call at COP 17 in Durban, as well as at previous UNFCCC conferences, for the recognition of climate mitigation and adaptation actions at the local and regional level.

| Rapporteur | Neil SWANNICK (UK/PES), Member of Manchester City Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change
  COM(2011) 789 final |

Rapporteur

Neil SWANNICK (UK/PES), Member of Manchester City Council

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change

COM(2011) 789 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.   Introduction

1.1   The proposal for a regulation (hereafter ‘the proposal’) ‘on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change’ has been developed largely as a consequence of the Cancun Agreement and partly due to Decision No 406/2009/EC and Directive 2009/29/EC. The legal basis for the proposal is set within the context of Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, hereon ‘The Treaty’.

1.2   A combination of ‘Decision 406/2009/EC, Directive 2009/29/EC and “The Treaty” ’, hereon the ‘regional framework’, provide a greater requirement for regional involvement in the context of mitigation than ‘the proposal’ currently affords. The CoR requests amendments to ‘the proposal’ to provide a spatial/regional context for:

| — | GhG emissions; and |
| --- | --- |

—

GhG emissions; and

| — | Projections and low carbon development plans (PLCD); |
| --- | --- |

—

Projections and low carbon development plans (PLCD);

and that all the data/methodologies used be:

| — | publicly available and not privately owned; |
| --- | --- |

—

publicly available and not privately owned;

| — | transparent and therefore replicable; and |
| --- | --- |

—

transparent and therefore replicable; and

| — | set by a body such as the EEA to avoid problems of multiplicity |
| --- | --- |

—

set by a body such as the EEA to avoid problems of multiplicity

to facilitate policy in a multi-level governance policy setting.

The CoR requests that provision be made for ‘consumption emissions’ within the PLCD, i.e. emissions associated with imported goods and services. Furthermore, PLCDs should recognise any unintended or deliberate consequences of policy that leads to ‘exporting’ emissions outside of the Member State. This is often referred to as ‘carbon leakage’, a good example of this is the relocation of heavy industry overseas. Carbon leakage should be considered within the PLCDs with the actions taken to avoid it clearly stated. This is important to establish Europe’s true role in global emissions reductions.

Furthermore, the spatial impact on emissions should be a material consideration in the wider policies, programmes, funding allocations and projects of the Commission.

The CoR reiterates its call at COP 17 in Durban, as well as at previous UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) conferences, for the recognition of climate mitigation and adaptation actions at the local and regional level.

1.3   The Committee of the Regions shares the Commission's assessment that since the objectives of the proposed Regulation, in the context of the UNFCCC commitments, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of scale and effects be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union; and that in accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

2.   General comments

2.1   The CoR welcomes:

| — | the proposal and the stakeholder consultation and impact assessment that preceded it; |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposal and the stakeholder consultation and impact assessment that preceded it;

| — | the inclusion of projections and mitigation actions being presented alongside inventory data; |
| --- | --- |

—

the inclusion of projections and mitigation actions being presented alongside inventory data;

| — | the commitment to harmonise international and EC monitoring and reporting and facilitating the implementation of the monitoring and reporting mechanism. However, we expect the EC to utilise commitments within the ‘regional framework’ to extend the proposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

the commitment to harmonise international and EC monitoring and reporting and facilitating the implementation of the monitoring and reporting mechanism. However, we expect the EC to utilise commitments within the ‘regional framework’ to extend the proposal;

| — | attempts to streamline and simplify the monitoring and reporting requirements in the proposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

attempts to streamline and simplify the monitoring and reporting requirements in the proposal;

| — | coherence between GhG (greenhouse gas) and local air emissions estimation; |
| --- | --- |

—

coherence between GhG (greenhouse gas) and local air emissions estimation;

| — | the EU Clearinghouse Mechanism and hopes that it will provide a useful tool for national, regional and local policy makers acting on climate policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

the EU Clearinghouse Mechanism and hopes that it will provide a useful tool for national, regional and local policy makers acting on climate policy;

| — | the extension in consideration to other impacts of aviation on global warming. |
| --- | --- |

—

the extension in consideration to other impacts of aviation on global warming.

2.2   Financial issues

The delivery of climate change policy often results in competition between funds allocated to mitigation against those for adaptation. Therefore the CoR is concerned that:

| — | the explicit mentioning in ‘the proposal’ of adaptation as a local issue without an explicit mentioning of mitigation as a local issue will, in the long term, hinder the effectiveness of mitigation policy; |
| --- | --- |

—

the explicit mentioning in ‘the proposal’ of adaptation as a local issue without an explicit mentioning of mitigation as a local issue will, in the long term, hinder the effectiveness of mitigation policy;

| — | there is no guidance regarding the true expansion in scope that the proposal brings to Member States. This is needed to help avoid overspends on the practitioners that will ultimately deliver many of these amendments in the proposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

there is no guidance regarding the true expansion in scope that the proposal brings to Member States. This is needed to help avoid overspends on the practitioners that will ultimately deliver many of these amendments in the proposal;

| — | there is no allocation to the regions of at least 30 % of revenues generated from auctioning of allowances. This is required to help implement Europe’s 2020 targets on renewable energies and energy efficiency; |
| --- | --- |

—

there is no allocation to the regions of at least 30 % of revenues generated from auctioning of allowances. This is required to help implement Europe’s 2020 targets on renewable energies and energy efficiency;

| — | the administrative, technical and financial burden of additional monitoring and reporting requirements are likely to extend to the regions, so they should be proportionate; |
| --- | --- |

—

the administrative, technical and financial burden of additional monitoring and reporting requirements are likely to extend to the regions, so they should be proportionate;

| — | a pursuit of marginal incremental improvements to data sets should be avoided if it displaces the implementation of mitigation or adaptation policy. |
| --- | --- |

—

a pursuit of marginal incremental improvements to data sets should be avoided if it displaces the implementation of mitigation or adaptation policy.

2.3   Emissions inventory and data

An emissions inventory tells us where we were, or are, in terms of our emissions. Its purpose should be to inform stakeholders of the current situation regarding mitigation policy.

Therefore:

| — | the usefulness of an inventory is greatly boosted by a PLCD with a near-, medium- and long-term outlook; |
| --- | --- |

—

the usefulness of an inventory is greatly boosted by a PLCD with a near-, medium- and long-term outlook;

| — | the emissions data that will result from ‘the proposal’ is central to understanding the strategic direction, priorities and performance of the European Union, its Member States and regions; |
| --- | --- |

—

the emissions data that will result from ‘the proposal’ is central to understanding the strategic direction, priorities and performance of the European Union, its Member States and regions;

| — | however, to maximise use, the data should be presented alongside the core economic and social performance data used regularly by decision makers. |
| --- | --- |

—

however, to maximise use, the data should be presented alongside the core economic and social performance data used regularly by decision makers.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has an important role to play in the development and application of consistent methodologies, and supporting Member States in the production of inventories.

| — | The emissions data and its quality should be the direct responsibility of the central statistical and data service of the European Union. This should include a robust, transparent and accountable central process to verify the accuracy/certainty of nationally provided datasets and PLCDs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The emissions data and its quality should be the direct responsibility of the central statistical and data service of the European Union. This should include a robust, transparent and accountable central process to verify the accuracy/certainty of nationally provided datasets and PLCDs.

| — | The following cumulative total emissions release, since 1990, should be provided by each Member State:






  — | those emissions that arise within the Member State (sources); |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The following cumulative total emissions release, since 1990, should be provided by each Member State:

—

those emissions that arise within the Member State (sources);

| — | those that have been offset by land use change; and |
| --- | --- |

—

those that have been offset by land use change; and

| — | those that are offset pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 406/2009/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

those that are offset pursuant to Article 5 of Decision 406/2009/EC.

These figures are of great importance, complementing the absolute target of 20 %, to keeping global warming below 2 °C.

2.4   Policy implementation

The CoR wants a stated, quantified, spatial/regional element to the PLCDs because:

| — | the spatial element provides for better monitoring of progress and evidence than generic presentations at a national level provide; |
| --- | --- |

—

the spatial element provides for better monitoring of progress and evidence than generic presentations at a national level provide;

| — | the regions are closer to the citizens, than Member States, making them able to communicate information on climate-related issues to the public, which is one of the goals of the monitoring and reporting mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

—

the regions are closer to the citizens, than Member States, making them able to communicate information on climate-related issues to the public, which is one of the goals of the monitoring and reporting mechanism.

Regional authorities are a key source of expertise who have presented their work at UNFCCC conferences. They should be involved from the outset in the formation of actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change so that maximum use is made of their expertise and experience in dealing with the impacts, and causes, of climate change - that hit hardest at the local level.

| — | We refer the EC to the initiatives of the Covenant of Mayors, ClimAct Regions, carbonn, ICLEI and the EUCO2 80/50 as examples of international excellence of work undertaken at a regional level to reduce CO2 emissions. |
| --- | --- |

—

We refer the EC to the initiatives of the Covenant of Mayors, ClimAct Regions, carbonn, ICLEI and the EUCO2 80/50 as examples of international excellence of work undertaken at a regional level to reduce CO2 emissions.

| — | It is in line with the ‘regional framework’. |
| --- | --- |

—

It is in line with the ‘regional framework’.

| — | It sends a clear political message in this direction. |
| --- | --- |

—

It sends a clear political message in this direction.

| — | The impact, in terms of an emissions reduction, of national policy, will vary between regions within a Member State and should be understood. |
| --- | --- |

—

The impact, in terms of an emissions reduction, of national policy, will vary between regions within a Member State and should be understood.

| — | Action needs to be taken closer to the source of emissions, so if data is provided that can be used locally it is more likely to be acted upon. |
| --- | --- |

—

Action needs to be taken closer to the source of emissions, so if data is provided that can be used locally it is more likely to be acted upon.

| — | Considering Articles 191 and 192 of ‘The Treaty’ it would be proportionate to do so. |
| --- | --- |

—

Considering Articles 191 and 192 of ‘The Treaty’ it would be proportionate to do so.

| — | Regions will contribute differing levels of emissions reduction depending on their economic make-up and infrastructure. These levels of emissions reduction will vary between regions both within Member States and wider Europe. |
| --- | --- |

—

Regions will contribute differing levels of emissions reduction depending on their economic make-up and infrastructure. These levels of emissions reduction will vary between regions both within Member States and wider Europe.

| — | Despite being close to the policy implementation these authorities are not consistently consulted by Member States on climate-related issues. |
| --- | --- |

—

Despite being close to the policy implementation these authorities are not consistently consulted by Member States on climate-related issues.

| — | Meeting the mitigation challenge is not a top-down process. |
| --- | --- |

—

Meeting the mitigation challenge is not a top-down process.

In addition, technical and financial assistance provided to developing countries undertaken by regional authorities in decentralised cooperation programmes needs to be acknowledged.

2.5   Adaptation

Adaptation strategies are not compulsory at present so introducing reporting obligations in the field of adaptation (Article 16) may appear incongruous – although this clearly does not mean it should not be done.

The CoR repeats its call for a representative of local and regional authorities in bodies such as the new Adaptation Committee. We refer to the Mexico City Pact of 2010 and the Adaptation Charter signed in Durban in December 2011.

2.6   Low carbon development plans and projections: Transparency and data ownership

National, regional and local authorities need tools, measures, instructions and guidelines from the EC/EEA to:

| — | develop PLCDs; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop PLCDs;

| — | set-up monitoring mechanisms; |
| --- | --- |

—

set-up monitoring mechanisms;

| — | timely cost effective access to data; |
| --- | --- |

—

timely cost effective access to data;

| — | avoid commoditisation and proliferation of data and collection tools; |
| --- | --- |

—

avoid commoditisation and proliferation of data and collection tools;

| — | ensure consistency between PLCDs; |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure consistency between PLCDs;

| — | strengthen data quality, reliability and confidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

strengthen data quality, reliability and confidence;

| — | meet obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the Cancun Agreements and the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. |
| --- | --- |

—

meet obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, the Cancun Agreements and the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.

We ask the EEA to produce mainstreamed and transparent local and regional data sets alongside national inventories and mitigation statistics, that is: searchable online, with filters to Member State, regional and sub-regional level results, by sector, to enable comparative analysis, normalisation and scrutiny against socioeconomic data.

2.7   Aviation and marine emissions

The references to treating Civil Aviation emissions and Marine emissions reporting are unclear. This is because:

| — | the CoR understands that this is due to a misunderstanding of ‘1.A.3.A civil aviation’, the intention is to consider as zero private (rather than commercial) aircraft i.e. largely light aircraft and helicopters that largely use small private airfields. This should be stated clearly; |
| --- | --- |

—

the CoR understands that this is due to a misunderstanding of ‘1.A.3.A civil aviation’, the intention is to consider as zero private (rather than commercial) aircraft i.e. largely light aircraft and helicopters that largely use small private airfields. This should be stated clearly;

| — | no methodology is provided for marine emissions from maritime craft using European ports so the proposal should explicitly state that the EC is waiting for legislation before it forms a methodology. |
| --- | --- |

—

no methodology is provided for marine emissions from maritime craft using European ports so the proposal should explicitly state that the EC is waiting for legislation before it forms a methodology.

3.   Conclusion

The CoR is concerned over the lack of regional focus in the proposal. The CoR contends this is a missed opportunity that will hinder the delivery of mitigation policy. The CoR believes the proposal will be a step forward with the inclusion of an explicit regional focus. The focus on PLCDs is welcomed.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 1 – Subject matter

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (e) | reporting CO2 emissions from maritime transport; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(e)

reporting CO2 emissions from maritime transport;

| (e) | |
| --- | --- |

(e)

(f)

| (f) | monitoring and reporting the use of revenues generated by auctioning allowances under Article 3d(1), (2) or 10(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, pursuant to Articles 3d(4) and 10(3) of that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

monitoring and reporting the use of revenues generated by auctioning allowances under Article 3d(1), (2) or 10(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, pursuant to Articles 3d(4) and 10(3) of that Directive;

| (f) | monitoring and reporting the use of revenues generated by auctioning allowances under Article 3d(1), (2) or 10(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, pursuant to Articles 3d(4) and 10(3) of that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

monitoring and reporting the use of revenues generated by auctioning allowances under Article 3d(1), (2) or 10(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC, pursuant to Articles 3d(4) and 10(3) of that Directive;

| (g) | monitoring and reporting on the actions taken by Member States to adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

monitoring and reporting on the actions taken by Member States to adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change;

| (g) | monitoring and reporting on the actions taken by Member States to adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

monitoring and reporting on the actions taken by Member States to adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change;

| (h) | evaluating progress by the Member States towards meeting their obligations under Decision No 406/2009/EC; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

evaluating progress by the Member States towards meeting their obligations under Decision No 406/2009/EC;

| (h) | evaluating progress by the Member States, towards meeting their obligations under Decision No 406/2009/EC; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

evaluating progress by the Member States, towards meeting their obligations under Decision No 406/2009/EC;

| (i) | gathering information and data necessary to support future Union climate change policy formulation and assessment. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

gathering information and data necessary to support future Union climate change policy formulation and assessment.

| (i) | gathering information and data necessary to support future Union climate change policy formulation and assessment |
| --- | --- |

(i)

gathering information and data necessary to support future Union climate change policy formulation and assessment

Reason

A mechanism for reporting marine emissions is not provided, it is our understanding that a mechanism will be provided should a new legislation require it.

As the proposals will largely be delivered at the local/regional scale the proposal should make more specific reference to it.

Amendment 2

Article 2 – Scope

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

An explicit mentioning of the regional level is required for mitigation as well as adaptation.

Amendment 3

Article 3 – Definitions

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (13) | ‘national system for policies and measures and projections’ means a system of institutional, legal and procedural arrangements established within a Member State for reporting policies and measures and for preparing and reporting projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks as required by Article 13 of this Regulation; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(13)

‘national system for policies and measures and projections’ means a system of institutional, legal and procedural arrangements established within a Member State for reporting policies and measures and for preparing and reporting projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks as required by Article 13 of this Regulation;

| (13) | ‘national system for policies and measures and projections’ means a system of institutional, legal and procedural arrangements established within a Member State for reporting policies and measures and for preparing and reporting projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, as required by Article 13 of this Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(13)

‘national system for policies and measures and projections’ means a system of institutional, legal and procedural arrangements established within a Member State for reporting policies and measures and for preparing and reporting projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, as required by Article 13 of this Regulation;

Reason

There needs to be consistency between how policies, measures and projections are considered in each Member State.

Amendment 4

Article 4 – Low-carbon development strategies

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   Member States shall submit to the Commission their low-carbon development strategy one year after the entry into force of this Regulation or in accordance with any timetable agreed internationally in the context of the UNFCCC process. | 2.   Member States shall submit to the Commission their low-carbon development strategy one year after the entry into force of this Regulation or in accordance with any timetable agreed internationally in the context of the UNFCCC process. |
| 3.   The Commission and the Member States shall make available to the public forthwith their respective low-carbon development strategies and any updates thereof. | 3.   The Commission and the Member States shall make available to the public forthwith their respective low-carbon development strategies any updates thereof. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2.   Member States shall submit to the Commission their low-carbon development strategy one year after the entry into force of this Regulation or in accordance with any timetable agreed internationally in the context of the UNFCCC process.

2.   Member States shall submit to the Commission their low-carbon development strategy one year after the entry into force of this Regulation or in accordance with any timetable agreed internationally in the context of the UNFCCC process.

3.   The Commission and the Member States shall make available to the public forthwith their respective low-carbon development strategies and any updates thereof.

3.   The Commission and the Member States shall make available to the public forthwith their respective low-carbon development strategies any updates thereof.

Reason

The spatial element needs to be afforded in these plans to show that appropriate thought and understanding has been applied to the plans, this is partly because without a spatial element implementation will be hard to deliver ‘on the ground’.

Understanding how these projections/low carbon development calculations have been derived is key to policy analysis and transparency.

Amendment 5

Article 5 – National inventory systems

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Member States shall establish, operate and seek to continuously improve national inventory systems to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and to ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of their greenhouse gas inventories. | 1.   Member States shall establish, operate and seek to continuously improve national inventory systems to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and to ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of their greenhouse gas inventories. |
| 2.   Member States shall ensure that their competent inventory authorities have access to, and that their national inventory system provides that their competent authorities shall have access to: | 2.   Member States shall ensure that their competent inventory authorities have access to, and that their national inventory system provides that their competent authorities shall have access to: |
| (a) | data and methods reported for activities and installations under Directive 2003/87/EC for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories to ensure consistency of the reported greenhouse gas emissions under the Union’s emissions trading scheme and in the national greenhouse gas inventories; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Member States shall establish, operate and seek to continuously improve national inventory systems to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and to ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of their greenhouse gas inventories.

1.   Member States shall establish, operate and seek to continuously improve national inventory systems to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and to ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of their greenhouse gas inventories.

2.   Member States shall ensure that their competent inventory authorities have access to, and that their national inventory system provides that their competent authorities shall have access to:

2.   Member States shall ensure that their competent inventory authorities have access to, and that their national inventory system provides that their competent authorities shall have access to:

(a)

data and methods reported for activities and installations under Directive 2003/87/EC for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories to ensure consistency of the reported greenhouse gas emissions under the Union’s emissions trading scheme and in the national greenhouse gas inventories;

| (a) | data and methods reported for activities and installations under Directive 2003/87/EC for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories to ensure consistency of the reported greenhouse gas emissions under the Union’s emissions trading scheme and in the national greenhouse gas inventories; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

data and methods reported for activities and installations under Directive 2003/87/EC for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories to ensure consistency of the reported greenhouse gas emissions under the Union’s emissions trading scheme and in the national greenhouse gas inventories;

| (b) | data collected through the reporting systems on fluorinated gases in the various sectors, set up under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

data collected through the reporting systems on fluorinated gases in the various sectors, set up under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories;

| (b) | data collected through the reporting systems on fluorinated gases in the various sectors, set up under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

data collected through the reporting systems on fluorinated gases in the various sectors, set up under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories;

| (c) | emissions, underlying data and methodologies reported by facilities under Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

emissions, underlying data and methodologies reported by facilities under Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories;

| (c) | emissions, underlying data and methodologies reported by facilities under Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

emissions, underlying data and methodologies reported by facilities under Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 for the purpose of preparing national greenhouse gas inventories;

| (d) | data reported under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

data reported under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008.

| (d) | data reported under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

data reported under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008.

3.   Member States shall ensure that their competent inventory authorities, and that their national inventory system provides that their competent inventory authorities:

3.   Member States shall ensure that their competent inventory authorities, and that their national inventory system provides that their competent inventory authorities:

| (a) | make use of the reporting systems established under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 to improve the estimation of fluorinated gases in the greenhouse gas inventories; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

make use of the reporting systems established under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 to improve the estimation of fluorinated gases in the greenhouse gas inventories;

| (a) | make use of the reporting systems established under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 to improve the estimation of fluorinated gases in the greenhouse gas inventories; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

make use of the reporting systems established under Article 6(4) of Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 to improve the estimation of fluorinated gases in the greenhouse gas inventories;

| (b) | are able to undertake the annual consistency checks referred to in points (l) and (m) of Article 7(1) of this Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are able to undertake the annual consistency checks referred to in points (l) and (m) of Article 7(1) of this Regulation;

| (b) | are able to undertake the annual consistency checks referred to in points (l) and (m) of Article 7(1) of this Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

are able to undertake the annual consistency checks referred to in points (l) and (m) of Article 7(1) of this Regulation;

Reason

The establishment and appropriate design of measures for reducing emissions and the need for their outcomes to be reflected in the greenhouse gas inventories are closely connected with awareness of information sources, models, methodological approaches, estimates, assumptions, etc. Some emission sources of the diffuse sectors and sinks fall within the remit of regional authorities. As a consequence, they need to be familiar with and participate in the national inventory system in order to improve and adapt the proposed mitigation policies at the regional level.

Amendment 6

Article 6 – Union inventory system

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (c) | an annual expert review of Member States’ greenhouse gas inventories. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(c)

an annual expert review of Member States’ greenhouse gas inventories.

| (c) | an annual expert review of Member States’ greenhouse gas inventories. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

an annual expert review of Member States’ greenhouse gas inventories.

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

Reason

The Member State inventories should be independently reviewed by a non commercial competent inventory authority that has not been involved in the formation of a national inventory in a given year. Ideally this should be a body internal to the EEA. The EC should also recognise its impacts on emissions of its own policies and programmes, so it can identify if it has a positive or negative effect.

Amendment 7

Article 7 – Greenhouse gas inventories

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | their anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases referred to in Article 2(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC for the year X-2. Without prejudice to the reporting of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from IPCC source category ‘1.A.3.A civil aviation’ shall be considered equal to zero for the purposes of Articles 3 and 7(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(a)

their anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases referred to in Article 2(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC for the year X-2. Without prejudice to the reporting of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from IPCC source category ‘1.A.3.A civil aviation’ shall be considered equal to zero for the purposes of Articles 3 and 7(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC;

| (a) | their anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases referred to in Article 2(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC for the year X-2. Without prejudice to the reporting of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from IPCC source category ‘1.A.3.A civil aviation’ shall be considered equal to zero for the purposes of Articles 3 and 7(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

their anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation and the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases referred to in Article 2(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC for the year X-2. Without prejudice to the reporting of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex I to this Regulation, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from IPCC source category ‘1.A.3.A civil aviation’ shall be considered equal to zero for the purposes of Articles 3 and 7(1) of Decision No 406/2009/EC;

Reason

The category 1.A.3.A considers emissions from aircraft taking off and landing and the cruise component within a Member State. The emissions of light aircraft that depart from private airfields are potentially burdensome to include in the short term. However the fuel used by light aircraft is likely to be considered under bunker fuel emissions if they have utilised a commercial airport (making an inconsistency).

Amendment 8

Article 13 – National systems for policies, measures and projections

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 2.   They shall aim to ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of the information reported on policies and measures and projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, as referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of this Regulation, including the use and application of data, methods and models, and the implementation of quality assurance and quality control activities and sensitivity analysis. | 2.   They shall ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of the information reported on policies and measures and projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, as referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of this Regulation, including the use and application of data, methods and models, and the implementation of quality assurance and quality control activities and sensitivity analysis. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

2.   They shall aim to ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of the information reported on policies and measures and projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, as referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of this Regulation, including the use and application of data, methods and models, and the implementation of quality assurance and quality control activities and sensitivity analysis.

2.   They shall ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability and completeness of the information reported on policies and measures and projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, as referred to in Articles 14 and 15 of this Regulation, including the use and application of data, methods and models, and the implementation of quality assurance and quality control activities and sensitivity analysis.

Reason

There should be the opportunity to compare PLCDs between Member States. There should also be the ability to compare impacts on emissions on differing sectors in differing European areas. Therefore the data should be accessible to enable further analysis and trust in the strategies.

Amendment 9

Article 14 – Reporting on policies and measures

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   ... | 1.   ... |
| (c) | information on national policies and measures, and on implementation of Union policies and measures that limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks, presented on a sectoral basis for each greenhouse gas referred to in Annex I to this Regulation. This information shall make cross references with applicable national or Union policies, particularly those on air quality, and shall include: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   ...

1.   ...

(c)

information on national policies and measures, and on implementation of Union policies and measures that limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks, presented on a sectoral basis for each greenhouse gas referred to in Annex I to this Regulation. This information shall make cross references with applicable national or Union policies, particularly those on air quality, and shall include:

| (c) | information on national policies and measures, and on implementation of Union policies and measures that limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks, t presented on a sectoral basis for each greenhouse gas referred to in Annex I to this Regulation. This information shall make cross references with applicable national or Union policies, particularly those on air quality, and shall include: |
| --- | --- |

(c)

information on national policies and measures, and on implementation of Union policies and measures that limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks, t presented on a sectoral basis for each greenhouse gas referred to in Annex I to this Regulation. This information shall make cross references with applicable national or Union policies, particularly those on air quality, and shall include:

...

...

2.   Member States shall make available to the public, in electronic form, any assessment of the costs and effects of national policies and measures, and any information on the implementation of Union policies and measures that limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks along with any technical reports that underpin these assessments. These should include descriptions of the models and methodological approaches used, definitions and underlying assumptions.

2.   Member States shall make available to the public, in electronic form, any assessment of the costs and effects of national policies and measures, and any information on the implementation of Union policies and measures that limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance removals by sinks along with any technical reports that underpin these assessments. These should include descriptions of the models and methodological approaches used, definitions and underlying assumptions

Reason

The regional context needs to be explicit.

The calculations as well as the qualitative explanations are required.

Amendment 10

Article 15 – Reporting on projections

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Member States shall report to the Commission by 15 March each year (‘year X’) national projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, organised by gas and by sector. | 1.   Member States shall report to the Commission by 15 March each year (‘year X’) national projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, organised by gas and by sector |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Member States shall report to the Commission by 15 March each year (‘year X’) national projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, organised by gas and by sector.

1.   Member States shall report to the Commission by 15 March each year (‘year X’) national projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, organised by gas and by sector

Reason

The regional context needs to be made explicit.

Amendment 11

Article 25 – Role of the European Environment Agency

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| ... | ... |
| (d) | conducting the annual expert review; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

...

...

(d)

conducting the annual expert review;

| (d) | conducting the annual expert review; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

conducting the annual expert review;

...

...

| (h) | preparing estimates for data on projections not reported by the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

preparing estimates for data on projections not reported by the Member States;

| (h) | preparing estimates for data, on projections not reported by the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

preparing estimates for data, on projections not reported by the Member States;

...

...

| (j) | disseminating information collected under this Regulation, including maintaining and updating a database on Member States’ mitigation policies and measures, and a clearinghouse on impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation to climate change. |
| --- | --- |

(j)

disseminating information collected under this Regulation, including maintaining and updating a database on Member States’ mitigation policies and measures, and a clearinghouse on impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation to climate change.

| (j) | disseminating information collected under this Regulation, including maintaining and updating a database on Member States’ mitigation policies and measures, and a clearinghouse on impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation to climate change; |
| --- | --- |

(j)

disseminating information collected under this Regulation, including maintaining and updating a database on Member States’ mitigation policies and measures, and a clearinghouse on impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation to climate change;

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

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

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

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

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

Reason

The EEA is key to the success of Member State policy. This means that they should be the source of expertise and guidance over the likely trajectories of emissions. Cumulative emissions are key to atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and therefore future temperature rises. Emissions within Europe’s borders do not truly reflect the global emissions driven by Europe. Therefore an appreciation of ‘consumption emissions’ should be explicitly included.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/61

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation on the programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE)’

2012/C 277/08

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | given the substantial challenges that exist in this field, would welcome a substantially greater increase in the programme’s budget, whilst recognising that the exact figure cannot be agreed until the Multi-annual Financial Framework negotiations are concluded; |
| --- | --- |

—

given the substantial challenges that exist in this field, would welcome a substantially greater increase in the programme’s budget, whilst recognising that the exact figure cannot be agreed until the Multi-annual Financial Framework negotiations are concluded;

| — | supports the new approach of ‘Integrated Projects’, however requests that accessibility and involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be more encouraged; that marine environment, soil and noise as priority should be added as further primarily relevant areas of integrated projects; and that appropriate coordination mechanisms of LIFE with other EU funds in the Common Strategic Framework and with Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 are put in place; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the new approach of ‘Integrated Projects’, however requests that accessibility and involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be more encouraged; that marine environment, soil and noise as priority should be added as further primarily relevant areas of integrated projects; and that appropriate coordination mechanisms of LIFE with other EU funds in the Common Strategic Framework and with Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 are put in place;

| — | believes that the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal and suggests that VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered; |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal and suggests that VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered;

| — | recommends that the cost of permanent staff remain eligible, with the condition that it is proven and documented that the staff in question are formally seconded to the activities of the project, on a full- or part-time basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends that the cost of permanent staff remain eligible, with the condition that it is proven and documented that the staff in question are formally seconded to the activities of the project, on a full- or part-time basis;

| — | proposes that the upper rate co-financing rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations) and in the outermost regions; |
| --- | --- |

—

proposes that the upper rate co-financing rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations) and in the outermost regions;

| — | requests that the LIFE programme shall also be open to Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU which are party to the ‘Overseas Association Decision’ (Council Decision 2001/822/EC), which are responsible for much of the EU’s biodiversity. |
| --- | --- |

—

requests that the LIFE programme shall also be open to Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU which are party to the ‘Overseas Association Decision’ (Council Decision 2001/822/EC), which are responsible for much of the EU’s biodiversity.

| Rapporteur | Kay TWITCHEN (UK/NI), Member of Essex County Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a regulation of the Council and the European Parliament on the establishment of Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)
  COM(2011) 874 final – 2011/0428 (COD) |

Rapporteur

Kay TWITCHEN (UK/NI), Member of Essex County Council

Reference document

Proposal for a regulation of the Council and the European Parliament on the establishment of Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

COM(2011) 874 final – 2011/0428 (COD)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

A.   
  General remarks

| 1. | reiterates its view that the LIFE programme constitutes an important instrument in helping to fund local and regional environmental policies and projects with a European added value, and has helped mobilise efforts by local and regional authorities. It has also helped to create partnerships, thus strengthening cooperation structures and facilitating the exchange of experience and information at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

1.

reiterates its view that the LIFE programme constitutes an important instrument in helping to fund local and regional environmental policies and projects with a European added value, and has helped mobilise efforts by local and regional authorities. It has also helped to create partnerships, thus strengthening cooperation structures and facilitating the exchange of experience and information at local and regional level;

| 2. | welcomes the intention to continue LIFE into the new funding period. Believes that this will ensure a more effective intervention, create synergies by coordinating EU and national activities, and increase the visibility of environmental and climate actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

welcomes the intention to continue LIFE into the new funding period. Believes that this will ensure a more effective intervention, create synergies by coordinating EU and national activities, and increase the visibility of environmental and climate actions;

| 3. | shares the Commission’s view that environment and climate action should be an integral element of most EU policies. However the main EU funding instruments do not address all environmental and climate specific needs, hence the continuing need for a separate Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, building upon the achievements the LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 for the period 2007-13. Thus it complements the ‘mainstreaming’ approach to achieving environmental and climate objectives across the EU budget, through the financing of environment and climate projects not eligible for funding elsewhere; |
| --- | --- |

3.

shares the Commission’s view that environment and climate action should be an integral element of most EU policies. However the main EU funding instruments do not address all environmental and climate specific needs, hence the continuing need for a separate Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, building upon the achievements the LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 for the period 2007-13. Thus it complements the ‘mainstreaming’ approach to achieving environmental and climate objectives across the EU budget, through the financing of environment and climate projects not eligible for funding elsewhere;

| 4. | notes that evaluation of the existing LIFE programme has highlighted that its impact is limited by a lack of strategic focus. The new programme would therefore introduce a flexible top-down approach, and establish two discrete sub-programmes, covering Environment and Climate Action with clearly identified priorities; |
| --- | --- |

4.

notes that evaluation of the existing LIFE programme has highlighted that its impact is limited by a lack of strategic focus. The new programme would therefore introduce a flexible top-down approach, and establish two discrete sub-programmes, covering Environment and Climate Action with clearly identified priorities;

| 5. | notes the importance in this regard of maintaining enough flexibility in the programme. Prioritisation must not result in excessive restrictions or overly prescriptive criteria. As in the current programme, the key yardstick should be the quality of the projects proposed; |
| --- | --- |

5.

notes the importance in this regard of maintaining enough flexibility in the programme. Prioritisation must not result in excessive restrictions or overly prescriptive criteria. As in the current programme, the key yardstick should be the quality of the projects proposed;

| 6. | considers that the LIFE Regulation should make specific reference to the need to seek synergies between the different strands, e.g. to ensure that LIFE-funded climate projects have a beneficial effect on biodiversity, and that LIFE-funded environment projects be climate-proofed. Insofar as the Commission has indicated the potential synergies between the two sub-programmes and for projects to benefit multiple objectives, it will be important to ensure that this is achieved; |
| --- | --- |

6.

considers that the LIFE Regulation should make specific reference to the need to seek synergies between the different strands, e.g. to ensure that LIFE-funded climate projects have a beneficial effect on biodiversity, and that LIFE-funded environment projects be climate-proofed. Insofar as the Commission has indicated the potential synergies between the two sub-programmes and for projects to benefit multiple objectives, it will be important to ensure that this is achieved;

| 7. | reiterates its call (1) for the LIFE programme to continue to support communication and information projects, with an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve local and regional authorities. In this context, welcomes the proposed priority area of governance and information in each of the two sub-programmes; |
| --- | --- |

7.

reiterates its call (1) for the LIFE programme to continue to support communication and information projects, with an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve local and regional authorities. In this context, welcomes the proposed priority area of governance and information in each of the two sub-programmes;

| 8. | welcomes the proposal that, in order to ensure coherence of the two LIFE sub-programmes, they will be within the framework of one single Multi-annual Work Programme, with one single set of common implementing rules, one single call for proposals, and dealing with them together in the single LIFE Committee, and expresses concern that there should not be divergent procedures and priorities for different sub-programmes; |
| --- | --- |

8.

welcomes the proposal that, in order to ensure coherence of the two LIFE sub-programmes, they will be within the framework of one single Multi-annual Work Programme, with one single set of common implementing rules, one single call for proposals, and dealing with them together in the single LIFE Committee, and expresses concern that there should not be divergent procedures and priorities for different sub-programmes;

| 9. | welcomes that the European Commission has consulted extensively in developing this proposal and has taken into account many views expressed by stakeholders, and by the CoR (2); |
| --- | --- |

9.

welcomes that the European Commission has consulted extensively in developing this proposal and has taken into account many views expressed by stakeholders, and by the CoR (2);

B.   
  Indicators

| 10. | welcomes the emphasis given in Article 3 of the proposal to defining indicators for measuring the success of LIFE. Recommends the addition of indicators that measure and promote good governance and communication within every LIFE project. CoR has urged the LIFE programme to foster targeted - and thus more effective - ways of communication and capacity-building activities in each LIFE project; |
| --- | --- |

10.

welcomes the emphasis given in Article 3 of the proposal to defining indicators for measuring the success of LIFE. Recommends the addition of indicators that measure and promote good governance and communication within every LIFE project. CoR has urged the LIFE programme to foster targeted - and thus more effective - ways of communication and capacity-building activities in each LIFE project;

C.   
  Sub-programme for Environment (LIFE Environment)

Priority area: Environment and resource efficiency

| 11. | notes that the proposal excludes in Article 10 market replication-orientated private sector innovation, since it will be covered by Horizon 2020. This allows for LIFE to focus on eco-innovation by local and regional authorities and on finding solutions that are most often best implemented through public–private partnerships. Therefore CoR welcomes the shift to public-sector innovation and the possibility of public-private partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

11.

notes that the proposal excludes in Article 10 market replication-orientated private sector innovation, since it will be covered by Horizon 2020. This allows for LIFE to focus on eco-innovation by local and regional authorities and on finding solutions that are most often best implemented through public–private partnerships. Therefore CoR welcomes the shift to public-sector innovation and the possibility of public-private partnerships;

Priority area: Biodiversity

| 12. | welcomes that, as requested by the CoR (3), the proposal in Article 11 allows for recurring activities provided that projects operate on the basis of exemplary procedures which can be applied to other regions and that they will be subject to standards for monitoring and communicating results to the public; |
| --- | --- |

12.

welcomes that, as requested by the CoR (3), the proposal in Article 11 allows for recurring activities provided that projects operate on the basis of exemplary procedures which can be applied to other regions and that they will be subject to standards for monitoring and communicating results to the public;

| 13. | believes that support via integrated projects for Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 will be a key future element under the LIFE’s Biodiversity priority area. The CoR requests that, in keeping with the institutional framework of each Member State, regional authorities should be in charge of developing PAFs and takes note of the recent initiatives launched by the European Commission on financing Natura 2000 (4); |
| --- | --- |

13.

believes that support via integrated projects for Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 will be a key future element under the LIFE’s Biodiversity priority area. The CoR requests that, in keeping with the institutional framework of each Member State, regional authorities should be in charge of developing PAFs and takes note of the recent initiatives launched by the European Commission on financing Natura 2000 (4);

Priority area: Environment governance and information

| 14. | strongly welcomes that LIFE support for environment governance has been strengthened by making it a priority area in the proposed regulation (Article 12). The CoR believes that this will increase visibility of potential governance projects and that local and regional authorities will become important beneficiaries of this new priority area. The CoR has urged LIFE to contribute to the strengthening of local and regional authorities’ administrative capacities and to give an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve LRA and have significant impact at EU level (5); |
| --- | --- |

14.

strongly welcomes that LIFE support for environment governance has been strengthened by making it a priority area in the proposed regulation (Article 12). The CoR believes that this will increase visibility of potential governance projects and that local and regional authorities will become important beneficiaries of this new priority area. The CoR has urged LIFE to contribute to the strengthening of local and regional authorities’ administrative capacities and to give an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve LRA and have significant impact at EU level (5);

| 15. | considers that this priority area should promote knowledge sharing on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law by supporting networks, training, and best practice sharing projects, in particular of local and regional authorities active in the field, at European level; |
| --- | --- |

15.

considers that this priority area should promote knowledge sharing on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law by supporting networks, training, and best practice sharing projects, in particular of local and regional authorities active in the field, at European level;

D.   
  Sub-programme for Climate Action (LIFE Climate)

| 16. | welcomes the creation of a new sub-programme on climate action, which can play a role in promoting low-carbon, resource-efficient and climate-proofed actions and investment. Welcomes this in view of the EU’s international commitments to reducing GHGs in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and the future global climate agreement to be negotiated by 2015, as well as of the EU’s objectives under the Climate and Energy Package, the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy 2050 (6); |
| --- | --- |

16.

welcomes the creation of a new sub-programme on climate action, which can play a role in promoting low-carbon, resource-efficient and climate-proofed actions and investment. Welcomes this in view of the EU’s international commitments to reducing GHGs in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and the future global climate agreement to be negotiated by 2015, as well as of the EU’s objectives under the Climate and Energy Package, the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy 2050 (6);

| 17. | notes however that the proposed budget is a rather small part of the overall LIFE programme (25 %). Thus LIFE Climate has a very limited potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. It should therefore promote multiple environmental benefits, such as natural areas, which are essential for ensuring good air quality and display considerable biodiversity (peatlands and forests) or contribute to the creation of green infrastructure, as an integrated approach to maintaining biodiversity and to keeping the repercussions of climate change in check; |
| --- | --- |

17.

notes however that the proposed budget is a rather small part of the overall LIFE programme (25 %). Thus LIFE Climate has a very limited potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. It should therefore promote multiple environmental benefits, such as natural areas, which are essential for ensuring good air quality and display considerable biodiversity (peatlands and forests) or contribute to the creation of green infrastructure, as an integrated approach to maintaining biodiversity and to keeping the repercussions of climate change in check;

| 18. | welcomes that the main focus of Integrated Projects will be on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and action plans; |
| --- | --- |

18.

welcomes that the main focus of Integrated Projects will be on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and action plans;

| 19. | welcomes the objectives listed under the priority area ‘climate governance and information’ (Article 16), and could see a clear role for the CoR in promoting awareness-raising on climate matters; |
| --- | --- |

19.

welcomes the objectives listed under the priority area ‘climate governance and information’ (Article 16), and could see a clear role for the CoR in promoting awareness-raising on climate matters;

E.   
  Integrated Projects

| 20. | as indicated in its earlier opinion (7), welcomes the proposal for introducing long-duration ‘Integrated Projects’ on a large territorial scale (in particular regional, multi-regional or national), as a means of addressing a wide variety of issues through a strategic, structured relationship with other EU funding streams. The LIFE projects would continue to have an important catalytic value; |
| --- | --- |

20.

as indicated in its earlier opinion (7), welcomes the proposal for introducing long-duration ‘Integrated Projects’ on a large territorial scale (in particular regional, multi-regional or national), as a means of addressing a wide variety of issues through a strategic, structured relationship with other EU funding streams. The LIFE projects would continue to have an important catalytic value;

| 21. | believes that Integrated Projects will improve the implementation of environment and climate policy and their integration into other policies, in application of the principle of multi-level governance, by ensuring a coordinated mobilisation of other EU, national and private funds towards environmental or climate objectives. They will focus on the implementation of environmental and climate plans and strategies on a larger territorial scale than is normally the case in LIFE+; |
| --- | --- |

21.

believes that Integrated Projects will improve the implementation of environment and climate policy and their integration into other policies, in application of the principle of multi-level governance, by ensuring a coordinated mobilisation of other EU, national and private funds towards environmental or climate objectives. They will focus on the implementation of environmental and climate plans and strategies on a larger territorial scale than is normally the case in LIFE+;

| 22. | welcomes that the list of primarily relevant areas for Integrated Projects in Article 18 (d) to a large extent reflects previous recommendations of the CoR (water management, nature and biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource use and waste management). Believes however that marine environment, soil and noise should be added as further primarily relevant areas; |
| --- | --- |

22.

welcomes that the list of primarily relevant areas for Integrated Projects in Article 18 (d) to a large extent reflects previous recommendations of the CoR (water management, nature and biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource use and waste management). Believes however that marine environment, soil and noise should be added as further primarily relevant areas;

| 23. | expresses concern that the Integrated Projects may be complex to prepare and manage, especially given the range of deadlines, selection criteria, application procedures and formats, management conditions and reporting arrangements. This will be especially daunting for smaller local authorities, therefore welcomes the technical assistance envisaged in the proposal to help prepare and submit Integrated Projects; |
| --- | --- |

23.

expresses concern that the Integrated Projects may be complex to prepare and manage, especially given the range of deadlines, selection criteria, application procedures and formats, management conditions and reporting arrangements. This will be especially daunting for smaller local authorities, therefore welcomes the technical assistance envisaged in the proposal to help prepare and submit Integrated Projects;

| 24. | calls for appropriate coordination mechanisms of LIFE with other EU funds in the Common Strategic Framework, in particular within the partnership contracts as provided for by Article 14 of the draft regulation laying down general provisions as well as with the proposed new approach of Community-led local development and Local development strategies for all CSF Funds as provided for by Articles 28 and 29 of the draft regulation laying down general provisions; |
| --- | --- |

24.

calls for appropriate coordination mechanisms of LIFE with other EU funds in the Common Strategic Framework, in particular within the partnership contracts as provided for by Article 14 of the draft regulation laying down general provisions as well as with the proposed new approach of Community-led local development and Local development strategies for all CSF Funds as provided for by Articles 28 and 29 of the draft regulation laying down general provisions;

| 25. | expects this new category of larger-scale LIFE projects to include the framework and guidance for development of individual LIFE projects and other projects, including a plan explaining how other EU, national, regional, local and private funding is combined to finance the activities proposed. In certain cases, these projects could be of a longer duration, during which individual related LIFE projects can be developed and implemented; |
| --- | --- |

25.

expects this new category of larger-scale LIFE projects to include the framework and guidance for development of individual LIFE projects and other projects, including a plan explaining how other EU, national, regional, local and private funding is combined to finance the activities proposed. In certain cases, these projects could be of a longer duration, during which individual related LIFE projects can be developed and implemented;

| 26. | at the same time, places value on traditional, smaller-scale projects that are accessible to smaller authorities less able to develop an Integrated Project. Accordingly, welcomes that these will still have a place in the new programme and requests that the global budgets allocated to them should not be reduced; |
| --- | --- |

26.

at the same time, places value on traditional, smaller-scale projects that are accessible to smaller authorities less able to develop an Integrated Project. Accordingly, welcomes that these will still have a place in the new programme and requests that the global budgets allocated to them should not be reduced;

| 27. | recognises the need for an approximate geographical basis, but considers that this should not be a primary driver that could lead to funding being diverted from essential projects simply to achieve a notional national quota elsewhere. Welcomes the possibility to include neighbouring countries in these projects; |
| --- | --- |

27.

recognises the need for an approximate geographical basis, but considers that this should not be a primary driver that could lead to funding being diverted from essential projects simply to achieve a notional national quota elsewhere. Welcomes the possibility to include neighbouring countries in these projects;

| 28. | believes that the involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be more encouraged; |
| --- | --- |

28.

believes that the involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be more encouraged;

F.   
  Simplification, programming and delegated acts

| 29. | recognises that the European Commission has sought to respond to the calls in an earlier opinion (8) for greater administrative simplification, including multi-annual programming and the greater use of IT tools. The use of flat rates and lump sums can reduce bureaucracy, and is welcomed. Is concerned however, that the commitment towards simplification is mainly expressed in the broadest of terms as an aspiration in recital 26; |
| --- | --- |

29.

recognises that the European Commission has sought to respond to the calls in an earlier opinion (8) for greater administrative simplification, including multi-annual programming and the greater use of IT tools. The use of flat rates and lump sums can reduce bureaucracy, and is welcomed. Is concerned however, that the commitment towards simplification is mainly expressed in the broadest of terms as an aspiration in recital 26;

| 30. | strongly welcomes the introduction of a ‘2 step’ approach for the selection of Integrated Projects, whereby potential applicants can provide a concept note to the Commission for pre-approval, meaning fewer resources are wasted by bidders who are unlikely to be successful. This also corresponds to a CoR recommendation. (9); |
| --- | --- |

30.

strongly welcomes the introduction of a ‘2 step’ approach for the selection of Integrated Projects, whereby potential applicants can provide a concept note to the Commission for pre-approval, meaning fewer resources are wasted by bidders who are unlikely to be successful. This also corresponds to a CoR recommendation. (9);

| 31. | welcomes multi-annual work programmes of at least two years’ duration as proposed in Article 24. Believes that these multi-annual work programmes can ensure that LIFE responds to EU priorities in a more strategic and political manner. It asks the Commission to involve local and regional authorities in drafting the work programmes so that they properly reflect practice on the ground; |
| --- | --- |

31.

welcomes multi-annual work programmes of at least two years’ duration as proposed in Article 24. Believes that these multi-annual work programmes can ensure that LIFE responds to EU priorities in a more strategic and political manner. It asks the Commission to involve local and regional authorities in drafting the work programmes so that they properly reflect practice on the ground;

| 32. | is however concerned that the possibility of mid-term revision of multi-annual programmes as provided for by Article 24 (3) could lead to unpredictability for beneficiaries. The extent of revision changes should therefore be minimal; |
| --- | --- |

32.

is however concerned that the possibility of mid-term revision of multi-annual programmes as provided for by Article 24 (3) could lead to unpredictability for beneficiaries. The extent of revision changes should therefore be minimal;

| 33. | recognises that in the current programme, the performance of national contact points has been variable and in some cases a weakness leading to under-utilisation of national allocations (the CoR has previously called for better training of the national contact points (10)); |
| --- | --- |

33.

recognises that in the current programme, the performance of national contact points has been variable and in some cases a weakness leading to under-utilisation of national allocations (the CoR has previously called for better training of the national contact points (10));

| 34. | insists that the examination procedure and the LIFE Committee (Article 29) should operate in a transparent and inclusive manner; |
| --- | --- |

34.

insists that the examination procedure and the LIFE Committee (Article 29) should operate in a transparent and inclusive manner;

| 35. | notes that the draft regulation foresees delegated acts on the performance indicators applicable to the specific thematic priorities (Article 3), on the application of the criterion ‘being of Union interest’ (Article 19(1)) and on the application of criteria for the ‘application of geographical balance’ for integrated projects (Article 19(3)). The CoR has taken a critical stand on an increased use of comitology in environmental policy, as it lacks transparency in the EU decision-making and operational process for local and regional authorities (11). Therefore recommends that the European Commission undertakes appropriate consultations with local and regional authorities during its preparatory work for the delegated acts; |
| --- | --- |

35.

notes that the draft regulation foresees delegated acts on the performance indicators applicable to the specific thematic priorities (Article 3), on the application of the criterion ‘being of Union interest’ (Article 19(1)) and on the application of criteria for the ‘application of geographical balance’ for integrated projects (Article 19(3)). The CoR has taken a critical stand on an increased use of comitology in environmental policy, as it lacks transparency in the EU decision-making and operational process for local and regional authorities (11). Therefore recommends that the European Commission undertakes appropriate consultations with local and regional authorities during its preparatory work for the delegated acts;

G.   
  Co-financing and eligible expenditure

| 36. | recognises that the European Commission has responded to the calls in an earlier opinion (12) for the maximum co-financing rate to be raised from the existing up to 50 % to up to 70 % (rising to up to 80 % for integrated and preparatory projects); |
| --- | --- |

36.

recognises that the European Commission has responded to the calls in an earlier opinion (12) for the maximum co-financing rate to be raised from the existing up to 50 % to up to 70 % (rising to up to 80 % for integrated and preparatory projects);

| 37. | proposes that the upper rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations (13)) and in the outermost regions. These regions are often vital in the objective of halting biodiversity loss; |
| --- | --- |

37.

proposes that the upper rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations (13)) and in the outermost regions. These regions are often vital in the objective of halting biodiversity loss;

| 38. | regrets that the European Commission did not respond to the calls in an earlier opinion (14) that local and regional authorities should continue to be able to count the cost of permanent staff as own resources. The exclusion of permanent staff cost would have fundamental negative impacts on the quality and feasibility of projects especially of smaller governmental and non-governmental organisations, who depend on continuity of permanent staff and their expertise, and whose staff members often work part-time in several projects at a time; |
| --- | --- |

38.

regrets that the European Commission did not respond to the calls in an earlier opinion (14) that local and regional authorities should continue to be able to count the cost of permanent staff as own resources. The exclusion of permanent staff cost would have fundamental negative impacts on the quality and feasibility of projects especially of smaller governmental and non-governmental organisations, who depend on continuity of permanent staff and their expertise, and whose staff members often work part-time in several projects at a time;

| 39. | believes that this, together with the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure, as proposed in Article 20, is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal. It recalls that in other EU funds VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered; |
| --- | --- |

39.

believes that this, together with the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure, as proposed in Article 20, is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal. It recalls that in other EU funds VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered;

| 40. | notes however, the findings of a study that appear to demonstrate that the effect of the much higher co-financing rates proposed by the Commission will offset the removal of some elements of eligible funding for most projects. Is aware, moreover, that the question of staff time is the cause of much dispute between the Commission auditors and beneficiaries and leads to large sums being recovered by the Commission, sometimes long after the project has been completed; |
| --- | --- |

40.

notes however, the findings of a study that appear to demonstrate that the effect of the much higher co-financing rates proposed by the Commission will offset the removal of some elements of eligible funding for most projects. Is aware, moreover, that the question of staff time is the cause of much dispute between the Commission auditors and beneficiaries and leads to large sums being recovered by the Commission, sometimes long after the project has been completed;

| 41. | nevertheless, recommends that the cost of permanent staff remain eligible, with the condition that it is proven and documented that the staff in question are formally seconded to the activities of the project; |
| --- | --- |

41.

nevertheless, recommends that the cost of permanent staff remain eligible, with the condition that it is proven and documented that the staff in question are formally seconded to the activities of the project;

H.   
  Budget

| 42. | notes the proposed increase in budget for the LIFE programme from, EUR 2 100 m to EUR 3 600 m which although being a substantial increase for the Programme, remains comparatively modest at only 0,3 % of the overall EU budget; |
| --- | --- |

42.

notes the proposed increase in budget for the LIFE programme from, EUR 2 100 m to EUR 3 600 m which although being a substantial increase for the Programme, remains comparatively modest at only 0,3 % of the overall EU budget;

| 43. | however given the substantial challenges that exist in this field, the CoR would welcome a substantially greater increase in this budget. Recognises that the exact figure cannot be agreed until the Multi-annual Financial Framework negotiations are concluded; |
| --- | --- |

43.

however given the substantial challenges that exist in this field, the CoR would welcome a substantially greater increase in this budget. Recognises that the exact figure cannot be agreed until the Multi-annual Financial Framework negotiations are concluded;

| 44. | although greater coherence and complementarity with other funding streams is welcomed, the financing of the LIFE programme should not impact on those funds (e.g. structural funds); |
| --- | --- |

44.

although greater coherence and complementarity with other funding streams is welcomed, the financing of the LIFE programme should not impact on those funds (e.g. structural funds);

| 45. | welcomes that 50 % of the sub-programme Environment is to be devoted to biodiversity, thereby corresponding to a request from the CoR (15); |
| --- | --- |

45.

welcomes that 50 % of the sub-programme Environment is to be devoted to biodiversity, thereby corresponding to a request from the CoR (15);

| 46. | welcomes the new provision in Article 17 that LIFE can be combined with innovative financial instruments. Considers this to be of particular relevance for the priority area Environment and Resource Efficiency. Reiterates that these tools should only be used in addition to, and not in place of, action grants; |
| --- | --- |

46.

welcomes the new provision in Article 17 that LIFE can be combined with innovative financial instruments. Considers this to be of particular relevance for the priority area Environment and Resource Efficiency. Reiterates that these tools should only be used in addition to, and not in place of, action grants;

I.   
  Subsidiarity

| 47. | reaffirms that environmental policy is an area where the exercise of competences is shared between the European Union and the Member States. Therefore, the subsidiarity principle applies. Believes however, that since the proposed regulation is essentially a continuation of the LIFE programme which has existed since 1992, there is no need for a thorough evaluation of its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. Subsidiarity and proportionality are reaffirmed in the recital 34 of the draft regulation; |
| --- | --- |

47.

reaffirms that environmental policy is an area where the exercise of competences is shared between the European Union and the Member States. Therefore, the subsidiarity principle applies. Believes however, that since the proposed regulation is essentially a continuation of the LIFE programme which has existed since 1992, there is no need for a thorough evaluation of its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. Subsidiarity and proportionality are reaffirmed in the recital 34 of the draft regulation;

| 48. | however:






  a) | is broadly in favour of the Programme continuing to be centrally-managed, but considers it will be necessary to ensure that the delegation of tasks such as project selection and monitoring tasks to an Executive Agency does not diminish Member State involvement in the operation of the Programme, and that any transfer does not result in a loss of knowledge and expertise needed to process LIFE applications; |
| --- | --- | --- |

48.

however:

a)

is broadly in favour of the Programme continuing to be centrally-managed, but considers it will be necessary to ensure that the delegation of tasks such as project selection and monitoring tasks to an Executive Agency does not diminish Member State involvement in the operation of the Programme, and that any transfer does not result in a loss of knowledge and expertise needed to process LIFE applications;

| b) | recalls the important role that local and regional authorities have to play in implementing EU environmental legislation and climate strategies at the sub-national level, and in making innovations and best practices better known to the public. |
| --- | --- |

b)

recalls the important role that local and regional authorities have to play in implementing EU environmental legislation and climate strategies at the sub-national level, and in making innovations and best practices better known to the public.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital 15

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (16) (hereinafter the ‘Roadmap 2050’) acknowledged that testing new approaches to climate change mitigation will remain essential for moving to a low-carbon economy. Adaptation to climate change, as a cross-cutting Union priority, will also need to be ensured. Moreover, governance promotion and awareness-raising is essential to deliver constructive results and to ensure stakeholders’ involvement. Therefore, the sub-programme for Climate Action should support efforts contributing to three specific priority areas: Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Governance and Information. It should be possible for projects financed by the LIFE programme to contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives of more than one of those priority areas and to involve the participation of more than one Member State. | The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (16) (hereinafter the ‘Roadmap 2050’) acknowledged that testing new approaches to climate change mitigation will remain essential for moving to a low-carbon economy. Adaptation to climate change, as a cross-cutting Union priority, will also need to be ensured. Moreover, governance promotion and awareness-raising is essential to deliver constructive results and to ensure stakeholders’ involvement. Therefore, the sub-programme for Climate Action should support efforts contributing to three specific priority areas: Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Governance and Information. It should be possible for projects financed by the LIFE programme to contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives of more than one of those priority areas and to involve the participation of more than one Member State. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (16) (hereinafter the ‘Roadmap 2050’) acknowledged that testing new approaches to climate change mitigation will remain essential for moving to a low-carbon economy. Adaptation to climate change, as a cross-cutting Union priority, will also need to be ensured. Moreover, governance promotion and awareness-raising is essential to deliver constructive results and to ensure stakeholders’ involvement. Therefore, the sub-programme for Climate Action should support efforts contributing to three specific priority areas: Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Governance and Information. It should be possible for projects financed by the LIFE programme to contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives of more than one of those priority areas and to involve the participation of more than one Member State.

The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (16) (hereinafter the ‘Roadmap 2050’) acknowledged that testing new approaches to climate change mitigation will remain essential for moving to a low-carbon economy. Adaptation to climate change, as a cross-cutting Union priority, will also need to be ensured. Moreover, governance promotion and awareness-raising is essential to deliver constructive results and to ensure stakeholders’ involvement. Therefore, the sub-programme for Climate Action should support efforts contributing to three specific priority areas: Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Governance and Information. It should be possible for projects financed by the LIFE programme to contribute to the achievement of the specific objectives of more than one of those priority areas and to involve the participation of more than one Member State.

Reason

The LIFE Regulation should make specific reference to the need to seek synergies between environmental objectives, in particular between climate action and biodiversity. It is also important to emphasise the role of forest ecosystems since they can contribute to biodiversity and climate change mitigation and also increase carbon absorption capacity.

Amendment 2

Recital 26

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| With a view to simplifying the LIFE programme and reducing administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries, more use should be made of flat rates and lump-sums, and funding should focus on more specific categories of costs. By way of compensation for ineligible costs and in order to maintain the effective level of support provided by the LIFE programme, the co-funding rates should be 70 % as a general rule and 80 % in specific cases. | With a view to simplifying the LIFE programme and reducing administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries, more use should be made of flat rates and lump-sums, and funding should focus on more specific categories of costs. By way of compensation for ineligible costs and in order to maintain the effective level of support provided by the LIFE programme, the co-funding rates should be 70 % as a general rule and in . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

With a view to simplifying the LIFE programme and reducing administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries, more use should be made of flat rates and lump-sums, and funding should focus on more specific categories of costs. By way of compensation for ineligible costs and in order to maintain the effective level of support provided by the LIFE programme, the co-funding rates should be 70 % as a general rule and 80 % in specific cases.

With a view to simplifying the LIFE programme and reducing administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries, more use should be made of flat rates and lump-sums, and funding should focus on more specific categories of costs. By way of compensation for ineligible costs and in order to maintain the effective level of support provided by the LIFE programme, the co-funding rates should be 70 % as a general rule and in .

Reason

The upper rate should be extended to 85 % in economically lagging or transition regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations). These regions are often vital in the objective of halting biodiversity loss. As a general rule, the outermost regions benefit from a co-financing rate of 85 % under the main European funds. They should therefore also be able to benefit from the same co-financing rate under other EU programmes such as LIFE. It is also worth noting that the outermost regions are the greatest net contributors to biodiversity in the whole European Union, containing a large number of sites of Community importance within the Natura 2000 network.

Amendment 3

Recital 30

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In order to secure the best possible use of Union funds and to ensure European added value, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of eligibility criteria for project selection, criteria for the application of geographical balance to ‘Integrated Projects’, and performance indicators applicable to specific thematic priorities. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. | In order to secure the best possible use of Union funds and to ensure European added value, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of eligibility criteria for project selection, criteria for the application of geographical balance to ‘Integrated Projects’, and performance indicators applicable to specific thematic priorities. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level . The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In order to secure the best possible use of Union funds and to ensure European added value, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of eligibility criteria for project selection, criteria for the application of geographical balance to ‘Integrated Projects’, and performance indicators applicable to specific thematic priorities. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

In order to secure the best possible use of Union funds and to ensure European added value, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of eligibility criteria for project selection, criteria for the application of geographical balance to ‘Integrated Projects’, and performance indicators applicable to specific thematic priorities. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level . The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

Reason

The CoR has taken a critical stand on an increased use of comitology in environmental policy, as it lacks in transparency in the EU decision-making and operational process for LRA.

Amendment 4

Article 5 - Participation of third countries in the LIFE programme

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The LIFE programme shall be open to the participation of the following countries: | The LIFE programme shall be open to the participation of the following countries: |
| (a) | European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The LIFE programme shall be open to the participation of the following countries:

The LIFE programme shall be open to the participation of the following countries:

(a)

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA)

| (a) | European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) |
| --- | --- |

(a)

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA)

| (b) | candidate countries, potential candidates and acceding countries to the Union; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

candidate countries, potential candidates and acceding countries to the Union;

| (b) | candidate countries, potential candidates and acceding countries to the Union; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

candidate countries, potential candidates and acceding countries to the Union;

| (c) | countries to which the European Neighbourhood Policy applies; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

countries to which the European Neighbourhood Policy applies;

| (c) | countries to which the European Neighbourhood Policy applies; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

countries to which the European Neighbourhood Policy applies;

| (d) | countries which have become members of the European Environmental Agency in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 993/1999 of 29 April 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 on the establishment of the European Environmental Agency and the European environment information and observation network. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

countries which have become members of the European Environmental Agency in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 993/1999 of 29 April 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 on the establishment of the European Environmental Agency and the European environment information and observation network.

| (d) | countries which have become members of the European Environmental Agency in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 993/1999 of 29 April 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 on the establishment of the European Environmental Agency and the European environment information and observation network. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

countries which have become members of the European Environmental Agency in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 993/1999 of 29 April 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 on the establishment of the European Environmental Agency and the European environment information and observation network.

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

Such participation shall be done in accordance with the conditions laid down in the respective bilateral or multilateral agreements establishing the general principles for their participation in Union programmes.

Such participation shall be done in accordance with the conditions laid down in the respective bilateral or multilateral agreements establishing the general principles for their participation in Union programmes.

Reason

The EU’s 21 Overseas Countries and Territories, along with France’s four Outermost Regions hold more endemic and threatened species in total than the countries of the EU-27. Five of the world’s 34 global biodiversity hotspots are located on EU OCTs. Island ecosystems cover only 5 % of the global land area, however they are known to host around one-third of the world’s threatened species. This biodiversity remains relatively unprotected, as the Birds and Habitats Directives do not apply. Funding to support conservation work is difficult to obtain, as these remote places are ineligible for many international funds (due to their association with the EU). Funding for projects in the OCTs could be taken from the national allocations of the four Member States (UK, Netherlands, France, Denmark) that have territories that are classified as OCTs, and so would have no implications for the funding available under the LIFE programme as a whole.

Amendment 5

Article 8 - Complementarity, paragraph 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In accordance with their respective responsibilities, the Commission and the Member States shall ensure coordination between the LIFE programme and the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, in order to create synergies, particularly in thecontext of Integrated Projects referred to in Article 18 point (d), and to support the use of solutions, methods and approaches developed under the LIFE programme. At Union level, coordination shall take place within the Common Strategic Framework referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No.... (CSF Regulation). | In accordance with their respective responsibilities, the Commission and the Member States shall ensure coordination between the LIFE programme and the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, in order to create synergies, particularly in thecontext of Integrated Projects referred to in Article 18 point (d), and to support the use of solutions, methods and approaches developed under the LIFE programme. At Union level, coordination shall take place within the Common Strategic Framework referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No.... ( Regulation ). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In accordance with their respective responsibilities, the Commission and the Member States shall ensure coordination between the LIFE programme and the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, in order to create synergies, particularly in thecontext of Integrated Projects referred to in Article 18 point (d), and to support the use of solutions, methods and approaches developed under the LIFE programme. At Union level, coordination shall take place within the Common Strategic Framework referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No.... (CSF Regulation).

In accordance with their respective responsibilities, the Commission and the Member States shall ensure coordination between the LIFE programme and the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, in order to create synergies, particularly in thecontext of Integrated Projects referred to in Article 18 point (d), and to support the use of solutions, methods and approaches developed under the LIFE programme. At Union level, coordination shall take place within the Common Strategic Framework referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No.... ( Regulation ).

Reason

Given the importance of LIFE to strategically contribute to the financing of Natura 2000, the CoR asks that the regulation explicitly requests the Member States to ensure coordination also through the establishment of Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs). Moreover, potential synergies could result from the coordination of LIFE Integrated Projects with the proposed new approach of Community-led local development and Local development strategies for all CSF Funds as provided for by Articles 28 and 29 of the draft regulation .

Moreover, the wording of the CSF draft Regulation is adjusted to match previous Committee of the Regions opinions (CdR 5/2012 rev. 1).

Amendment 6

Article 10 - Specific objectives for the priority area Environment and resource Efficiency, point (b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| to support the application, development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of plans and programmes pursuant to Union environmental policy and legislation, primarily in the areas of water, waste and air; | to support the application, development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of plans and programmes pursuant to Union environmental policy and legislation, primarily in the areas of water, , waste, and air; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

to support the application, development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of plans and programmes pursuant to Union environmental policy and legislation, primarily in the areas of water, waste and air;

to support the application, development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of plans and programmes pursuant to Union environmental policy and legislation, primarily in the areas of water, , waste, and air;

Reason

In many regions, tackling soil contamination is of outmost importance and is considered to be closely linked with water protection and waste prevention.

Amendment 7

Article 14 - Specific objectives for the priority area Climate Change Mitigation

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In view of contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the priority area Climate Change Mitigation shall in particular have the following specific objectives: | In view of contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the priority area Climate Change Mitigation shall in particular have the following specific objectives: |
| (a) | to contribute to the implementation and development of Union policy and legislation on mitigation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions for climate change mitigation; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In view of contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the priority area Climate Change Mitigation shall in particular have the following specific objectives:

In view of contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the priority area Climate Change Mitigation shall in particular have the following specific objectives:

(a)

to contribute to the implementation and development of Union policy and legislation on mitigation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions for climate change mitigation;

| (a) | to contribute to the implementation and development of Union policy and legislation on mitigation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions for climate change mitigation; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

to contribute to the implementation and development of Union policy and legislation on mitigation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions for climate change mitigation;

| (b) | to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective mitigation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective mitigation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice;

| (b) | to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective mitigation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective mitigation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice;

| (c) | to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for mitigation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for mitigation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level;

| (c) | to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for mitigation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for mitigation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level;

| (d) | to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative mitigation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative mitigation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed.

| (d) | to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative mitigation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative mitigation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed.

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

Reason

It is important to ensure that climate measures do not have an adverse effect on biodiversity. But more to the point, since these climate measures are reiterated in the LIFE programme, it is important to ensure that they have a beneficial impact on biodiversity. It is vital to ensure consistency between the two major strands of the LIFE programme.

Amendment 8

Article 15 - Specific objectives for the priority area Climate Change Adaptation

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In view of contributing to supporting efforts leading to increased resilience to climate change, the priority area Climate Change Adaptation shall in particular have the following specific objectives: | In view of contributing to supporting efforts leading to increased resilience to climate change, the priority area Climate Change Adaptation shall in particular have the following specific objectives: |
| (a) | to contribute to the development and implementation of Union policy and legislation on adaptation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices, and solutions, for climate change adaptation; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In view of contributing to supporting efforts leading to increased resilience to climate change, the priority area Climate Change Adaptation shall in particular have the following specific objectives:

In view of contributing to supporting efforts leading to increased resilience to climate change, the priority area Climate Change Adaptation shall in particular have the following specific objectives:

(a)

to contribute to the development and implementation of Union policy and legislation on adaptation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices, and solutions, for climate change adaptation;

| (a) | to contribute to the development and implementation of Union policy and legislation on adaptation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices, and solutions, for climate change adaptation; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

to contribute to the development and implementation of Union policy and legislation on adaptation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices, and solutions, for climate change adaptation;

| (b) | to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective adaptation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective adaptation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice;

| (b) | to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective adaptation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective adaptation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice;

| (c) | to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for adaptation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for adaptation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level;

| (c) | to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for adaptation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for adaptation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level;

| (d) | to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative adaptation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative adaptation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed.

| (d) | to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative adaptation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative adaptation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed.

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

Reason

It is important to ensure that climate measures do not have an adverse effect on biodiversity. But more to the point, since these climate measures are reiterated in the LIFE programme, it is important to ensure that they have a beneficial impact on biodiversity. It is vital to ensure consistency between the two major strands of the LIFE programme.

Amendment 9

Article 18 - Projects, point (d)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Action grants may finance the following projects:
  ....






  d) | integrated projects primarily in the areas of nature, water, waste, air, and climate change mitigation and adaptation; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Action grants may finance the following projects:

....

d)

integrated projects primarily in the areas of nature, water, waste, air, and climate change mitigation and adaptation;

Action grants may finance the following projects:

....

| d) | integrated projects primarily in the areas of nature, water, , waste, air, and climate change mitigation and adaptation; |
| --- | --- |

d)

integrated projects primarily in the areas of nature, water, , waste, air, and climate change mitigation and adaptation;

Reason

The priority areas should include the marine environment, soil and noise management.

Amendment 10

Article 19 - Eligibility criteria for projects

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Projects referred to in Article 18 shall satisfy the following eligibility criteria: | 1.   Projects referred to in Article 18 shall satisfy the following eligibility criteria: |
| (a) | being of Union interest by making a significant contribution to the achievement of one of the objectives of the LIFE programme set out in Article 3; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Projects referred to in Article 18 shall satisfy the following eligibility criteria:

1.   Projects referred to in Article 18 shall satisfy the following eligibility criteria:

(a)

being of Union interest by making a significant contribution to the achievement of one of the objectives of the LIFE programme set out in Article 3;

| (a) | being of Union interest by making a significant contribution to the achievement of one of the objectives of the LIFE programme set out in Article 3; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

being of Union interest by making a significant contribution to the achievement of one of the objectives of the LIFE programme set out in Article 3;

| (b) | ensuring a cost-effective approach and being technically and financially coherent; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ensuring a cost-effective approach and being technically and financially coherent;

| (b) | ensuring a cost-effective approach and being technically and financially coherent; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ensuring a cost-effective approach and being technically and financially coherent;

| (c) | being sound in the proposed implementation. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

being sound in the proposed implementation.

| (c) | being sound in the proposed implementation. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

being sound in the proposed implementation.

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 30 concerning the conditions for the application of the criterion referred to paragraph 1(a) in order to adapt that criterion to the specific priority areas defined in Articles 9 and 13.

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 30 concerning the conditions for the application of the criterion referred to paragraph 1(a) in order to adapt that criterion to the specific priority areas defined in Articles 9 and 13.

2.   Where possible, projects financed by the LIFE programme shall promote synergies between different objectives and promote the use of green public procurement.

2.   rojects financed by the LIFE programme shall promote synergies between different objectives and promote the use of green public procurement.

3.   Integrated Projects referred to in Article 18 point (d) shall involve, where appropriate, stakeholders and promote, when possible, the coordination with and mobilisation of other Union funding sources.

3.   Integrated Projects referred to in Article 18 point (d) shall involve stakeholders and promote, when possible, the coordination with and mobilisation of other Union funding sources.

The Commission shall ensure geographical balance in line with the principles of solidarity and effort sharing in the award process for Integrated Projects. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 30 concerning criteria for the application of geographical balance in each thematic area referred to in Article 18 point (d).

The Commission shall ensure geographical balance in line with the principles of solidarity and effort sharing in the award process for Integrated Projects. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 30 concerning criteria for the application of geographical balance in each thematic area referred to in Article 18 point (d).

4.   The Commission shall have special regard to transnational projects where transnational cooperation is essential to guarantee environmental protection and climate objectives, and shall endeavour to ensure that at least 15 % of the budgetary resources dedicated to projects are allocated to transnational projects.

4.   The Commission shall have special regard to transnational projects where transnational cooperation is essential to guarantee environmental protection and climate objectives, and shall endeavour to ensure that at least 15 % of the budgetary resources dedicated to projects are allocated to transnational projects.

Reason

Wherever, and as much as possible, accessibility and involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be encouraged.

Whilst the efforts of the programme should be distributed across the EU, not least because environmental and climate issues often have transborder implications, nevertheless concepts of ‘national quotas’ are inappropriate and should not be considered ahead of the intrinsic merit of individual proposals.

We need to make sure that eligible integrated and multi-annual projects introduced at a future stage do not cut into the budgets of existing projects which have proven their worth. Furthermore, it is precisely this type of project which is easiest to use for local and regional authorities, which may not necessarily have the necessary resources to set up the type of integrated projects foreseen in the Commission’s proposal. Moreover, it is logical for LIFE-funded projects to promote the use of green public procurement.

Amendment 11

Article 20 - Co-financing rates and eligibility of costs for projects, paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The maximum co-financing rate for the projects referred to in Article 18 shall be 70 % of eligible costs. By way of exception, the maximum co-financing rate for projects referred to in Article 18 points (d) and (f) shall be 80 % of eligible costs. | The maximum co-financing rate for the projects referred to in Article 18 shall be 70 % of eligible costs. By way of exception, the maximum co-financing rate for projects referred to in Article 18 points (d) and (f) shall be 80 % of eligible costs, . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The maximum co-financing rate for the projects referred to in Article 18 shall be 70 % of eligible costs. By way of exception, the maximum co-financing rate for projects referred to in Article 18 points (d) and (f) shall be 80 % of eligible costs.

The maximum co-financing rate for the projects referred to in Article 18 shall be 70 % of eligible costs. By way of exception, the maximum co-financing rate for projects referred to in Article 18 points (d) and (f) shall be 80 % of eligible costs, .

Reason

The upper rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations). These regions are often vital in the objective of halting biodiversity loss. As a general rule, the outermost regions benefit from a co-financing rate of 85 % under the main European funds. They should therefore also be able to benefit from the same co-financing rate under other EU programmes such as LIFE. It is also worth noting that the outermost regions are the greatest net contributors to biodiversity in the whole European Union, containing a large number of sites of Community importance within the Natura 2000 network.

Amendment 12

Article 20 - Co-financing rates and eligibility of costs for projects, paragraph 2, first part on VAT

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| VAT shall not be considered an eligible cost for projects referred to in Article 18. | VAT be considered an eligible cost for projects referred to in Article 18: | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

VAT shall not be considered an eligible cost for projects referred to in Article 18.

VAT be considered an eligible cost for projects referred to in Article 18:

Reason

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

The CoR believes that the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal. It recalls that in other EU funds VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered.

Amendment 13

Article 20 - Co-financing rates and eligibility of costs for projects, paragraph 3(new)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

—

Reason

The CoR believes that the removal of staffing as eligible expenditure is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal. The above wording reinstates this eligibility as set out in the LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 published in the Official Journal L 309 of 20 November 2008 (see Article 5), whilst however taking account of payroll costs, and not simply to make it possible to take account of payroll costs, without setting precise criteria. Furthermore, the obligation to employ additional staff to carry out these projects is not realistic for small operators and would make them impossible to implement in many cases, especially since they often require specialised staff with expertise in the field. This is why it is suggested to restrict here this condition to the fact that the staff in question must be specifically seconded to the project benefiting from these funds.

In addition, it is clarified that civil servants may be seconded to projects on a full or part-time basis in order to ensure that there is no discrimination when it comes to calculating the cost of civil servants actually working for funded projects. Experience in implementing projects under previous editions of the LIFE programme shows that civil servants often have to be involved in their development in a part-time but vital capacity. Hence the need to recognise this cost as eligible for funding.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 6/2011 fin (para 74).

1

(2)  Report Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Life+ instrument, prepared by the Secretariat of the Committee of the Regions, May 2011; CdR 6/2011 fin.

2

Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Life+ instrument

(3)  CdR 6/2011(para 56).

3

(4)  Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011) 1573 final.

4

(5)  CdR 6/2011 fin, Report Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Life+ instrument, prepared by the Secretariat of the Committee of the Regions, May 2011.

5

Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Life+ instrument

(6)  COM(2010) 2020 final and COM(2011) 112 final.

6

(7)  CdR 6/2011 fin (paras 6, 25, 65-69).

7

(8)  CdR 6/2011 fin (para 33, 37).

8

(9)  CdR6/2011 fin (para 38).

9

(10)  CdR 6/2011 fin (para 18).

10

(11)  CdR 25/2010 fin, CdR 159/2008 fin, CdR 47/2006 fin.

11

(12)  CdR 6/2011 fin (para 35).

12

(13)  COM(2011) 615 final; CdR 6/2011fin (para 15).

13

(14)  CdR 6/2011 fin (para 34).

14

(15)  CdR 6/2011 fin (paras 9, 14).

15

(16)  COM(2011) 112 final, 8.3.2011.

16

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/74

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The award of concessions contracts’

2012/C 277/09

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | notes that the current rules on concessions consist of case-law and national legislation. Given that some concessions may have an impact on the internal market, it would be desirable to clarify the rules and foster a single interpretation and a single approach. The Committee therefore believes it legitimate to consider a regulation in this area; |
| --- | --- |

—

notes that the current rules on concessions consist of case-law and national legislation. Given that some concessions may have an impact on the internal market, it would be desirable to clarify the rules and foster a single interpretation and a single approach. The Committee therefore believes it legitimate to consider a regulation in this area;

| — | therefore considers it important that contracting authorities and Member States remain free to choose the instrument under which they wish to carry out their tasks. Licences, including operating licences issued in limited quantities, must remain outside the scope of the directive. This also applies to the simple financing of an activity, which is often linked to an obligation to repay the amounts received if they are not used for the purposes intended; |
| --- | --- |

—

therefore considers it important that contracting authorities and Member States remain free to choose the instrument under which they wish to carry out their tasks. Licences, including operating licences issued in limited quantities, must remain outside the scope of the directive. This also applies to the simple financing of an activity, which is often linked to an obligation to repay the amounts received if they are not used for the purposes intended;

| — | recommends that the arrangements for awarding concessions be further clarified. A balance needs to be struck between clarifying, for example, both the way in which the contract is published and its deadlines, on the one hand, and the leeway available to the contracting authorities regarding the criteria they wish to apply on the other. This clarity provides a point of reference for the contracting authorities and creates the desired uniformity in the way Member States apply the rules. The leeway demonstrates respect for the contracting authorities’ knowledge of their concessions and acknowledges the autonomy of the Member States. Contracting authorities should have ample scope for selecting socially-minded and sustainable criteria; |
| --- | --- |

—

recommends that the arrangements for awarding concessions be further clarified. A balance needs to be struck between clarifying, for example, both the way in which the contract is published and its deadlines, on the one hand, and the leeway available to the contracting authorities regarding the criteria they wish to apply on the other. This clarity provides a point of reference for the contracting authorities and creates the desired uniformity in the way Member States apply the rules. The leeway demonstrates respect for the contracting authorities’ knowledge of their concessions and acknowledges the autonomy of the Member States. Contracting authorities should have ample scope for selecting socially-minded and sustainable criteria;

| — | believes that this proposal must show due regard for the subsidiarity principle: local and regional authorities should remain free to choose whether they will carry out works and services themselves or outsource them to third parties. When local and regional authorities decide to sub-contract these tasks, they must be free to choose the appropriate legal instrument themselves: a licence, a public procurement contract or a concession. |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that this proposal must show due regard for the subsidiarity principle: local and regional authorities should remain free to choose whether they will carry out works and services themselves or outsource them to third parties. When local and regional authorities decide to sub-contract these tasks, they must be free to choose the appropriate legal instrument themselves: a licence, a public procurement contract or a concession.

| Rapporteur | Henk KOOL (NL/PES), Alderman: member of the executive council of the city of The Hague |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the award of concession contracts
  COM(2011) 897 final |

Rapporteur

Henk KOOL (NL/PES), Alderman: member of the executive council of the city of The Hague

Reference document

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the award of concession contracts

COM(2011) 897 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | notes that there is no uniform legal framework for concessions. Public works concessions are regulated by the European procurement directives. The law regarding concessions for services, however, is exempt from the EU procurement directives, while remaining subject to the principles of the Treaty on European Union. These principles are further developed in European Court of Justice case-law; |
| --- | --- |

1.

notes that there is no uniform legal framework for concessions. Public works concessions are regulated by the European procurement directives. The law regarding concessions for services, however, is exempt from the EU procurement directives, while remaining subject to the principles of the Treaty on European Union. These principles are further developed in European Court of Justice case-law;

| 2. | is aware that the Member States are obliged to comply with the principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality) when awarding concessions, but notes that implementation of these vary. The proposal for a directive seeks to bring the rules on concessions for works and the rules on concessions for services within a single regulatory framework, so that there would be a single directive for the award of concessions at EU level. Given in particular the economic challenges currently facing the European Union, the European Commission attaches great importance to further developing the internal market, provided that the EU rules on concessions give contracting authorities sufficient leeway as regards implementation; |
| --- | --- |

2.

is aware that the Member States are obliged to comply with the principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (equal treatment, non-discrimination, transparency and proportionality) when awarding concessions, but notes that implementation of these vary. The proposal for a directive seeks to bring the rules on concessions for works and the rules on concessions for services within a single regulatory framework, so that there would be a single directive for the award of concessions at EU level. Given in particular the economic challenges currently facing the European Union, the European Commission attaches great importance to further developing the internal market, provided that the EU rules on concessions give contracting authorities sufficient leeway as regards implementation;

| 3. | observes that the legal basis for creating a legal framework for concessions can be found in Articles 53(1), 62 and 114 of the TFEU. These articles deal with the functioning of the internal market. The Committee notes in this connection that concessions for services should always also be considered in relation to the provision of services of general (economic) interest. The proposal for a directive does not take sufficient account here of the changes added in the Lisbon Treaty, and the Committee therefore calls for more extensive exclusions from the scope of the directive for these services; |
| --- | --- |

3.

observes that the legal basis for creating a legal framework for concessions can be found in Articles 53(1), 62 and 114 of the TFEU. These articles deal with the functioning of the internal market. The Committee notes in this connection that concessions for services should always also be considered in relation to the provision of services of general (economic) interest. The proposal for a directive does not take sufficient account here of the changes added in the Lisbon Treaty, and the Committee therefore calls for more extensive exclusions from the scope of the directive for these services;

| 4. | believes that this proposal must show due regard for the subsidiarity principle: local and regional authorities should remain free to choose whether they will carry out works and services themselves or outsource them to third parties. When local and regional authorities decide to sub-contract these tasks, they must be free to choose the appropriate legal instrument themselves: a licence, a public procurement contract or a concession; |
| --- | --- |

4.

believes that this proposal must show due regard for the subsidiarity principle: local and regional authorities should remain free to choose whether they will carry out works and services themselves or outsource them to third parties. When local and regional authorities decide to sub-contract these tasks, they must be free to choose the appropriate legal instrument themselves: a licence, a public procurement contract or a concession;

| 5. | points out that concessions are inherently more complex and last for longer periods. The Committee has previously recommended that when rules concerning concession contracts are adopted, they should be flexible and simple (CdR 21/2010) and legal ambiguities must be prevented; |
| --- | --- |

5.

points out that concessions are inherently more complex and last for longer periods. The Committee has previously recommended that when rules concerning concession contracts are adopted, they should be flexible and simple (CdR 21/2010) and legal ambiguities must be prevented;

HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE: THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 6. | believes that it should be made clear in Article 1 of the directive or at least in the recitals that transfers of tasks and competences from one public entity to another do not fall within the scope of this directive. In addition, sectors that are already covered by sector-specific provisions of EU law or are deliberately unregulated by decision of the EU legislator should not be included; |
| --- | --- |

6.

believes that it should be made clear in Article 1 of the directive or at least in the recitals that transfers of tasks and competences from one public entity to another do not fall within the scope of this directive. In addition, sectors that are already covered by sector-specific provisions of EU law or are deliberately unregulated by decision of the EU legislator should not be included;

| 7. | recognises that, above a certain value, concessions affect the internal market and could therefore be subject to EU legislation; |
| --- | --- |

7.

recognises that, above a certain value, concessions affect the internal market and could therefore be subject to EU legislation;

| 8. | notes that the current rules on concessions consist of case-law and national legislation. Given that some concessions may have an impact on the internal market, it would be desirable to clarify the rules and foster a single interpretation and a single approach. The Committee therefore believes it legitimate to consider a regulation in this area; |
| --- | --- |

8.

notes that the current rules on concessions consist of case-law and national legislation. Given that some concessions may have an impact on the internal market, it would be desirable to clarify the rules and foster a single interpretation and a single approach. The Committee therefore believes it legitimate to consider a regulation in this area;

| 9. | notes that the implementation of concessions varies considerably, however, from one Member State to another. This is partly due to the other national instruments available to a Member State to regulate or authorise such activities. The impact of a directive could therefore also differ between Member States, and the Commission should therefore explicitly clarify and specify which types of contracts are regarded as concessions and which types of contractual relations fall within the scope of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

9.

notes that the implementation of concessions varies considerably, however, from one Member State to another. This is partly due to the other national instruments available to a Member State to regulate or authorise such activities. The impact of a directive could therefore also differ between Member States, and the Commission should therefore explicitly clarify and specify which types of contracts are regarded as concessions and which types of contractual relations fall within the scope of the directive;

| 10. | therefore considers it important that contracting authorities and Member States remain free to choose the instrument under which they wish to carry out their tasks. Licences, including operating licences issued in limited quantities, must remain outside the scope of the directive. This also applies to the simple financing of an activity, which is often linked to an obligation to repay the amounts received if they are not used for the purposes intended; |
| --- | --- |

10.

therefore considers it important that contracting authorities and Member States remain free to choose the instrument under which they wish to carry out their tasks. Licences, including operating licences issued in limited quantities, must remain outside the scope of the directive. This also applies to the simple financing of an activity, which is often linked to an obligation to repay the amounts received if they are not used for the purposes intended;

| 11. | expresses concern that the introduction of a procurement requirement for the use of national instruments of this type encroaches too much on Member States’ national autonomy. The Committee is therefore pleased to note from the Explanatory Memorandum that the European Commission believes that such public authority acts should not have the status of concession; however the Committee believes that an explicit exemption in an article is required for this purpose; |
| --- | --- |

11.

expresses concern that the introduction of a procurement requirement for the use of national instruments of this type encroaches too much on Member States’ national autonomy. The Committee is therefore pleased to note from the Explanatory Memorandum that the European Commission believes that such public authority acts should not have the status of concession; however the Committee believes that an explicit exemption in an article is required for this purpose;

| 12. | believes that the directive should apply to concessions that affect the internal market. Concessions which, due to their low value, do not affect the internal market, should therefore be awarded directly without any prior call for competition; |
| --- | --- |

12.

believes that the directive should apply to concessions that affect the internal market. Concessions which, due to their low value, do not affect the internal market, should therefore be awarded directly without any prior call for competition;

| 13. | considers this distinction to be exceedingly important for SMEs. Contracting authorities would thus be able to implement an SME-friendly policy for concessions; |
| --- | --- |

13.

considers this distinction to be exceedingly important for SMEs. Contracting authorities would thus be able to implement an SME-friendly policy for concessions;

| 14. | expresses its concern at the regulation’s complexity. Contracting authorities find the current procurement directives unnecessarily complex. There are fears that this directive on concessions will make this a highly complex issue too. The Committee believes that concessions cannot be addressed in the same way as the rules set out in the European procurement directives and therefore calls on the Commission to ensure that the directive and any subsequent Commission communication remain simple; |
| --- | --- |

14.

expresses its concern at the regulation’s complexity. Contracting authorities find the current procurement directives unnecessarily complex. There are fears that this directive on concessions will make this a highly complex issue too. The Committee believes that concessions cannot be addressed in the same way as the rules set out in the European procurement directives and therefore calls on the Commission to ensure that the directive and any subsequent Commission communication remain simple;

| 15. | recommends that the arrangements for awarding concessions be further clarified. A balance needs to be struck between clarifying, for example, both the way in which the contract is published and its deadlines, on the one hand, and the leeway available to the contracting authorities regarding the criteria they wish to apply on the other. This clarity provides a point of reference for the contracting authorities and creates the desired uniformity in the way Member States apply the rules. The leeway demonstrates respect for the contracting authorities’ knowledge of their concessions and acknowledges the autonomy of the Member States. Contracting authorities should have ample scope for selecting socially-minded and sustainable criteria. |
| --- | --- |

15.

recommends that the arrangements for awarding concessions be further clarified. A balance needs to be struck between clarifying, for example, both the way in which the contract is published and its deadlines, on the one hand, and the leeway available to the contracting authorities regarding the criteria they wish to apply on the other. This clarity provides a point of reference for the contracting authorities and creates the desired uniformity in the way Member States apply the rules. The leeway demonstrates respect for the contracting authorities’ knowledge of their concessions and acknowledges the autonomy of the Member States. Contracting authorities should have ample scope for selecting socially-minded and sustainable criteria.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital (5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (5) | Certain coordination provisions should also be introduced for the award of works and services concessions awarded in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors given that national authorities may influence the behaviour of entities operating in those sectors and taking into account the closed nature of the markets in which they operate, due to the existence of special or exclusive rights granted by the Member States concerning the supply to, provision or operation of networks for providing the services concerned. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(5)

Certain coordination provisions should also be introduced for the award of works and services concessions awarded in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors given that national authorities may influence the behaviour of entities operating in those sectors and taking into account the closed nature of the markets in which they operate, due to the existence of special or exclusive rights granted by the Member States concerning the supply to, provision or operation of networks for providing the services concerned.

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

Reason

These sectors are already covered by specific legislation.

Amendment 2

Recital (6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (6) | Concessions are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or entities and having as their object the acquisition of works or services where the consideration consists, normally, in the right to exploit the works or services that are the subject of the contract. The execution of these works or services are subject to specific binding obligations defined by the contracting authority or entity which are legally enforceable. By contrast, certain State actssuch as authorisations or licences whereby the State or a public authority establishes the conditions for the exercise of an economic activity, should not qualify as concessions. The same applies to certain agreements having as their object the right of an economic operator to exploit certain public domains or resources, such as land lease contracts whereby the State or contracting authority or entity establishes only general conditions for their use without acquiring specific works or services. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(6)

Concessions are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or entities and having as their object the acquisition of works or services where the consideration consists, normally, in the right to exploit the works or services that are the subject of the contract. The execution of these works or services are subject to specific binding obligations defined by the contracting authority or entity which are legally enforceable. By contrast, certain State actssuch as authorisations or licences whereby the State or a public authority establishes the conditions for the exercise of an economic activity, should not qualify as concessions. The same applies to certain agreements having as their object the right of an economic operator to exploit certain public domains or resources, such as land lease contracts whereby the State or contracting authority or entity establishes only general conditions for their use without acquiring specific works or services.

| (6) | Concessions are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or entities and having as their object the acquisition of works or services where the consideration consists, normally, in the right to exploit the works or services that are the subject of the contract. he execution of these works or services are subject to specific defined by the contractingauthority or entity legally enforceable. By contrast, certain State acts such as authorisations or licences whereby the State or a public authority establishes the conditions for the exercise of an economic activity , should not qualify as concessions. The same applies to certain agreements having as their object the right of an economic operator to exploit certain public domains or resources, such as land lease contracts whereby the State or contracting authority or entity establishes only general conditions for their use without acquiring specific works or services. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Concessions are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or entities and having as their object the acquisition of works or services where the consideration consists, normally, in the right to exploit the works or services that are the subject of the contract. he execution of these works or services are subject to specific defined by the contractingauthority or entity legally enforceable. By contrast, certain State acts such as authorisations or licences whereby the State or a public authority establishes the conditions for the exercise of an economic activity , should not qualify as concessions. The same applies to certain agreements having as their object the right of an economic operator to exploit certain public domains or resources, such as land lease contracts whereby the State or contracting authority or entity establishes only general conditions for their use without acquiring specific works or services.

Reason

The distinction between a licence, a limited-issue licence whereby the contracting authority issues an operating licence and a concession needs to be clarified.

A licence makes it possible to subject the performance of an activity to certain requirements. But a licence may also impose restrictions on the activities themselves. These are known as operating or limited-issue licences. These are generally used for reasons relating to public order, public health and/or safety and include operating licences for prostitution, hotels and restaurants, and casinos.

A concession contract shares certain features with this type of operating licence. The main difference is that where a concession contract is concerned, performance of the activity is essential to the contracting authority. Therefore, under a concession contract, performance of the activity is legally enforceable. If performance of the activity to which the operating right applies is legally enforceable, then performance ‘for pecuniary interest’ may be accepted. This criterion also applies to the definition of the contract.

It is important that contracting authorities and Member States remain free to choose the instrument by means of which they wish to carry out their tasks. Licences, operating licences and limited-issue licences should not fall within the scope of the directive. It is not desirable that an obligation for transparency or where relevant, for a call for tender, apply to the award of such licences. National and sub-national regulations should form the legal basis for determining to whom a licence is to be issued. Point 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the European Commission shares this view.

The definition of a concession refers to the form of a contract, but these criteria are explained in purely functional terms. As a result, a licence may still be regarded as a concession. The difference between an (operating) licence and a concession should, therefore, be clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the definition of concessions.

Concessions need to be carefully distinguished from government duties such as the issuing of permits and licences.

Amendment 3

Recital (9)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (9) | The notion of special or exclusive rights is central to the definition of the scope of this Directive, since entities which are neither contracting entities pursuant to Article 4 (1) (1) nor public undertakings are subject to its provisions only to the extent that they exercise one of the activities covered on the basis of such rights. It is therefore appropriate to clarify that rights which have been granted by means of a procedure based onobjective criteria, notably pursuant to Union legislation, and for which adequate publicity has been ensured do not constitute special or exclusive rights for the purposes of this Directive. This legislation should include Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (1), Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2), Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (3), Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1994on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
   (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70
   (5). The increasingly diverse forms of public action made it necessary to define more clearly the notion of procurement itself. The Union rules on concessions refer to the acquisition of works or services for a consideration consisting in exploitation of those works or services. The notion of acquisition should be understood broadly in the sense of obtaining the benefits of the works or services in question not requiring in all cases a transfer of ownership to contracting authorities or contracting entities. Furthermore, the mere financing of an activity, which is frequently linked to the obligation to reimburse the amounts received where they are not used for the purposes intended, does not usually fall under this Directive. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(9)

The notion of special or exclusive rights is central to the definition of the scope of this Directive, since entities which are neither contracting entities pursuant to Article 4 (1) (1) nor public undertakings are subject to its provisions only to the extent that they exercise one of the activities covered on the basis of such rights. It is therefore appropriate to clarify that rights which have been granted by means of a procedure based onobjective criteria, notably pursuant to Union legislation, and for which adequate publicity has been ensured do not constitute special or exclusive rights for the purposes of this Directive. This legislation should include Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (1), Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2), Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (3), Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1994on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
   (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70
   (5). The increasingly diverse forms of public action made it necessary to define more clearly the notion of procurement itself. The Union rules on concessions refer to the acquisition of works or services for a consideration consisting in exploitation of those works or services. The notion of acquisition should be understood broadly in the sense of obtaining the benefits of the works or services in question not requiring in all cases a transfer of ownership to contracting authorities or contracting entities. Furthermore, the mere financing of an activity, which is frequently linked to the obligation to reimburse the amounts received where they are not used for the purposes intended, does not usually fall under this Directive.

| (9) | The notion of special or exclusive rights is central to the definition of the scope of this Directive, since entities which are neither contracting entities pursuant to Article 4 (1) (1) nor public undertakings are subject to its provisions only to the extent that they exercise one of the activities covered on the basis of such rights. It is therefore appropriate to clarify that rights which have been granted by means of aprocedure based on objective criteria, notably pursuant to Union legislation, and for which adequate publicity has been ensured do not constitute special or exclusive rights for the purposes of this Directive. This legislation should include Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (1), Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2), Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (3), Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1994on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
   (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70
   (5) The increasingly diverse forms of public action made it necessary to define more clearly the notion of procurement itself. The Union rules on concessions refer to the acquisition of works or services for a consideration consisting in exploitation of those works or services. The notion of acquisition should be understood broadly in the sense of obtaining the benefits of the works or services in question not requiring in all cases a transfer of ownership to contracting authorities or contracting entities. Furthermore, the mere financing of an activity, which is frequently linked to the obligation to reimburse the amounts received where they are not used for the purposes intended, does not usually fall under this Directive. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The notion of special or exclusive rights is central to the definition of the scope of this Directive, since entities which are neither contracting entities pursuant to Article 4 (1) (1) nor public undertakings are subject to its provisions only to the extent that they exercise one of the activities covered on the basis of such rights. It is therefore appropriate to clarify that rights which have been granted by means of aprocedure based on objective criteria, notably pursuant to Union legislation, and for which adequate publicity has been ensured do not constitute special or exclusive rights for the purposes of this Directive. This legislation should include Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas (1), Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (2), Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (3), Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1994on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
   (4) and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70
   (5) The increasingly diverse forms of public action made it necessary to define more clearly the notion of procurement itself. The Union rules on concessions refer to the acquisition of works or services for a consideration consisting in exploitation of those works or services. The notion of acquisition should be understood broadly in the sense of obtaining the benefits of the works or services in question not requiring in all cases a transfer of ownership to contracting authorities or contracting entities. Furthermore, the mere financing of an activity, which is frequently linked to the obligation to reimburse the amounts received where they are not used for the purposes intended, does not usually fall under this Directive.

Reason

The amendment seeks to restate, without any possibility of misinterpretation, the fundamental concept already asserted in Recital 25 of Directive 2004/17/EC on procurement procedures in the utilities sector, which states as follows: Nor may rights granted by a Member State in any form, including by way of acts of concession, to a limited number of undertakings on the basis of objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria that allow any interested party fulfilling those criteria to enjoy those rights be considered special or exclusive rights. We do not believe that this concept should be restricted to a list of EU acts, which might appear stringent, and therefore, to exclude the laws or regulations of individual Member States which nevertheless satisfy the same objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria.

Amendment 4

Recital (10)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (10) | It has also proven necessary to clarify what should be understood as a single procurement, with the effect that the aggregate value of all concessions concludedfor the purpose of this procurement has to be taken into account with regard to the thresholds of this Directive, and that the procurement should be advertised as a whole, possibly split into lots. The concept of single procurement encompasses all supplies, works and services needed to carry out a particular project. Indications for the existence of one single project can for instance consist in overall prior planning and conception by the contracting authority, the fact that the different elements purchased fulfil a single economic and technical function or that they are otherwise logically interlinked. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(10)

It has also proven necessary to clarify what should be understood as a single procurement, with the effect that the aggregate value of all concessions concludedfor the purpose of this procurement has to be taken into account with regard to the thresholds of this Directive, and that the procurement should be advertised as a whole, possibly split into lots. The concept of single procurement encompasses all supplies, works and services needed to carry out a particular project. Indications for the existence of one single project can for instance consist in overall prior planning and conception by the contracting authority, the fact that the different elements purchased fulfil a single economic and technical function or that they are otherwise logically interlinked.

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

Reason

The preparation and implementation of a concession may take years. When preparing the concession, the contracting authority is likely to seek out a variety of external advice. This advice, according to the definition, should be taken into account when evaluating the concession. This is illogical. Contracts that are different in nature or awarded to another party should not play any role in the evaluation of the concession. If these contracts are of a certain value, they should be awarded on the basis of the directive on public procurement and in accordance with that directive.

This position is in line with previous Committee opinions on the need not to group contracts together unnecessarily.

See Amendment 14.

Amendment 5

Recital (11)

| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (11) | To ensure a real opening up of the market and a fair balance in the application of concession award rules in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors it is necessary for the entities covered to be identified on a basis other than their legal status. It should be ensured, therefore, that the equal treatment of contracting entities operating in the public sector and those operating in the private sector is not prejudiced. It is also necessary to ensure, in keeping with Article 345 of the Treaty, that the rules governing the system of property ownership in Member States are not prejudiced. |

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11)

To ensure a real opening up of the market and a fair balance in the application of concession award rules in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors it is necessary for the entities covered to be identified on a basis other than their legal status. It should be ensured, therefore, that the equal treatment of contracting entities operating in the public sector and those operating in the private sector is not prejudiced. It is also necessary to ensure, in keeping with Article 345 of the Treaty, that the rules governing the system of property ownership in Member States are not prejudiced.

| (11) | To ensure a real opening up of the market and a fair balance in the application of concession award rules in the energy, transport and postal services sectors it is necessary for the entities covered to be identified on a basis other than their legal status. It should be ensured, therefore, that the equal treatment of contracting entities operating in the public sector and those operating in the private sector is not prejudiced. It is also necessary to ensure, in keeping with Article 345 of the Treaty, that the rules governing the system of property ownership in Member States are not prejudiced. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

To ensure a real opening up of the market and a fair balance in the application of concession award rules in the energy, transport and postal services sectors it is necessary for the entities covered to be identified on a basis other than their legal status. It should be ensured, therefore, that the equal treatment of contracting entities operating in the public sector and those operating in the private sector is not prejudiced. It is also necessary to ensure, in keeping with Article 345 of the Treaty, that the rules governing the system of property ownership in Member States are not prejudiced.

Reason

The wishes of the European Parliament regarding the water sector can be ascertained from its resolutions of 14 January 2004, 10 March 2004 and 31 May 2006. These resolutions indicate that the European Parliament is not pursuing liberalisation, but rather the approach of modernising the water sector, whereby economic principles must be reconciled with quality and environmental standards and the required efficiency. Additional rules in the form of horizontal arrangements are therefore not advisable.

Amendment 6

New Recital after Recital (13)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

Cooperation arrangements between local authorities (contractual or institutional task-sharing among municipalities) cannot fall within the scope of internal market legislation.

Amendment 7

Recital (20)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (20) | A review of so-called prioritary and non-prioritary services (‘A’ and ‘B’ services) by the Commission has shown that it is not justified to restrict the full application of procurement law to a limited group of services. As a result, this Directive should apply to a number of services (such as catering and water distribution services), which both showed a potential for cross-border trade. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(20)

A review of so-called prioritary and non-prioritary services (‘A’ and ‘B’ services) by the Commission has shown that it is not justified to restrict the full application of procurement law to a limited group of services. As a result, this Directive should apply to a number of services (such as catering and water distribution services), which both showed a potential for cross-border trade.

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

Reason

The fundamental differentiation between prioritary and non-prioritary services, and thus the preference in procurement law for so-called ‘B’ services, must be maintained. Social and healthcare services have little or no impact on the single market and are, as a rule, provided locally. Water is a vital good. The approach to the water sector must therefore be particularly sensitive, taking environmental and health factors into account. In accordance with Article 17 of Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, water services should be excluded from the scope of the concessions directive.

Amendment 8

Recital (22)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (22) | Given the importance of the cultural context and the sensitivity of these services, Member States should be given wide discretion to organise the choice of the service providers in the way they consider most appropriate. The rules of this Directive do not prevent Member States to apply specific quality criteria for the choice of service providers, such as the criteria set out in the voluntary European Quality Framework for Social Services of the European Union’s Social Protection Committee. Member States and/or public authorities remain freeto provide these services themselves or to organise social services in a way that does not entail the conclusion of concessions, for example through the mere financing of such services or by granting licences or authorisations to all economic operators meeting the conditions established beforehand by the contracting authority or contracting entity, without any limits or quotas, provided such system ensures sufficient advertising and complies with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(22)

Given the importance of the cultural context and the sensitivity of these services, Member States should be given wide discretion to organise the choice of the service providers in the way they consider most appropriate. The rules of this Directive do not prevent Member States to apply specific quality criteria for the choice of service providers, such as the criteria set out in the voluntary European Quality Framework for Social Services of the European Union’s Social Protection Committee. Member States and/or public authorities remain freeto provide these services themselves or to organise social services in a way that does not entail the conclusion of concessions, for example through the mere financing of such services or by granting licences or authorisations to all economic operators meeting the conditions established beforehand by the contracting authority or contracting entity, without any limits or quotas, provided such system ensures sufficient advertising and complies with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination.

| (22) | Given the importance of the cultural context and the sensitivity of these services, Member States should be given wide discretion to organise the choice of the service providers in the way they consider most appropriate. The rules of this Directive do not prevent Member States to apply specific quality criteria for the choice of service providers, such as the criteria set out in the voluntary European Quality Framework for Social Services of the European Union’s Social Protection Committee. Member States and/or public authorities remain freeto provide these services themselves or to organise social services in a way that does not entail the conclusion of concessions, for example through the mere financing of such services or by granting licences or authorisations to all economic operators meeting the conditions established beforehand by the contracting authority or contracting entity, provided such system ensures sufficient advertising and complies with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Given the importance of the cultural context and the sensitivity of these services, Member States should be given wide discretion to organise the choice of the service providers in the way they consider most appropriate. The rules of this Directive do not prevent Member States to apply specific quality criteria for the choice of service providers, such as the criteria set out in the voluntary European Quality Framework for Social Services of the European Union’s Social Protection Committee. Member States and/or public authorities remain freeto provide these services themselves or to organise social services in a way that does not entail the conclusion of concessions, for example through the mere financing of such services or by granting licences or authorisations to all economic operators meeting the conditions established beforehand by the contracting authority or contracting entity, provided such system ensures sufficient advertising and complies with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination.

Reason

The Committee proposes that this text be deleted.

There are a limited number of operating licences that regulate certain activities for which a call for tenders would not be desirable. These are activities that are not carried out for reasons of general interest or for the public authority in question, but are viewed by the authority as potentially dangerous and should therefore be regulated. They include, for example, licences for prostitution. Limited-issue operating licences should not, therefore, automatically be the subject of a transparent award procedure.

See also Amendment 4.

Amendment 9

Recital (25)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (25) | In order to ensure transparency and equal treatment, criteria for the award of concessions should always comply with some general standards. These should be disclosed in advance to all potential tenderers, be related to the subject matter of the contract and should not offer to the contracting authority or contracting entity an unrestricted freedom of choice. They should ensure the possibility of effective competition and be accompanied by requirements that allow the information provided by the tenderers to be effectively verified. In order to comply with these standards while improving legal certainty, Member States may provide for the use of the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(25)

In order to ensure transparency and equal treatment, criteria for the award of concessions should always comply with some general standards. These should be disclosed in advance to all potential tenderers, be related to the subject matter of the contract and should not offer to the contracting authority or contracting entity an unrestricted freedom of choice. They should ensure the possibility of effective competition and be accompanied by requirements that allow the information provided by the tenderers to be effectively verified. In order to comply with these standards while improving legal certainty, Member States may provide for the use of the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender.

| (25) | In order to ensure transparency and equal treatment, criteria for the award of concessions should always comply with some general standards. These should be disclosed in advance to all potential tenderers. They should ensure the possibility of effective competition and be accompanied by requirements that allow the information provided by the tenderers to be effectively verified. In order to comply with these standards while improving legal certainty, Member States may provide for the use of the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

In order to ensure transparency and equal treatment, criteria for the award of concessions should always comply with some general standards. These should be disclosed in advance to all potential tenderers. They should ensure the possibility of effective competition and be accompanied by requirements that allow the information provided by the tenderers to be effectively verified. In order to comply with these standards while improving legal certainty, Member States may provide for the use of the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender.

Reason

See Amendments 23 and 28.

Amendment 10

Article 1, new paragraph 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 1


  Subject-matter and scope | Article 1


  Subject-matter and scope |
| ... | ... |
| | 3. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 1

Subject-matter and scope

Article 1

Subject-matter and scope

...

...

3.

Reason

The Committee considers that this directive should only apply to concessions affecting the internal market. Concessions with a value below European thresholds are of no ‘cross-border interest’ and the internal market is therefore not at stake. This additional text guarantees contracting authorities’ room for manoeuvre.

Amendment 11

Article 2, Paragraph 1, Point 7

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 2


  Definitions | Article 2


  Definitions |
| 1.   For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply: | 1.   For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply: |
| ... | ... |
| (7) | ‘services concession’ means a contract for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or contracting entities and having as their object the provision of services other than those referred to in points 2 and 4 where the consideration for the services to be provided consists either solely in the right to exploit the services that are subject of the contract or in that right together with payment. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 2

Definitions

Article 2

Definitions

1.   For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:

1.   For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:

...

...

(7)

‘services concession’ means a contract for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or contracting entities and having as their object the provision of services other than those referred to in points 2 and 4 where the consideration for the services to be provided consists either solely in the right to exploit the services that are subject of the contract or in that right together with payment.

| (7) | ‘services concession’ means a contract for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or contracting entities and having as their object the provision of services other than those referred to in points 2 and 4 where the consideration for the services to be provided consists either solely in the right to exploit the services that are subject of the contract or in that right together with payment. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

‘services concession’ means a contract for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between one or more economic operators and one or more contracting authorities or contracting entities and having as their object the provision of services other than those referred to in points 2 and 4 where the consideration for the services to be provided consists either solely in the right to exploit the services that are subject of the contract or in that right together with payment.

Reason

The distinction between a licence, a limited-issue licence whereby the contracting authority issues an operating licence and a concession needs to be clarified.

A licence makes it possible to subject the performance of an activity to certain requirements. But a licence may also impose restrictions on the activities themselves. These are known as operating or limited-issue licences. These are generally used for reasons relating to public order, public health and/or safety and include operating licences for prostitution, hotels and restaurants, and casinos.

A concession contract shares certain features with this type of operating licence. The main difference is that where a concession contract is concerned, performance of the activity is essential to the contracting authority. Therefore, under a concession contract, performance of the activity is legally enforceable. If performance of the activity to which the operating right applies is legally enforceable, then performance ‘for pecuniary interest’ may be accepted. This criterion also applies to the definition of the contract.

It is important that contracting authorities and Member States remain free to choose the instrument by means of which they wish to carry out their tasks. Licences, operating licences and limited-issue licences should not fall within the scope of the directive. It is not desirable that an obligation for transparency or where relevant, for a call for tender, apply to the award of such licences. National and sub-national regulations should form the legal basis for determining to whom a licence is to be issued. Point 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the European Commission shares this view.

The definition of a concession refers to the form of a contract, but these criteria are explained in purely functional terms. As a result, a licence may still be regarded as a concession. The difference between an (operating) licence and a concession should, therefore, be clarified in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the definition of concessions.

Amendment 12

Article 2, Paragraph 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 2


  Definitions


  2.   The right to exploit the works or services as referred to in points 2, 4 and 7 of the first paragraph shall impliy [sic] the transfer to the concessionaire of the substantial operating risk. The concessionaire shall be deemed to assume the substantial operating risk where it is not guaranteed to recoup the investments made or the costs incurred in operating the works or the services which are the subject-matter of the concession. [...] | Article 2


  Definitions


  2.   The right to exploit the works or services as referred to in points 2, 4 and 7 of the first paragraph shall impliy [sic] the transfer to the concessionaire of the operating risk. The concessionaire shall be deemed to assume the operating risk where it is not guaranteed to recoup the investments made or the costs incurred in operating the works or the services which are the subject-matter of the concession. [...] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 2

Definitions

2.   The right to exploit the works or services as referred to in points 2, 4 and 7 of the first paragraph shall impliy [sic] the transfer to the concessionaire of the substantial operating risk. The concessionaire shall be deemed to assume the substantial operating risk where it is not guaranteed to recoup the investments made or the costs incurred in operating the works or the services which are the subject-matter of the concession. [...]

Article 2

Definitions

2.   The right to exploit the works or services as referred to in points 2, 4 and 7 of the first paragraph shall impliy [sic] the transfer to the concessionaire of the operating risk. The concessionaire shall be deemed to assume the operating risk where it is not guaranteed to recoup the investments made or the costs incurred in operating the works or the services which are the subject-matter of the concession. [...]

Reason

The word ‘substantial’ in relation to operating risk should be deleted. Distinguishing, or defining, operating risk in relation to a public contract poses considerable problems at local level in practice. The definition of ‘substantial operating risk’ in the proposal for a directive goes far beyond Court of Justice case law, which does not set very strict requirements for financial risk. Even in a case of compulsory connection and use when supplying water (see points 72-76 of ruling C-206/08 of 10 September 2009, WAZV Gotha), the Court’s view is that this constitutes a service concession unaffected by public procurement law.

Amendment 13

Article 5

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 5


  Thresholds | Article 5


  Thresholds |
| 1.   This Directive shall apply to the following concessions the value of which is equal to or greater than EUR 5 000 000: | 1.   This Directive shall apply to the following concessions the value of which is equal to or greater than EUR 5 000 000: |
| a) | concessions concluded by contracting entities for the pursuit of one of the activities referred to in Annex III; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 5

Thresholds

Article 5

Thresholds

1.   This Directive shall apply to the following concessions the value of which is equal to or greater than EUR 5 000 000:

1.   This Directive shall apply to the following concessions the value of which is equal to or greater than EUR 5 000 000:

a)

concessions concluded by contracting entities for the pursuit of one of the activities referred to in Annex III;

| a) | concessions concluded by contracting entities for the pursuit of one of the activities referred to in Annex III; |
| --- | --- |

a)

concessions concluded by contracting entities for the pursuit of one of the activities referred to in Annex III;

| b) | concessions concluded by contracting authorities. |
| --- | --- |

b)

concessions concluded by contracting authorities.

| b) | concessions concluded by contracting authorities. |
| --- | --- |

b)

concessions concluded by contracting authorities.

| a) | |
| --- | --- |

a)

| b) | |
| --- | --- |

b)

2.   Services concessions the value of which is equal to or greater than EUR 2 500 000 but lower than EUR 5 000 000 other than social services and other specific services shall be subject to the obligation to publish a concession award notice in accordance with Articles 27 and 28.

2.   Services concessions the value of which is equal to or greater than EUR 2 500 000 but lower than EUR 5 000 000 other than social services and other specific services shall be subject to the obligation to publish a concession award notice in accordance with Articles 27 and 28.

Reason

Concessions can have a long lifespan because the entrepreneurs concerned must be able to recover their investments. In long-term concessions, the threshold of EUR 5 000 000 for the total value of the concession is very low. The annual amount that the concession earns for the entrepreneur is not, however, sufficient to affect the internal market. That is why this distinction needs to be made.

Amendment 14

Article 6, Paragraph 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 6


  Methods for calculating the estimated value of concessions | Article 6


  Methods for calculating the estimated value of concessions |
| 2.   The estimated value of a concession shall be calculated as the value of an entirety of works or services, even if purchased through different contracts, where the contracts are part of one single project. Indications for the existence of one single project consist in overall prior planning and conception by the contracting authority or contracting entity, the fact that the different elements purchased fulfil a single economic and technical function or that they are otherwise logically interlinked. | 2.   The estimated value of a concession shall be calculated entirety. . |
| Where the contracting authority or the contracting entity provides for prizes or payments to candidates or tenderers it shall take them into account when calculating the estimated value of the concession. | Where the contracting authority or the contracting entity provides for prizes or payments to candidates or tenderers it shall take them into account when calculating the estimated value of the concession. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 6

Methods for calculating the estimated value of concessions

Article 6

Methods for calculating the estimated value of concessions

2.   The estimated value of a concession shall be calculated as the value of an entirety of works or services, even if purchased through different contracts, where the contracts are part of one single project. Indications for the existence of one single project consist in overall prior planning and conception by the contracting authority or contracting entity, the fact that the different elements purchased fulfil a single economic and technical function or that they are otherwise logically interlinked.

2.   The estimated value of a concession shall be calculated entirety. .

Where the contracting authority or the contracting entity provides for prizes or payments to candidates or tenderers it shall take them into account when calculating the estimated value of the concession.

Where the contracting authority or the contracting entity provides for prizes or payments to candidates or tenderers it shall take them into account when calculating the estimated value of the concession.

Reason

See Amendment 8.

Amendment 15

Article 8, Paragraph 5

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 8


  Exclusions applicable to concessions awarded by contracting authorities and contracting entities | Article 8


  Exclusions applicable to concessions awarded by contracting authorities and contracting entities |
| 5.   This Directive shall not apply to service concessions for: | 5.   This Directive shall not apply to service concessions for: |
| (a) | the acquisition or rental, by whatever financial means, of land, existing buildings or other immovable property or concerning rights thereon; however financial service concessions awarded at the same time as, before or after the contract of acquisition or rental, in whatever form, shall be subject to this Directive; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 8

Exclusions applicable to concessions awarded by contracting authorities and contracting entities

Article 8

Exclusions applicable to concessions awarded by contracting authorities and contracting entities

5.   This Directive shall not apply to service concessions for:

5.   This Directive shall not apply to service concessions for:

(a)

the acquisition or rental, by whatever financial means, of land, existing buildings or other immovable property or concerning rights thereon; however financial service concessions awarded at the same time as, before or after the contract of acquisition or rental, in whatever form, shall be subject to this Directive;

| (a) | the acquisition or rental, by whatever financial means, of land, existing buildings or other immovable property or concerning rights thereon; however financial service concessions awarded at the same time as, before or after the contract of acquisition or rental, in whatever form, shall be subject to this Directive; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the acquisition or rental, by whatever financial means, of land, existing buildings or other immovable property or concerning rights thereon; however financial service concessions awarded at the same time as, before or after the contract of acquisition or rental, in whatever form, shall be subject to this Directive;

| (b) | the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting, defined as transmission and distribution using any form of electronic network, that are awarded by broadcasters, nor to concessions for broadcasting time, that are awarded to broadcasters; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting, defined as transmission and distribution using any form of electronic network, that are awarded by broadcasters, nor to concessions for broadcasting time, that are awarded to broadcasters;

| (b) | the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting, defined as transmission and distribution using any form of electronic network, that are awarded by broadcasters, nor to concessions for broadcasting time, that are awarded to broadcasters; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the acquisition, development, production or co-production of programme material intended for broadcasting, defined as transmission and distribution using any form of electronic network, that are awarded by broadcasters, nor to concessions for broadcasting time, that are awarded to broadcasters;

| (c) | arbitration and conciliation services; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

arbitration and conciliation services;

| (c) | arbitration and conciliation services; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

arbitration and conciliation services;

| (d) | financial services in connection with the issue, sale, purchase or transfer of securities or other financial instruments within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, central bank services and operations conducted with the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

financial services in connection with the issue, sale, purchase or transfer of securities or other financial instruments within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, central bank services and operations conducted with the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF);

| (d) | financial services in connection with the issue, sale, purchase or transfer of securities or other financial instruments within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, central bank services and conducted with the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) |
| --- | --- |

(d)

financial services in connection with the issue, sale, purchase or transfer of securities or other financial instruments within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, central bank services and conducted with the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF)

| (e) | employment contracts; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

employment contracts;

| (e) | employment contracts; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

employment contracts;

| (f) | Air transport services based on the grant of an operating licence within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 (6) of the European Parliament and of the Council (7); |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Air transport services based on the grant of an operating licence within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 (6) of the European Parliament and of the Council (7);

| (f) | Air transport services based on the grant of an operating licence within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 (6) of the European Parliament and of the Council (7); |
| --- | --- |

(f)

Air transport services based on the grant of an operating licence within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 (6) of the European Parliament and of the Council (7);

| (g) | Public passenger transport services within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8). |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Public passenger transport services within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).

| (g) | Public passenger transport services within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8). |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Public passenger transport services within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).

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

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

The broadcasting referred to in point (b) of the first paragraph shall include any transmission and distribution using any form of electronic network.

The broadcasting referred to in point (b) of the first paragraph shall include any transmission and distribution using any form of electronic network.

Reason

Consistent with amendment 5 on recital 11.

Amendment 16

Article 15, paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 15


  Relations between public authorities | Article 15


  Relations between public authorities |
| 1.   A concession awarded by a contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 to another legal person shall fall outside the scope of this Directive where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled: | 1.   A concession awarded by a contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 to another legal person shall fall outside the scope of this Directive where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled: |
| a) | such an authority or entity exercises over the legal person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

1.   A concession awarded by a contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 to another legal person shall fall outside the scope of this Directive where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled:

1.   A concession awarded by a contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 to another legal person shall fall outside the scope of this Directive where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled:

a)

such an authority or entity exercises over the legal person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments

| a) | such an authority or entity exercises over the legal person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments |
| --- | --- |

a)

such an authority or entity exercises over the legal person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments

| b) | at least 90 % of the activities of that legal person are carried out for the controlling contracting authority or entity or for other legal persons controlled by that contracting authority or entity |
| --- | --- |

b)

at least 90 % of the activities of that legal person are carried out for the controlling contracting authority or entity or for other legal persons controlled by that contracting authority or entity

| b) | at least % of the activities of that legal person n are carried out for the controlling contracting authority or entity or for other legal persons controlled by that contracting authority or entity |
| --- | --- |

b)

at least % of the activities of that legal person n are carried out for the controlling contracting authority or entity or for other legal persons controlled by that contracting authority or entity

| c) | there is no private participation in the controlled legal person |
| --- | --- |

c)

there is no private participation in the controlled legal person

| c) | there is no private participation in the controlled legal person |
| --- | --- |

c)

there is no private participation in the controlled legal person

A contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 shall be deemed to exercise over a legal person a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments within the meaning of point (a) of the first subparagraph where it exercises a decisive influence over both strategic objectives and significant decisions of the controlled legal person.

A contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 shall be deemed to exercise over a legal person a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments within the meaning of point (a) of the first subparagraph where it exercises a decisive influence over both strategic objectives and significant decisions of the controlled legal person.

Amendment 17

Article 15, paragraph 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 15


  Relations between public authorities


  2.   Paragraph 1 also applies where a controlled entity which is a contracting authority or contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 awards a concession to its controlling entity, or to another legal person controlled by the same contracting authority, provided that there is no private participation in the legal person being awarded the public concession. | Article 15


  Relations between public authorities


  2.   Paragraph 1 also applies where a controlled entity which is a contracting authority or contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 awards a concession to its controlling or to another legal person controlled by the same contracting authority, provided that there is no private participation in the legal person being awarded the public concession. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

2.   Paragraph 1 also applies where a controlled entity which is a contracting authority or contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 awards a concession to its controlling entity, or to another legal person controlled by the same contracting authority, provided that there is no private participation in the legal person being awarded the public concession.

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

2.   Paragraph 1 also applies where a controlled entity which is a contracting authority or contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 awards a concession to its controlling or to another legal person controlled by the same contracting authority, provided that there is no private participation in the legal person being awarded the public concession.

Reason

The reference should only be to ‘operative’ or ‘active’ private participation in the capital of the controlled legal person, where management decisions of that legal person could be influenced. This should allow purely capital investment in the legal person, such as silent partnerships, without affecting the exemption for in-house arrangements or horizontal cooperation between public entities. The European Commission itself makes this point itself in its communication of 5 February 2008 on public-private partnerships (PPPs). It is important to allow purely capital participation so that local authorities can guarantee provision of services at a reasonable price to the general public.

Amendment 18

Article 15, paragraph 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 15


  Relations between public authorities | Article 15


  Relations between public authorities |
| 3.   A contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4, which does not exercise over a legal person control within the meaning of paragraph 1, may nevertheless award a concession without applying the provisions of the current Directive to a legal person which it controls jointly with other such contracting authorities or entities, where the following conditions are fulfilled: | 3.   A contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4, which does not exercise over a legal person control within the meaning of paragraph 1, may nevertheless award a concession without applying the provisions of the current Directive to a legal person which it controls jointly with other such contracting authorities or entities, where the following conditions are fulfilled: |
| a) | the contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 exercise jointly over the legal person a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

3.   A contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4, which does not exercise over a legal person control within the meaning of paragraph 1, may nevertheless award a concession without applying the provisions of the current Directive to a legal person which it controls jointly with other such contracting authorities or entities, where the following conditions are fulfilled:

3.   A contracting authority or a contracting entity as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4, which does not exercise over a legal person control within the meaning of paragraph 1, may nevertheless award a concession without applying the provisions of the current Directive to a legal person which it controls jointly with other such contracting authorities or entities, where the following conditions are fulfilled:

a)

the contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 exercise jointly over the legal person a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments;

| a) | the contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 exercise jointly over the legal person a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 exercise jointly over the legal person a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments;

| b) | at least 90 % of the activities of that legal person are carried out for the controlling contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 or other legal persons controlled by the same contracting authority or entity; |
| --- | --- |

b)

at least 90 % of the activities of that legal person are carried out for the controlling contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 or other legal persons controlled by the same contracting authority or entity;

| b) | at least of the activities of that legal person are carried out for the controlling contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 or other legal persons controlled by the same contracting authority or entity; |
| --- | --- |

b)

at least of the activities of that legal person are carried out for the controlling contracting authorities or entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 or other legal persons controlled by the same contracting authority or entity;

| c) | there is no private participation in the controlled legal person. |
| --- | --- |

c)

there is no private participation in the controlled legal person.

| c) | there is no private participation in the controlled legal person. |
| --- | --- |

c)

there is no private participation in the controlled legal person.

...

...

Reason

Consistent with amendment 16 on Article 15(1).

Amendment 19

Article 15, paragraph 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 15


  Relations between public authorities | Article 15


  Relations between public authorities |
| 4.   An agreement concluded between two or more contracting authorities or contracting entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 shall not be deemed to be a concession within the meaning of point 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of this Directive, where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled: | 4.   An agreement concluded between two or more contracting authorities or contracting entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 shall not be deemed to be a concession within the meaning of point 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of this Directive, where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled: |
| a) | the agreement establishes a genuine co-operation between the participating contracting authorities or entities aimed at carrying out jointly their public service tasks and involving mutual rights and obligations of the parties; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

4.   An agreement concluded between two or more contracting authorities or contracting entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 shall not be deemed to be a concession within the meaning of point 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of this Directive, where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled:

4.   An agreement concluded between two or more contracting authorities or contracting entities as referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 of Article 4 shall not be deemed to be a concession within the meaning of point 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of this Directive, where the following cumulative conditions are fulfilled:

a)

the agreement establishes a genuine co-operation between the participating contracting authorities or entities aimed at carrying out jointly their public service tasks and involving mutual rights and obligations of the parties;

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

b)

| b) | the agreement is governed only by considerations relating to the public interest; |
| --- | --- |

the agreement is governed only by considerations relating to the public interest;

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

c)

| c) | the participating contracting authorities or entities shall do not perform on the open market more than 10 % in terms of turnover of the activities which are relevant in the context of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

the participating contracting authorities or entities shall do not perform on the open market more than 10 % in terms of turnover of the activities which are relevant in the context of the agreement;

| c) | the participating contracting authorities the open market ; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the participating contracting authorities the open market ;

| d) | the agreement does not involve financial transfers between the participating contracting authorities or entities, other than those corresponding to the reimbursement of actual costs of the works, services or supplies; |
| --- | --- |

d)

the agreement does not involve financial transfers between the participating contracting authorities or entities, other than those corresponding to the reimbursement of actual costs of the works, services or supplies;

| d) | the agreement does not involve financial transfers between the participating contracting authorities or entities, other than those corresponding to the reimbursement of actual costs of the works, services or supplies; |
| --- | --- |

d)

the agreement does not involve financial transfers between the participating contracting authorities or entities, other than those corresponding to the reimbursement of actual costs of the works, services or supplies;

| e) | there is no private participation in any of the contracting authorities or entities involved. |
| --- | --- |

e)

there is no private participation in any of the contracting authorities or entities involved.

| e) | there is no private participation in any of the contracting authorities or entities involved. |
| --- | --- |

e)

there is no private participation in any of the contracting authorities or entities involved.

Reason

Concession contracts between contracting authorities should (to ensure the responsible use of taxpayers’ money) be fully exempt from procurement rules, under the conditions mentioned in points c) to e).

Contracting authorities must also be allowed to work together in areas not related to direct public services. These might include cooperation on processes that facilitate and support their operations, such as ICT, housing, purchasing and catering.

Such cooperation between contracting authorities is not always based on an equal partnership. Larger public authorities sometimes carry out work on behalf of smaller ones and it is therefore desirable that one contracting authority should be able to implement a concession contract for another. The aim is to ensure the proper use of public funds.

The ECJ has not said that a maximum of 10 % of the contracting authorities’ turnover may come from the open market: the percentage of turnover must depend on the activity and on other relevant factors. It is important that not all forms of private participation should rule out the exemption: only active private participation – i.e. if the shareholder is a private company that operates on the market – should lead to public procurement being required.

Amendment 20

Article 15, paragraph 5

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 15


  Relations between public authorities | Article 15


  Relations between public authorities |
| The absence of private participation referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be verified at the time of the award of the concession or of the conclusion of the agreement. | |
| The exceptions provided for in this Article shall cease to apply from the moment any private participation takes place, with the effect that ongoing concessions need to be opened to competition through regular concession award procedures. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

Article 15

Relations between public authorities

The absence of private participation referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be verified at the time of the award of the concession or of the conclusion of the agreement.

The exceptions provided for in this Article shall cease to apply from the moment any private participation takes place, with the effect that ongoing concessions need to be opened to competition through regular concession award procedures.

Reason

To meet the stated goals of simplification and streamlining of the law on concessions, complicated explanations should be avoided in the legal text, as they do not increase legal certainty and they go beyond the case law of the EU Court of Justice.

Amendment 21

Article 26, paragraph 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 26


  Concession notices | Article 26


  Concession notices |
| ... | ... |
| 3   Contracting authorities and contracting entities wishing to award a concession for social and other specific services shall make known their intention of planned concession award through the publication of a prior information notice as soon as possible after the beginning of the budgetary year. Those notices shall contain the information set out in Annex XIII. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 26

Concession notices

Article 26

Concession notices

...

...

3   Contracting authorities and contracting entities wishing to award a concession for social and other specific services shall make known their intention of planned concession award through the publication of a prior information notice as soon as possible after the beginning of the budgetary year. Those notices shall contain the information set out in Annex XIII.

Reason

Social services have little or no impact on the single market and are, as a rule, provided locally. In this area, the proposed requirements to provide information impose a disproportionate burden on contracting authorities. In this area particularly, given that the main aim of the reform is to simplify procurement law, there should be no tightening of the rules.

Amendment 22

Article 35

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 35


  Procedural guarantees | Article 35


  Procedural guarantees |
| 1.   Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall indicate in the contract notice, in the invitation to submit tenders or in the concession documents a description of the concession, the award criteria and the minimum requirements to be met. This information must allow to identify the nature and scope of the concession, enabling economic operators to decide whether they request to participate in the concession award procedure. The description, award criteria and minimum requirements shall not be changed in the course of the negotiations. | 1.   Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall indicate in the contract notice, in the invitation to submit tenders or in the concession documents a description of the concession, the award criteria and the minimum requirements to be met. This information must allow to identify the nature and scope of the concession, enabling economic operators to decide whether they request to participate in the concession award procedure. |
| | |
| | | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 35

Procedural guarantees

Article 35

Procedural guarantees

1.   Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall indicate in the contract notice, in the invitation to submit tenders or in the concession documents a description of the concession, the award criteria and the minimum requirements to be met. This information must allow to identify the nature and scope of the concession, enabling economic operators to decide whether they request to participate in the concession award procedure. The description, award criteria and minimum requirements shall not be changed in the course of the negotiations.

1.   Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall indicate in the contract notice, in the invitation to submit tenders or in the concession documents a description of the concession, the award criteria and the minimum requirements to be met. This information must allow to identify the nature and scope of the concession, enabling economic operators to decide whether they request to participate in the concession award procedure.

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

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

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

Reason

A contracting authority may, during the proceedings, need to make changes or adjustments to the concession in response to questions and comments from tenderers. Through negotiation or discussions, the contracting authority should endeavour to better match supply and demand. It must therefore be possible to partially change and add to the minimum requirements and the award sub-criteria in line with the new insights gained during negotiations or discussions. If this does not happen, this contracting procedure loses its value.

Currently, if a substantial change is made to the contract, the procedure must be suspended and a fresh call for tender made. The Committee therefore recommends establishing a simple method, enabling contracting authorities to amend their concession in the form of an official correction, together with a short extension of the deadline for submission of tenders.

Amendment 23

Article 36, Paragraph 1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 36


  Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates | Article 36


  Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates |
| 1.   Contracting authorities shall specify, in the concession notice the conditions for participation relating to: | 1.   Contracting authorities shall specify, in the concession notice the conditions for participation relating to: |
| (a) | suitability to pursue the professional activity; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 36

Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates

Article 36

Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates

1.   Contracting authorities shall specify, in the concession notice the conditions for participation relating to:

1.   Contracting authorities shall specify, in the concession notice the conditions for participation relating to:

(a)

suitability to pursue the professional activity;

| (a) | suitability to pursue the professional activity; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

suitability to pursue the professional activity;

| (b) | economic and financial standing; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

economic and financial standing;

| (b) | economic and financial standing; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

economic and financial standing;

| (c) | technical and professional ability. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

technical and professional ability.

| (c) | technical and professional ability. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

technical and professional ability.

Contracting authorities shall limit any conditions for participation to those that are appropriate to ensure that a candidate or tenderer has the legal and financial capacities and the commercial and technical abilities to perform the concession to be awarded. All requirements shall be related and strictly proportionate to the subject-matter of the contract, taking into account the need to ensure genuine competition.

Contracting authorities shall limit any conditions for participation to those that are appropriate to ensure that a candidate or tenderer has the legal and financial capacities and the commercial and technical abilities to perform the concession to be awarded. requirements shall

Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall also indicate in the concession notice the reference or references to be submitted as proof of the economic operator’s capacities. The requirements in respect of those references shall be non-discriminatory and proportionate to the subject-matter of the concession.

Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall also indicate in the concession notice the reference or references to be submitted as proof of the economic operator’s capacities. The requirements in respect of those references shall be non-discriminatory and proportionate to the subject-matter of the concession.

Reason

See Amendments 2 and 28.

Amendment 24

Article 36, Paragraph 7

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 36


  Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates


  7.   Member States may provide that contracting authorities or contracting entities exclude from participation in a concession award any economic operator if one of the following conditions is fulfilled: | Article 36


  Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates


  7.    may provide that contracting authorities or contracting entities exclude from participation in a concession award any economic operator if one of the following conditions is fulfilled: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 36

Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates

7.   Member States may provide that contracting authorities or contracting entities exclude from participation in a concession award any economic operator if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

Article 36

Selection of and qualitative assessment of candidates

7.    may provide that contracting authorities or contracting entities exclude from participation in a concession award any economic operator if one of the following conditions is fulfilled:

Reason

The Committee considers that this competence falls to the contracting authorities.

Amendment 25

Article 38, new paragraph 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 38


  Time limits for submission of applications for the concession | Article 38


  Time limits for submission of applications for the concession |
| ... | ... |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 38

Time limits for submission of applications for the concession

Article 38

Time limits for submission of applications for the concession

...

...

Reason

There is not a great deal of interest in certain concessions. It is pointless conducting a complete procedure if only one party is interested. Furthermore, open discussions in this type of situation would lead to a more favourable outcome for the contracting authority.

Amendment 26

Article 39, paragraph 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 39


  Concession award criteria | Article 39


  Concession award criteria |
| ... | ... |
| 5.   The award criteria shall be linked to the subject matter of the concession, and shall not confer an unrestricted freedom of choice on the contracting authority or the contracting entity. | |
| Those criteria shall ensure effective competition and shall be accompanied by requirements which allow the information provided by the tenderers to be effectively verified. Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall verify effectively on the basis of the information and proof provided by the tenderers, whether the tenders meet the award criteria. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 39

Concession award criteria

Article 39

Concession award criteria

...

...

5.   The award criteria shall be linked to the subject matter of the concession, and shall not confer an unrestricted freedom of choice on the contracting authority or the contracting entity.

Those criteria shall ensure effective competition and shall be accompanied by requirements which allow the information provided by the tenderers to be effectively verified. Contracting authorities and contracting entities shall verify effectively on the basis of the information and proof provided by the tenderers, whether the tenders meet the award criteria.

Reason

There is no need for this provision. It provides no added value and should, keeping in mind the intention to simplify, be deleted. Its substance is already enshrined in the general principles of primary law.

Amendment 27

Article 39, paragraph 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 39


  Concession award criteria


  4.   Member States may provide that contracting authorities and contracting entities shall base the award of concessions on the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender, in compliance with paragraph 2. Those criteria may include, in addition to price or costs, any of the following criteria | Article 39


  Concession award criteria


  4.   Member States may provide that contracting authorities and contracting entities shall base the award of concessions on the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender, in compliance with paragraph 2. Those criteria may include, in addition to price or costs, any of the following criteria |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 39

Concession award criteria

4.   Member States may provide that contracting authorities and contracting entities shall base the award of concessions on the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender, in compliance with paragraph 2. Those criteria may include, in addition to price or costs, any of the following criteria

Article 39

Concession award criteria

4.   Member States may provide that contracting authorities and contracting entities shall base the award of concessions on the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender, in compliance with paragraph 2. Those criteria may include, in addition to price or costs, any of the following criteria

Reason

The Committee considers it desirable to retain the criterion of the lowest price. The current wording does not make it clear whether this is an option. Quality criteria can also be relevant to the ‘lowest price’ criterion, for instance in the form of minimum requirements. Contracting authorities must be able to make their own decisions here. Furthermore, contracting authorities are often obliged to achieve a cost-cutting target, which has to be taken into account when deciding on the award criterion.

Amendment 28

Article 39, paragraph 4, indent a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 39


  Concession award criteria | Article 39


  Concession award criteria |
| 4.   ... | 4.   ... |
| a) | quality, including technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, accessibility, design for all users, environmental characteristics and innovative character. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 39

Concession award criteria

Article 39

Concession award criteria

4.   ...

4.   ...

a)

quality, including technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, accessibility, design for all users, environmental characteristics and innovative character.

| a) | quality, including technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, accessibility, design for all users, environmental characteristics and innovative character. |
| --- | --- |

a)

quality, including technical merit, aesthetic and functional characteristics, accessibility, design for all users, environmental characteristics and innovative character.

...

...

Reason

Some contracting authorities would like to be able to make their procurement and concessions meet social criteria. These are issues that cannot currently be taken into account in the assessment because they lack a sufficiently direct link to the contract. This is why a reference to them was added in the Directive on procurement. The Committee recommends that the directive on concessions indicate explicitly that setting social criteria is possible. Thus, contracting entities that wish to do so, will be able to establish such criteria. Point 29 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to such social conditions, but they do not feature in the corresponding article.

See also Amendments 2 and 25.

Amendment 29

Article 40, paragraph 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 40


  Life-cycle costing | Article 40


  Life-cycle costing... |
| 3.   Whenever a common methodology for the calculation of life-cycle costs is adopted as part of a legislative act of the Union, including by delegated acts pursuant to sector specific legislation, it shall be applied where life-cycle costing is included in the award criteria referred to in Article 39 paragraph (4). | |
| A list of such legislative and delegated acts is set out in Annex II. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 46 concerning the update of this list, when on the basis of the adoption of new legislation, repeal or modification of such legislation, such amendments prove necessary. | |
| ... | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 40

Life-cycle costing

Article 40

Life-cycle costing...

3.   Whenever a common methodology for the calculation of life-cycle costs is adopted as part of a legislative act of the Union, including by delegated acts pursuant to sector specific legislation, it shall be applied where life-cycle costing is included in the award criteria referred to in Article 39 paragraph (4).

A list of such legislative and delegated acts is set out in Annex II. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 46 concerning the update of this list, when on the basis of the adoption of new legislation, repeal or modification of such legislation, such amendments prove necessary.

...

Reason

The fact that the Commission is encouraging contracting authorities to consider lifecycle costs when awarding concession contracts is to be welcomed. However, the above obligation goes too far by referring to a calculation methodology that lies in the future and has not yet been established. The establishment of a legal requirement to use a non-existent method must be rejected for reasons of unpredictability.

Amendment 30

Article 42, Paragraph 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 42


  Modification of concessions during their term


  4.   Where the value of a modification can be expressed in monetary terms, the modification shall not be considered to be substantial within the meaning of paragraph 1, where its value does not exceed the thresholds set out in Article 5 and where it is below 5 % of the price of the initial contract, provided that the modification does not alter the overall nature of the contract. Where several successive modifications are made, the value shall be assessed on the basis of the cumulative value of the successive modifications. | Article 42


  Modification of concessions during their term


  4.   Where the value of a modification can be expressed in monetary terms, the modification shall not be considered to be substantial within the meaning of paragraph 1, where its value does not exceed the thresholds set out in Article 5 and where it is below  % of the price of the initial contract, provided that the modification does not alter the overall nature of the contract. Where several successive modifications are made, the value shall be assessed on the basis of the cumulative value of the successive modifications. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 42

Modification of concessions during their term

4.   Where the value of a modification can be expressed in monetary terms, the modification shall not be considered to be substantial within the meaning of paragraph 1, where its value does not exceed the thresholds set out in Article 5 and where it is below 5 % of the price of the initial contract, provided that the modification does not alter the overall nature of the contract. Where several successive modifications are made, the value shall be assessed on the basis of the cumulative value of the successive modifications.

Article 42

Modification of concessions during their term

4.   Where the value of a modification can be expressed in monetary terms, the modification shall not be considered to be substantial within the meaning of paragraph 1, where its value does not exceed the thresholds set out in Article 5 and where it is below  % of the price of the initial contract, provided that the modification does not alter the overall nature of the contract. Where several successive modifications are made, the value shall be assessed on the basis of the cumulative value of the successive modifications.

Reason

The Committee suggests a higher rate for permissible changes. Account should be taken of the fact that concessions usually have a longer lifespan than public procurement contracts.

Amendment 31

Annex III, paragraph 3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| ANNEX III
  ACTIVITIES EXERCISED BY CONTRACTING ENTITIES AS REFERRED TO IN ART. 4
  The provisions of this Directive governing concessions awarded by contracting entities shall apply to the following activities: | ANNEX III
  ACTIVITIES EXERCISED BY CONTRACTING ENTITIES AS REFERRED TO IN ART. 4
  The provisions of this Directive governing concessions awarded by contracting entities shall apply to the following activities: |
| ... | ... |
| 3) | As far as water is concerned: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

ANNEX III

ACTIVITIES EXERCISED BY CONTRACTING ENTITIES AS REFERRED TO IN ART. 4

The provisions of this Directive governing concessions awarded by contracting entities shall apply to the following activities:

ANNEX III

ACTIVITIES EXERCISED BY CONTRACTING ENTITIES AS REFERRED TO IN ART. 4

The provisions of this Directive governing concessions awarded by contracting entities shall apply to the following activities:

...

...

3)

As far as water is concerned:

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

a)

| a) | the provision or operation of fixed networks intended to provide a service to the public in connection with the production, transport or distribution of drinking water; |
| --- | --- |

the provision or operation of fixed networks intended to provide a service to the public in connection with the production, transport or distribution of drinking water;

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

b)

| b) | the supply of drinking water to such networks. |
| --- | --- |

the supply of drinking water to such networks.

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

This Directive shall also apply to concessions awarded or organised by entities which pursue an activity referred to above and which are connected with one of the following:

a)

| a) | hydraulic engineering projects, irrigation or land drainage, provided that the volume of water to be used for the supply of drinking water represents more than 20 % of the total volume of water made available by such projects or irrigation or drainage installations, or |
| --- | --- |

hydraulic engineering projects, irrigation or land drainage, provided that the volume of water to be used for the supply of drinking water represents more than 20 % of the total volume of water made available by such projects or irrigation or drainage installations, or

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

b)

| b) | the disposal or treatment of sewage. |
| --- | --- |

the disposal or treatment of sewage.

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

The supply of drinking water to networks which provide a service to the public by a contracting entity referred to in paragraph 1 subparagraph 1 and paragraph 2 of Article 4 shall not be considered a relevant activity within the meaning of subparagraph 1 where all of the following conditions are met:

a)

| a) | the production of drinking water by the entity concerned takes place because its consumption is necessary for carrying out an activity other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Annex; |
| --- | --- |

the production of drinking water by the entity concerned takes place because its consumption is necessary for carrying out an activity other than those referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Annex;

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

b)

| b) | the supply to the public network depends only on the entity’s own consumption and has not exceeded 30 % of the entity’s total production of drinking water, on the basis of the average for the preceding three years, including the current year. |
| --- | --- |

the supply to the public network depends only on the entity’s own consumption and has not exceeded 30 % of the entity’s total production of drinking water, on the basis of the average for the preceding three years, including the current year.

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

...

...

Reason

Consistent with amendments 1, 5 and 15.

Amendment 32

Annex IV, title

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

The Committee recommends that the procedures remain flexible and therefore suggests providing for the possibility of incorporating the information contained in the concession notice in the concession documents, instead of publishing a lengthy concession notice. Experience shows that these issues require explanations that would be more usefully included in the appended concession documents. Transparency would be guaranteed because the concession documents are forwarded in advance to all interested parties.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.

2

(3)  OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

3

(4)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

4

(5)  OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1.

5

(6)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community.

6

(7)  OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3.

7

(8)  OJ L 315, 3.12.2007.

8

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/96 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/96

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation on European territorial cooperation’

2012/C 277/10

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes a dedicated Regulation to ETC, as it provides an important contribution to the territorial cohesion objective, as well as its increased budget allocation; furthermore, the CoR urges that EU funds be allocated by cooperation programmes and not by Member States; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes a dedicated Regulation to ETC, as it provides an important contribution to the territorial cohesion objective, as well as its increased budget allocation; furthermore, the CoR urges that EU funds be allocated by cooperation programmes and not by Member States;

| — | notes that, due to its multilateral nature, ETC cannot be managed using partnership agreements. It should therefore be explicitly excluded from the scope of that instrument; |
| --- | --- |

—

notes that, due to its multilateral nature, ETC cannot be managed using partnership agreements. It should therefore be explicitly excluded from the scope of that instrument;

| — | regrets that the new Regulation is not adapted to small projects, and asks the European Commission to grant exemptions to small cross-border programmes and operations, in particular for those under EUR 35 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

regrets that the new Regulation is not adapted to small projects, and asks the European Commission to grant exemptions to small cross-border programmes and operations, in particular for those under EUR 35 000;

| — | thinks that thematic concentration should not be applied automatically to ETC, as it fears that if ETC were to be narrowly focused solely on the core EU 2020 priorities, it would be incapable of fulfilling its distinct and unique role; therefore, recommends that the number of thematic objectives be increased from 4 to 5, and that the list of investment priorities be extended; therefore, calls for the thematic objectives to be extended to other topics, such as tourism, climate-friendly maritime transport, culture or the impact of demographic change; |
| --- | --- |

—

thinks that thematic concentration should not be applied automatically to ETC, as it fears that if ETC were to be narrowly focused solely on the core EU 2020 priorities, it would be incapable of fulfilling its distinct and unique role; therefore, recommends that the number of thematic objectives be increased from 4 to 5, and that the list of investment priorities be extended; therefore, calls for the thematic objectives to be extended to other topics, such as tourism, climate-friendly maritime transport, culture or the impact of demographic change;

| — | feels that the CoR should play an active role in promoting ETC and in identifying and overcoming obstacles to its implementation; |
| --- | --- |

—

feels that the CoR should play an active role in promoting ETC and in identifying and overcoming obstacles to its implementation;

| — | calls for the cofinancing level to be set at 85 % for less developed regions as it stands in the current General Regulation No 1083/2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for the cofinancing level to be set at 85 % for less developed regions as it stands in the current General Regulation No 1083/2006;

| — | agrees with the exemption granted to outermost regions in terms of cofinancing rates and funding, and calls for special conditions for areas which were external borders of the Community on 30 April 2004 and on 31 December 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

agrees with the exemption granted to outermost regions in terms of cofinancing rates and funding, and calls for special conditions for areas which were external borders of the Community on 30 April 2004 and on 31 December 2006;

| — | calls for strengthening the coordination mechanisms between all the Funds and territorial cooperation programmes; emphasises also the need to better coordinate ETC with external financial programmes of the EU and clarify the rules concerning the participation of third countries in ETC programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for strengthening the coordination mechanisms between all the Funds and territorial cooperation programmes; emphasises also the need to better coordinate ETC with external financial programmes of the EU and clarify the rules concerning the participation of third countries in ETC programmes;

| — | emphasises the crucial role of EGTCs to strengthen territorial cooperation, and urges Member States to remove barriers that are discouraging the setting up or the functioning of EGTCs. |
| --- | --- |

—

emphasises the crucial role of EGTCs to strengthen territorial cooperation, and urges Member States to remove barriers that are discouraging the setting up or the functioning of EGTCs.

| Rapporteur | Mr Petr OSVALD (CZ/PES), Member of Plzeň City Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal
  COM(2011) 611 final – 2011/0273 (COD) |

Rapporteur

Mr Petr OSVALD (CZ/PES), Member of Plzeň City Council

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal

COM(2011) 611 final – 2011/0273 (COD)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General remarks

| 1. | welcomes a dedicated European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) regulation, which will take account of the specific aim, aspects and status of territorial cooperation as the second objective of cohesion policy; this separate regulation highlights ETC's contribution to furthering the new Treaty objective of territorial cohesion and to achieving the objectives of cohesion policy in general; it also boosts the importance of ETC in terms of its focus on cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes a dedicated European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) regulation, which will take account of the specific aim, aspects and status of territorial cooperation as the second objective of cohesion policy; this separate regulation highlights ETC's contribution to furthering the new Treaty objective of territorial cohesion and to achieving the objectives of cohesion policy in general; it also boosts the importance of ETC in terms of its focus on cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation;

| 2. | agrees that the role of European Territorial Cooperation is all the more important since the challenges faced by Member States and regions increasingly cut across national/regional boundaries and require joint, cooperative action at the appropriate territorial level. It can thus also provide an important contribution to fostering the new Treaty objective of territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

2.

agrees that the role of European Territorial Cooperation is all the more important since the challenges faced by Member States and regions increasingly cut across national/regional boundaries and require joint, cooperative action at the appropriate territorial level. It can thus also provide an important contribution to fostering the new Treaty objective of territorial cohesion;

| 3. | supports, in principle, the Commission's proposals to align territorial cooperation with the Europe 2020 strategy, while noting that there must be sufficient flexibility to respond appropriately to local needs; therefore welcomes the fact that ETC's three elements (cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation) have been retained in all regions of Europe. Cooperation in projects and structures across borders is already making a real contribution to European integration. The CoR also welcomes the increased involvement of third countries; |
| --- | --- |

3.

supports, in principle, the Commission's proposals to align territorial cooperation with the Europe 2020 strategy, while noting that there must be sufficient flexibility to respond appropriately to local needs; therefore welcomes the fact that ETC's three elements (cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation) have been retained in all regions of Europe. Cooperation in projects and structures across borders is already making a real contribution to European integration. The CoR also welcomes the increased involvement of third countries;

| 4. | takes the view that cross-border cooperation should continue to play a key role within European Territorial Cooperation and therefore endorses in principle the proposal for the distribution of allocations between the different types of ETC; |
| --- | --- |

4.

takes the view that cross-border cooperation should continue to play a key role within European Territorial Cooperation and therefore endorses in principle the proposal for the distribution of allocations between the different types of ETC;

| 5. | points out that the regulation is too demanding, complicated and detailed, especially for small cross-border cooperation programmes, and this may prevent the implementation of small but often very effective operations. The Committee asks the European Commission, therefore, to consider whether these programmes must necessarily be subject to all the provisions of the regulation. If maximum effectiveness is to be achieved, the same demands cannot be made on both small and large programmes and operations; |
| --- | --- |

5.

points out that the regulation is too demanding, complicated and detailed, especially for small cross-border cooperation programmes, and this may prevent the implementation of small but often very effective operations. The Committee asks the European Commission, therefore, to consider whether these programmes must necessarily be subject to all the provisions of the regulation. If maximum effectiveness is to be achieved, the same demands cannot be made on both small and large programmes and operations;

| 6. | endorses the current method of defining regions for cross-border cooperation, and calls for the area of eligibility for cross-border cooperation (strand A) to be extended to allow functional cross-border relations to be taken into account for inclusion in the scope of the programme. In this connection, decisions on linking functionally complementary regions that are particularly important in achieving the objectives should not have to wait until the programme approval procedure; also endorses the greater opportunities provided for carrying out multilateral projects in areas in which multilateral cooperation programmes will not be implemented; |
| --- | --- |

6.

endorses the current method of defining regions for cross-border cooperation, and calls for the area of eligibility for cross-border cooperation (strand A) to be extended to allow functional cross-border relations to be taken into account for inclusion in the scope of the programme. In this connection, decisions on linking functionally complementary regions that are particularly important in achieving the objectives should not have to wait until the programme approval procedure; also endorses the greater opportunities provided for carrying out multilateral projects in areas in which multilateral cooperation programmes will not be implemented;

| 7. | stresses the key role of ETC in developing transnational cooperation, especially for promoting the integrated territorial development of coherent areas, and in supporting macroregional strategy development projects; welcomes the fact that the established transnational cooperation areas (strand B) will in principle be maintained and that the EU's macro-regional strategies will not lead to new cooperation areas being created or to areas being excluded from transnational cooperation. The Committee also in principle welcomes the support for the development and implementation of macro-regional strategies in the context of transnational cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

7.

stresses the key role of ETC in developing transnational cooperation, especially for promoting the integrated territorial development of coherent areas, and in supporting macroregional strategy development projects; welcomes the fact that the established transnational cooperation areas (strand B) will in principle be maintained and that the EU's macro-regional strategies will not lead to new cooperation areas being created or to areas being excluded from transnational cooperation. The Committee also in principle welcomes the support for the development and implementation of macro-regional strategies in the context of transnational cooperation;

| 8. | highlights the potential of interregional cooperation, especially through its leverage effect in the use of Structural Funds; views support for interregional cooperation (strand C) as an excellent tool for encouraging exchanges of experience and cooperation between local and regional authorities regarding cohesion policy, and urges that the results of these exchanges be drawn on more effectively for local and regional development strategies (capitalisation); |
| --- | --- |

8.

highlights the potential of interregional cooperation, especially through its leverage effect in the use of Structural Funds; views support for interregional cooperation (strand C) as an excellent tool for encouraging exchanges of experience and cooperation between local and regional authorities regarding cohesion policy, and urges that the results of these exchanges be drawn on more effectively for local and regional development strategies (capitalisation);

The ETC aim and thematic concentration

| 9. | notes, however, that the main aims of European Territorial Cooperation should be to:






  — | address through cooperation the problems of all regions concerned, |
| --- | --- | --- |

9.

notes, however, that the main aims of European Territorial Cooperation should be to:

—

address through cooperation the problems of all regions concerned,

| — | serve as an effective mechanism for sharing good practice and learning, |
| --- | --- |

—

serve as an effective mechanism for sharing good practice and learning,

| — | ensure that a solution to a specific problem is made more effective through economies of scale and the achievement of a critical mass, |
| --- | --- |

—

ensure that a solution to a specific problem is made more effective through economies of scale and the achievement of a critical mass,

| — | improve governance through coordination of sector policies, actions and investments on a cross-border and transnational scale, |
| --- | --- |

—

improve governance through coordination of sector policies, actions and investments on a cross-border and transnational scale,

| — | contribute to safety, stability and mutually beneficial relationships, |
| --- | --- |

—

contribute to safety, stability and mutually beneficial relationships,

| — | and, where necessary, help to support growth, employment and eco-system-based management, |
| --- | --- |

—

and, where necessary, help to support growth, employment and eco-system-based management,

as set out in the explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a regulation;

| 10. | thinks, therefore, that European Territorial Cooperation should help to create a sense of belonging to Europe and being connected, to remove prejudices and to develop the regions concerned. Accordingly, the Committee thinks that thematic concentration must not be applied automatically to ETC and that the level and potential of individual regions must be taken into account: there should be no attempt to apply the one-size-fits-all principle (i.e. the same priorities for all). On the contrary, a place-based approach should be taken. The Committee of the Regions fears that if ETC and, especially, cross-border cooperation were to be narrowly focused solely on the core EU 2020 priorities and thematic objectives, it would be incapable of fulfilling its distinct and unique role and would simply become a variation of core cohesion policy, but with a different form of distribution; |
| --- | --- |

10.

thinks, therefore, that European Territorial Cooperation should help to create a sense of belonging to Europe and being connected, to remove prejudices and to develop the regions concerned. Accordingly, the Committee thinks that thematic concentration must not be applied automatically to ETC and that the level and potential of individual regions must be taken into account: there should be no attempt to apply the one-size-fits-all principle (i.e. the same priorities for all). On the contrary, a place-based approach should be taken. The Committee of the Regions fears that if ETC and, especially, cross-border cooperation were to be narrowly focused solely on the core EU 2020 priorities and thematic objectives, it would be incapable of fulfilling its distinct and unique role and would simply become a variation of core cohesion policy, but with a different form of distribution;

| 11. | urges that demographic change and its impact on services of general interest and sustainable regional development be included as separate themes for ETC. Priority should be given to new forms of urban-rural partnership as a basis for territorial cohesion at regional level (in line with the Territorial Agenda 2020). Important themes such as tourism, climate-friendly maritime transport and culture are also missing; |
| --- | --- |

11.

urges that demographic change and its impact on services of general interest and sustainable regional development be included as separate themes for ETC. Priority should be given to new forms of urban-rural partnership as a basis for territorial cohesion at regional level (in line with the Territorial Agenda 2020). Important themes such as tourism, climate-friendly maritime transport and culture are also missing;

| 12. | believes that, when it comes to cross-border cooperation, it is vital to define the developmental potential of each cross-border area in terms of the present level of the regions in question. European Territorial Cooperation – and especially cross-border cooperation – should not be geared primarily to achieving the EU 2020 strategy, but above all to creating the conditions for its broadest possible – i.e. pan-European – implementation. It should therefore be possible for cross-border cooperation programmes, in particular, to chose several thematic objectives and not be restricted by orientations defined for them in advance; |
| --- | --- |

12.

believes that, when it comes to cross-border cooperation, it is vital to define the developmental potential of each cross-border area in terms of the present level of the regions in question. European Territorial Cooperation – and especially cross-border cooperation – should not be geared primarily to achieving the EU 2020 strategy, but above all to creating the conditions for its broadest possible – i.e. pan-European – implementation. It should therefore be possible for cross-border cooperation programmes, in particular, to chose several thematic objectives and not be restricted by orientations defined for them in advance;

| 13. | notes that sustainable territorial cohesion can only be achieved if people in the regions can be drawn in and involved. It should therefore be made possible for ETC programmes to continue to support civil-society and cultural measures (such as specific exchange projects), of which very successful examples can be found in existing programmes. The Committee therefore calls for the thematic objectives to be extended accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

13.

notes that sustainable territorial cohesion can only be achieved if people in the regions can be drawn in and involved. It should therefore be made possible for ETC programmes to continue to support civil-society and cultural measures (such as specific exchange projects), of which very successful examples can be found in existing programmes. The Committee therefore calls for the thematic objectives to be extended accordingly;

| 14. | welcomes the Commission's proposal to ensure continuity in the transnational cooperation strand but is nonetheless critical of its intention to restrict the additional investment priority under transnational cooperation to the implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies. Given the numerous challenges currently facing the regions, and existing deficiencies, other regions, sub-regions and functional areas also need appropriate investment priorities; |
| --- | --- |

14.

welcomes the Commission's proposal to ensure continuity in the transnational cooperation strand but is nonetheless critical of its intention to restrict the additional investment priority under transnational cooperation to the implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies. Given the numerous challenges currently facing the regions, and existing deficiencies, other regions, sub-regions and functional areas also need appropriate investment priorities;

| 15. | agrees that interregional cooperation should aim to reinforce the effectiveness of cohesion policy by encouraging exchange of experience between regions and by harnessing the results of this exchange under the Growth and Jobs objective. The Committee feels that this exchange of experience should be broad-based and that its role should not be limited to complementing FP7; |
| --- | --- |

15.

agrees that interregional cooperation should aim to reinforce the effectiveness of cohesion policy by encouraging exchange of experience between regions and by harnessing the results of this exchange under the Growth and Jobs objective. The Committee feels that this exchange of experience should be broad-based and that its role should not be limited to complementing FP7;

| 16. | feels that the Committee should play an active role in promoting ETC and in identifying and overcoming obstacles to its implementation so as to optimise synergies with the other strands of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

16.

feels that the Committee should play an active role in promoting ETC and in identifying and overcoming obstacles to its implementation so as to optimise synergies with the other strands of cohesion policy;

Funding allocations and level of cofinancing

| 17. | welcomes the proposed increase in allocations for ETC; |
| --- | --- |

17.

welcomes the proposed increase in allocations for ETC;

| 18. | does not think it makes sense for the proposed 75 % level of cofinancing for operational programmes within the European Territorial Cooperation objective, set in the general regulation, to be lower than the level of cofinancing for less developed regions under the Growth and Jobs objective. This lower level of cofinancing may make ETC programmes in these less developed regions unappealing. The Committee of the Regions sees no foundation for this difference and calls for the cofinancing level to be set at 85 % for both objectives; neither does it see any foundation for the cofinancing rate that is to be applied to the extra allocation for interregional cooperation in the outermost regions to stand at 50 %, and calls for it to be set at 85 %; |
| --- | --- |

18.

does not think it makes sense for the proposed 75 % level of cofinancing for operational programmes within the European Territorial Cooperation objective, set in the general regulation, to be lower than the level of cofinancing for less developed regions under the Growth and Jobs objective. This lower level of cofinancing may make ETC programmes in these less developed regions unappealing. The Committee of the Regions sees no foundation for this difference and calls for the cofinancing level to be set at 85 % for both objectives; neither does it see any foundation for the cofinancing rate that is to be applied to the extra allocation for interregional cooperation in the outermost regions to stand at 50 %, and calls for it to be set at 85 %;

| 19. | points out that co-financing does not always come from the programme partners, Member States or other public bodies, but may also come from beneficiaries. It is therefore not possible to impose a blanket requirement on participating Member States to provide the co-financing necessary to implement the cooperation programme. The commitment provided for in the Commission's proposal should therefore be deleted; |
| --- | --- |

19.

points out that co-financing does not always come from the programme partners, Member States or other public bodies, but may also come from beneficiaries. It is therefore not possible to impose a blanket requirement on participating Member States to provide the co-financing necessary to implement the cooperation programme. The commitment provided for in the Commission's proposal should therefore be deleted;

| 20. | thinks that, in order to maintain the quality of cooperation, the general regulation needs to retain the present conditions for the level of cofinancing established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (general regulation), where the relevant paragraphs read as follows: (Article 53(3)): ‘For operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation objective in which at least one participant belongs to a Member State whose average GDP per capita for the period 2001 to 2003 was below 85 % of the EU-25 average during the same period, the contribution from the ERDF shall not be higher than 85 % of the eligible expenditure. For all other operational programmes, the contribution from the ERDF shall not be higher than 75 % of the eligible expenditure co-financed by the ERDF.’ (Article 53(4)): ‘The contribution from the Funds at the priority axis level shall not be subject to the ceilings set out in paragraph 3 and in Annex III. However, it shall be fixed so as to ensure compliance with the maximum amount of contribution from the Funds and the maximum contribution rate per Fund fixed at the level of the operational programme;’ |
| --- | --- |

20.

thinks that, in order to maintain the quality of cooperation, the general regulation needs to retain the present conditions for the level of cofinancing established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (general regulation), where the relevant paragraphs read as follows: (Article 53(3)): ‘For operational programmes under the European territorial cooperation objective in which at least one participant belongs to a Member State whose average GDP per capita for the period 2001 to 2003 was below 85 % of the EU-25 average during the same period, the contribution from the ERDF shall not be higher than 85 % of the eligible expenditure. For all other operational programmes, the contribution from the ERDF shall not be higher than 75 % of the eligible expenditure co-financed by the ERDF.’ (Article 53(4)): ‘The contribution from the Funds at the priority axis level shall not be subject to the ceilings set out in paragraph 3 and in Annex III. However, it shall be fixed so as to ensure compliance with the maximum amount of contribution from the Funds and the maximum contribution rate per Fund fixed at the level of the operational programme;’

| 21. | does not consider it appropriate to set the maximum cofinancing rate at the level of each priority, as set out in the general regulation. It should be possible to adjust the level of cofinancing within the various priority axes in order to give beneficiaries an incentive to meet certain strategic priorities. It would be good for each programme to lay down the level of cofinancing for each measure according to its type, with not all measures receiving the maximum degree of support; |
| --- | --- |

21.

does not consider it appropriate to set the maximum cofinancing rate at the level of each priority, as set out in the general regulation. It should be possible to adjust the level of cofinancing within the various priority axes in order to give beneficiaries an incentive to meet certain strategic priorities. It would be good for each programme to lay down the level of cofinancing for each measure according to its type, with not all measures receiving the maximum degree of support;

| 22. | agrees that cooperation programmes involving outermost regions should receive at least 150 % of the ERDF support they received in 2007–2013 and that, in addition, EUR 50 million should be allocated from resources for interregional cooperation for the cooperation of outermost regions. |
| --- | --- |

22.

agrees that cooperation programmes involving outermost regions should receive at least 150 % of the ERDF support they received in 2007–2013 and that, in addition, EUR 50 million should be allocated from resources for interregional cooperation for the cooperation of outermost regions.

| 23. | calls for special conditions to be set for areas which were external borders of the Community on 30 April 2004 and on 31 December 2006 and which ceased to be so on the day after that date, as is the case in the current programming period according to Article 52 of the general regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006). Seven years of support cannot be considered long enough to eliminate the problems in these areas. The Committee of the Regions points out that increased support for former EU border areas will not only serve to raise the economic level of the regions in question, but also has a notable impact on creating a sense of belonging to Europe and being connected and on removing prejudices; |
| --- | --- |

23.

calls for special conditions to be set for areas which were external borders of the Community on 30 April 2004 and on 31 December 2006 and which ceased to be so on the day after that date, as is the case in the current programming period according to Article 52 of the general regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006). Seven years of support cannot be considered long enough to eliminate the problems in these areas. The Committee of the Regions points out that increased support for former EU border areas will not only serve to raise the economic level of the regions in question, but also has a notable impact on creating a sense of belonging to Europe and being connected and on removing prejudices;

Programme planning

| 24. | is critical of the fact that the requirements set out in Article 7(2)(a) would significantly increase programme planning costs compared with the current period, with no discernable added value; |
| --- | --- |

24.

is critical of the fact that the requirements set out in Article 7(2)(a) would significantly increase programme planning costs compared with the current period, with no discernable added value;

| 25. | notes that, due to its multilateral nature, ETC cannot be managed using partnership agreements. It should therefore be explicitly excluded from the scope of that instrument; |
| --- | --- |

25.

notes that, due to its multilateral nature, ETC cannot be managed using partnership agreements. It should therefore be explicitly excluded from the scope of that instrument;

| 26. | deems it extremely important to draft a directive for applying, in practical terms, the state aid rules to ETC programmes, and calls for private operators, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to be included as possible beneficiaries of cross-border and transnational cooperation measures, where there is agreement among all the Member States concerned by the programme in question; |
| --- | --- |

26.

deems it extremely important to draft a directive for applying, in practical terms, the state aid rules to ETC programmes, and calls for private operators, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to be included as possible beneficiaries of cross-border and transnational cooperation measures, where there is agreement among all the Member States concerned by the programme in question;

| 27. | calls for greater attention to be paid to the wide differences across Europe in administrative structures at local and regional level when defining the target groups for ETC programmes. The aim must be to take better account of the diversity of organisational structures among public stakeholders in the regions of the Member States. In particular, public bodies should not be excluded from participation for having a private organisational structure, |
| --- | --- |

27.

calls for greater attention to be paid to the wide differences across Europe in administrative structures at local and regional level when defining the target groups for ETC programmes. The aim must be to take better account of the diversity of organisational structures among public stakeholders in the regions of the Member States. In particular, public bodies should not be excluded from participation for having a private organisational structure,

Monitoring and evaluation

| 28. | notes that both the scope and the frequency of reporting obligations have been increased, and calls for them to be kept to a minimum. The Committee therefore opposes the proposal to bring the deadline for the annual implementation report forward from 30 June to 30 April of the following year. The need to coordinate several programme partners – speaking several languages – entails higher costs and therefore more time; |
| --- | --- |

28.

notes that both the scope and the frequency of reporting obligations have been increased, and calls for them to be kept to a minimum. The Committee therefore opposes the proposal to bring the deadline for the annual implementation report forward from 30 June to 30 April of the following year. The need to coordinate several programme partners – speaking several languages – entails higher costs and therefore more time;

| 29. | welcomes the establishment of common output and result indicators in order to achieve objectives more effectively and focus more closely on impact, and to enable cross-programme evaluation. However, the indicators proposed in the annex to the ETC Regulation are in many cases inappropriate to specific ETC requirements and are not able to describe or measure the quality of ETC. The Committee therefore calls for the catalogue of indicators to be revised to allow ETC-specific results to be depicted appropriately; |
| --- | --- |

29.

welcomes the establishment of common output and result indicators in order to achieve objectives more effectively and focus more closely on impact, and to enable cross-programme evaluation. However, the indicators proposed in the annex to the ETC Regulation are in many cases inappropriate to specific ETC requirements and are not able to describe or measure the quality of ETC. The Committee therefore calls for the catalogue of indicators to be revised to allow ETC-specific results to be depicted appropriately;

| 30. | in principle welcomes the limiting of technical assistance to 6 % of the total amount but not less than EUR 1,5 million, but feels that the requirement to shift all information-sharing to electronic data exchange systems by 31 December 2014, using technical assistance, is problematic; |
| --- | --- |

30.

in principle welcomes the limiting of technical assistance to 6 % of the total amount but not less than EUR 1,5 million, but feels that the requirement to shift all information-sharing to electronic data exchange systems by 31 December 2014, using technical assistance, is problematic;

Management, control and accreditation

| 31. | advocates basically retaining the management structures established in the 2007-2013 period for implementing the operational programmes, maintaining general continuity of structures, and assigning tasks and competences more clearly to the various bodies implementing the programmes; |
| --- | --- |

31.

advocates basically retaining the management structures established in the 2007-2013 period for implementing the operational programmes, maintaining general continuity of structures, and assigning tasks and competences more clearly to the various bodies implementing the programmes;

| 32. | welcomes the possibility of combining the functions of the managing and certifying authorities (Article 113 of the Common Provisions Regulation), but opposes the requirement to combine them in ETC (Article 22 of the ETC Regulation) and emphatically rejects the proposed accreditation of managing authorities and controllers; |
| --- | --- |

32.

welcomes the possibility of combining the functions of the managing and certifying authorities (Article 113 of the Common Provisions Regulation), but opposes the requirement to combine them in ETC (Article 22 of the ETC Regulation) and emphatically rejects the proposed accreditation of managing authorities and controllers;

Coordination of funds

| 33. | welcomes the endeavour to improve coordination between European Territorial Cooperation programmes and other cohesion policy instruments; to this end, the yield on Community financing of cooperation projects must be increased by disseminating the results of these projects, seeking to multiply their impact and avoiding duplication of measures which are already tried and tested; |
| --- | --- |

33.

welcomes the endeavour to improve coordination between European Territorial Cooperation programmes and other cohesion policy instruments; to this end, the yield on Community financing of cooperation projects must be increased by disseminating the results of these projects, seeking to multiply their impact and avoiding duplication of measures which are already tried and tested;

| 34. | points out that if a mechanism is to emerge for ensuring coordination between funds and other instruments, it is vital to have coordination between these funds and instruments at EU level and at implementation level in the Member States. It is important to introduce identical and coordinated procedures, the same management, monitoring of controls, cost eligibility, methods of reporting indicators, and so on. It would also be very useful to ensure coordination between individual countries, since European Territorial Cohesion programmes involve ever more countries. Particular attention must be paid to coordination with external financial instruments. Accordingly, the Committee of the Regions asks the Commission to establish a methodology for the coordination of programmes; |
| --- | --- |

34.

points out that if a mechanism is to emerge for ensuring coordination between funds and other instruments, it is vital to have coordination between these funds and instruments at EU level and at implementation level in the Member States. It is important to introduce identical and coordinated procedures, the same management, monitoring of controls, cost eligibility, methods of reporting indicators, and so on. It would also be very useful to ensure coordination between individual countries, since European Territorial Cohesion programmes involve ever more countries. Particular attention must be paid to coordination with external financial instruments. Accordingly, the Committee of the Regions asks the Commission to establish a methodology for the coordination of programmes;

| 35. | points out that Article 10 of the proposal for a regulation on the European Social Fund COM(2011) 607 final addresses transnational cooperation, which covers the same period as the ETC regulation, but has no connection with the latter regulation. However, it is precisely coordination between European Territorial Cooperation funded from the ERDF and that funded from the ESF that the Committee of the Regions deems the most important, since the right combination of activities from these two funds can achieve the necessary synergies. Activities generally carried out in connection with the ESF are likely to be highly effective in cross-border cooperation, in particular, since there is usually a similarity between border areas of neighbouring countries in terms of labour market, social problems and so on. Activities that correspond thematically to the ESF are a very important part of all European Territorial Cooperation programmes and the Committee of the Regions therefore calls on the Commission to devote the appropriate attention to their coordination. If there is no improvement in coordination, it should at least be made possible to fund ETC activities that are thematically related to the ESF from the ERDF; |
| --- | --- |

35.

points out that Article 10 of the proposal for a regulation on the European Social Fund COM(2011) 607 final addresses transnational cooperation, which covers the same period as the ETC regulation, but has no connection with the latter regulation. However, it is precisely coordination between European Territorial Cooperation funded from the ERDF and that funded from the ESF that the Committee of the Regions deems the most important, since the right combination of activities from these two funds can achieve the necessary synergies. Activities generally carried out in connection with the ESF are likely to be highly effective in cross-border cooperation, in particular, since there is usually a similarity between border areas of neighbouring countries in terms of labour market, social problems and so on. Activities that correspond thematically to the ESF are a very important part of all European Territorial Cooperation programmes and the Committee of the Regions therefore calls on the Commission to devote the appropriate attention to their coordination. If there is no improvement in coordination, it should at least be made possible to fund ETC activities that are thematically related to the ESF from the ERDF;

| 36. | thinks it would be very useful to coordinate the new Connecting Europe Facility with European Territorial Cooperation programmes, since this new instrument should cover cross-border and international relations; |
| --- | --- |

36.

thinks it would be very useful to coordinate the new Connecting Europe Facility with European Territorial Cooperation programmes, since this new instrument should cover cross-border and international relations;

Involvement of third countries

| 37. | considers it very important to ensure coordination between European Territorial Cooperation programmes and instruments for providing EU financial aid to third countries. A system should be established in these programmes themselves through which they would be coordinated with individual European Territorial Cooperation programmes so that there are no obstacles to entities from third countries being involved in joint projects. This system should, among other things, ensure conformity of procedures, cost eligibility etc. between ETC programmes in Member States and pre-accession and neighbourhood programmes. It should also ensure that third countries provide access, administration and allocation of sufficient financing from pre-accession or neighbourhood programmes for ETC programmes; |
| --- | --- |

37.

considers it very important to ensure coordination between European Territorial Cooperation programmes and instruments for providing EU financial aid to third countries. A system should be established in these programmes themselves through which they would be coordinated with individual European Territorial Cooperation programmes so that there are no obstacles to entities from third countries being involved in joint projects. This system should, among other things, ensure conformity of procedures, cost eligibility etc. between ETC programmes in Member States and pre-accession and neighbourhood programmes. It should also ensure that third countries provide access, administration and allocation of sufficient financing from pre-accession or neighbourhood programmes for ETC programmes;

| 38. | agrees that it is necessary to clarify the applicable rules concerning financial management, programming, monitoring, evaluation and control regarding the participation of third countries in transnational and interregional cooperation programmes and also that those rules should be established in the relevant cooperation programme and/or the relevant financial agreement between the Commission, each of the third countries and the Member State hosting the managing authority of the relevant cooperation programme. However, the Committee of the Regions points out the need to ensure that any problems or tardiness of the third country do not lead to a delay in transnational and interregional programmes that would threaten their entire implementation; |
| --- | --- |

38.

agrees that it is necessary to clarify the applicable rules concerning financial management, programming, monitoring, evaluation and control regarding the participation of third countries in transnational and interregional cooperation programmes and also that those rules should be established in the relevant cooperation programme and/or the relevant financial agreement between the Commission, each of the third countries and the Member State hosting the managing authority of the relevant cooperation programme. However, the Committee of the Regions points out the need to ensure that any problems or tardiness of the third country do not lead to a delay in transnational and interregional programmes that would threaten their entire implementation;

Role of EGTCs

| 39. | emphasises the role of the EGTC as a vital tool for strengthening territorial cooperation. Thus calls again for the amended EGTC regulation, which has no particular implications for the EU budget, to be immediately adopted without waiting for adoption of the entire legislative package on post-2013 cohesion policy. Also urges Member States to remove all administrative barriers that either discourage the establishment of an EGTC or discriminate against the EGTC option – especially as regards taxation and staff recruitment – compared to other legal instruments; |
| --- | --- |

39.

emphasises the role of the EGTC as a vital tool for strengthening territorial cooperation. Thus calls again for the amended EGTC regulation, which has no particular implications for the EU budget, to be immediately adopted without waiting for adoption of the entire legislative package on post-2013 cohesion policy. Also urges Member States to remove all administrative barriers that either discourage the establishment of an EGTC or discriminate against the EGTC option – especially as regards taxation and staff recruitment – compared to other legal instruments;

| 40. | points out that although the Member States should be encouraged to confer the task of managing authorities on EGTCs, the European Commission should put forward standard mechanisms for clarifying the provisions in Article 25(3) of this proposal for a regulation, which obliges the Member State where the EGTC is registered or where the lead beneficiary is located to repay amounts unduly paid to beneficiaries from other countries. This obligation on countries where an EGTC is registered or where the lead beneficiary is located may make them much less willing to transfer their powers for managing programmes to the EGTC, since they may be liable for something over which they have no real influence. For this reason, the Committee of the Regions thinks that it should be confirmed that an authority in the Member State of the beneficiary of an amount unduly paid may be mandated by an authority in the Member State where the EGTC is registered for the recovery of the amount; alternatively, the conditions in force in the current programming period should be applied, where the responsibility is borne by the Member State in which the beneficiary that is required to return amounts unduly paid is located; |
| --- | --- |

40.

points out that although the Member States should be encouraged to confer the task of managing authorities on EGTCs, the European Commission should put forward standard mechanisms for clarifying the provisions in Article 25(3) of this proposal for a regulation, which obliges the Member State where the EGTC is registered or where the lead beneficiary is located to repay amounts unduly paid to beneficiaries from other countries. This obligation on countries where an EGTC is registered or where the lead beneficiary is located may make them much less willing to transfer their powers for managing programmes to the EGTC, since they may be liable for something over which they have no real influence. For this reason, the Committee of the Regions thinks that it should be confirmed that an authority in the Member State of the beneficiary of an amount unduly paid may be mandated by an authority in the Member State where the EGTC is registered for the recovery of the amount; alternatively, the conditions in force in the current programming period should be applied, where the responsibility is borne by the Member State in which the beneficiary that is required to return amounts unduly paid is located;

Other remarks

| 41. | welcomes the introduction of a flat-rate for workers as a very good step that will considerably simplify matters for beneficiaries. This flat-rate for workers should also be the same for all countries in an operation, since they are doing the same work. Control methods and cost eligibility should also be unified. However, the Committee is opposed to restricting this flat rate to a maximum of 15 % of all costs, as territorial cooperation is by nature very labour intensive and 15 % is far below the current average percentage for staff costs; |
| --- | --- |

41.

welcomes the introduction of a flat-rate for workers as a very good step that will considerably simplify matters for beneficiaries. This flat-rate for workers should also be the same for all countries in an operation, since they are doing the same work. Control methods and cost eligibility should also be unified. However, the Committee is opposed to restricting this flat rate to a maximum of 15 % of all costs, as territorial cooperation is by nature very labour intensive and 15 % is far below the current average percentage for staff costs;

| 42. | attaches great importance to the following issues: environmental protection, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, risk prevention and risk management in the selection of operations, the prevention of any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, and the promotion of equal opportunities between the sexes. Nevertheless the Committee does not think it appropriate to require a description of their application in every programme. These stipulations in the regulation could greatly complicate and paralyse small cross-border cooperation programmes, in particular. The Committee of the Regions therefore recommends that they should not be applied across the board, but only for the priorities and kinds of operation where this makes sense and is relevant, since it could lead to a mandatory – but also meaningless and illogical – justifying of operations that have nothing to do with such issues; |
| --- | --- |

42.

attaches great importance to the following issues: environmental protection, resource efficiency, climate change mitigation and adaptation, risk prevention and risk management in the selection of operations, the prevention of any discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, and the promotion of equal opportunities between the sexes. Nevertheless the Committee does not think it appropriate to require a description of their application in every programme. These stipulations in the regulation could greatly complicate and paralyse small cross-border cooperation programmes, in particular. The Committee of the Regions therefore recommends that they should not be applied across the board, but only for the priorities and kinds of operation where this makes sense and is relevant, since it could lead to a mandatory – but also meaningless and illogical – justifying of operations that have nothing to do with such issues;

| 43. | considers it important that beneficiaries cooperate in the development, implementation, staffing and financing of operations. However, with regard to smaller projects in particular, in other words, projects allocated less than EUR 35 000 from the ERDF, the obligation to meet the four criteria for cooperation can hamper their development and implementation; therefore believes that it is not appropriate for such projects to be required to meet this condition; proposes that these smaller projects be required, as has been the case to date, to meet at least two of the four criteria; |
| --- | --- |

43.

considers it important that beneficiaries cooperate in the development, implementation, staffing and financing of operations. However, with regard to smaller projects in particular, in other words, projects allocated less than EUR 35 000 from the ERDF, the obligation to meet the four criteria for cooperation can hamper their development and implementation; therefore believes that it is not appropriate for such projects to be required to meet this condition; proposes that these smaller projects be required, as has been the case to date, to meet at least two of the four criteria;

Proposals

| 44. | in view of the emphasis placed on coordination, effectiveness, removing disparities and comprehensiveness, proposes that a new initiative be launched for the new programming period to support cross-border coordination of thematic and development strategies (transport, energy, labour market, environmental protection, science and research, etc.) and the creation of integrated approaches. In this way, cross-border insufficiencies and development potential, as well as an integrated approach to addressing these, could be identified. It would be expedient to involve both public and private entities and financial resources from various sources in addressing these clearly identified problem areas and in exploiting the identified development potential. It would appear very useful to use the potential of EGTCs and Euroregions for this instrument. Sufficient funds should be allocated for this initiative within ETC to ensure its effectiveness. |
| --- | --- |

44.

in view of the emphasis placed on coordination, effectiveness, removing disparities and comprehensiveness, proposes that a new initiative be launched for the new programming period to support cross-border coordination of thematic and development strategies (transport, energy, labour market, environmental protection, science and research, etc.) and the creation of integrated approaches. In this way, cross-border insufficiencies and development potential, as well as an integrated approach to addressing these, could be identified. It would be expedient to involve both public and private entities and financial resources from various sources in addressing these clearly identified problem areas and in exploiting the identified development potential. It would appear very useful to use the potential of EGTCs and Euroregions for this instrument. Sufficient funds should be allocated for this initiative within ETC to ensure its effectiveness.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 3(1)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Geographical coverage | Geographical coverage |
| 1.   For cross-border cooperation, the regions to be supported shall be the NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along all internal and external land borders other than those covered by programmes under the external financial instruments of the Union, and all NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along maritime borders separated by a maximum of 150 km, without prejudice to potential adjustments needed to ensure the coherence and continuity of cooperation programme areas established for the 2007-2013 programming period. | 1.   For cross-border cooperation, the regions to be supported shall be the NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along all internal and external land borders other than those covered by programmes under the external financial instruments of the Union, and all NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along maritime borders separated by a maximum of  km, without prejudice to potential adjustments needed to ensure the coherence and continuity of cooperation programme areas established for the 2007-2013 programming period. |
| The Commission shall adopt the list of cross-border areas to receive support, broken down by cooperation programme, by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2). | The Commission shall adopt the list of cross-border areas to receive support, broken down by cooperation programme, by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2). |
| That list shall also specify those NUTS level 3 regions in the Union taken into account for the ERDF allocation to cross-border cooperation on all internal and those external borders covered by the external financial instruments of the Union, such as ENI pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [the ENI Regulation] and IPA pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 the IPA Regulation]. | That list shall also specify those NUTS level 3 regions in the Union taken into account for the ERDF allocation to cross-border cooperation on all internal and those external borders covered by the external financial instruments of the Union, such as ENI pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [the ENI Regulation] and IPA pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 the IPA Regulation]. |
| When submitting draft cross-border cooperation programmes, Member States may request that additional NUTS level 3 regions adjacent to those listed in the decision referred to in the second subparagraph are added to a given cross-border area and shall give reasons for the request. | When submitting draft cross-border cooperation programmes, Member States may request that additional NUTS level 3 regions adjacent to those listed in the decision referred to in the second subparagraph are added to a given cross-border area |
| [...] | [...] |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Geographical coverage

Geographical coverage

1.   For cross-border cooperation, the regions to be supported shall be the NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along all internal and external land borders other than those covered by programmes under the external financial instruments of the Union, and all NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along maritime borders separated by a maximum of 150 km, without prejudice to potential adjustments needed to ensure the coherence and continuity of cooperation programme areas established for the 2007-2013 programming period.

1.   For cross-border cooperation, the regions to be supported shall be the NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along all internal and external land borders other than those covered by programmes under the external financial instruments of the Union, and all NUTS level 3 regions of the Union along maritime borders separated by a maximum of  km, without prejudice to potential adjustments needed to ensure the coherence and continuity of cooperation programme areas established for the 2007-2013 programming period.

The Commission shall adopt the list of cross-border areas to receive support, broken down by cooperation programme, by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2).

The Commission shall adopt the list of cross-border areas to receive support, broken down by cooperation programme, by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2).

That list shall also specify those NUTS level 3 regions in the Union taken into account for the ERDF allocation to cross-border cooperation on all internal and those external borders covered by the external financial instruments of the Union, such as ENI pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [the ENI Regulation] and IPA pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 the IPA Regulation].

That list shall also specify those NUTS level 3 regions in the Union taken into account for the ERDF allocation to cross-border cooperation on all internal and those external borders covered by the external financial instruments of the Union, such as ENI pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [the ENI Regulation] and IPA pursuant to Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 the IPA Regulation].

When submitting draft cross-border cooperation programmes, Member States may request that additional NUTS level 3 regions adjacent to those listed in the decision referred to in the second subparagraph are added to a given cross-border area and shall give reasons for the request.

When submitting draft cross-border cooperation programmes, Member States may request that additional NUTS level 3 regions adjacent to those listed in the decision referred to in the second subparagraph are added to a given cross-border area

[...]

[...]

Reason

Concerning the distance of 300 km (instead of 150), it has been shown in practice that the grounds for the existence of maritime cross-border cooperation do not depend directly on proximity, but on the mutual relations between the two countries. Moreover, present-day means of communication and transport make distance less important.

Furthermore, concerning the NUTS level, the French regions, for instance, are generally in favour of keeping the areas as they are set out in the current programming period. However, given how these areas vary greatly, they feel that some flexibility is needed in defining the geographical scope of projects. Specifically, enhanced cooperation should be promoted within transnational NUTS level 2 areas (without altering their boundaries) and the geographical coverage of certain cross-border programmes should be extended beyond NUTS level 3 (to NUTS level 2 where justified, without undermining the concentration of funding in areas immediately adjacent to borders). The French regions also call on the Commission to consider the new areas of enhanced cooperation that are the euroregions.

Amendment 2

Article 4(3)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Resources for European territorial cooperation | Resources for European territorial cooperation |
| 3.   The Commission shall adopt a single decision setting out the list of all cooperation programmes and indicating the amounts of the total ERDF support per programme and of the 2014 allocation per programme by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2). | 3.   The Commission shall adopt a single decision setting out the list of all cooperation programmes and indicating the amounts of the total ERDF support per programme and of the 2014 allocation per programme by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2). |
| Population in the areas referred to in the 3rd sub-paragraph of Article 3(1) and the first sub-paragraph of Article (3)(3) shall be used as the criterion for the annual breakdown by Member State. | Population in the areas referred to in the 3rd sub-paragraph of Article 3(1) and the first sub-paragraph of Article (3)(3) shall be used as the criterion for the breakdown by |
| [...] | [...] |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Resources for European territorial cooperation

Resources for European territorial cooperation

3.   The Commission shall adopt a single decision setting out the list of all cooperation programmes and indicating the amounts of the total ERDF support per programme and of the 2014 allocation per programme by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2).

3.   The Commission shall adopt a single decision setting out the list of all cooperation programmes and indicating the amounts of the total ERDF support per programme and of the 2014 allocation per programme by means of implementing acts. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 30(2).

Population in the areas referred to in the 3rd sub-paragraph of Article 3(1) and the first sub-paragraph of Article (3)(3) shall be used as the criterion for the annual breakdown by Member State.

Population in the areas referred to in the 3rd sub-paragraph of Article 3(1) and the first sub-paragraph of Article (3)(3) shall be used as the criterion for the breakdown by

[...]

[...]

Reason

We would strongly urge that EU funds be allocated by cooperation programme. Continuing the current system of breaking down funding by Member State (leaving it up to them to distribute the total cooperation allocation between their various regions) entails the following two risks: imbalanced national allocations for a given area, and the persistence of the fair return rationale, whereby individual Member States, against the spirit of cooperation, see fit to recoup funding at least equal to the share of funds that they have allocated to that area.

Amendment 3

Article 4(7)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Resources for European territorial cooperation
  7.   In 2015 and 2016, the annual contribution from the ERDF to the programmes under ENI and IPA for which no programme has been submitted to the Commission by 30 June under the cross-border and sea-basin programmes under ENI and IPA shall be allocated to the internal cross-border cooperation programmes under paragraph 1(a) in which the Member State concerned participates. | Resources for European territorial cooperation
  7.   In 2015 and 2016, the annual contribution from the ERDF to the programmes under ENI and IPA for which no programme has been submitted to the Commission by 30 June under the cross-border and sea-basin programmes under ENI and IPA shall be allocated to the cross-border cooperation programmes under paragraph 1(a) in which the Member State concerned participates. |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Resources for European territorial cooperation

7.   In 2015 and 2016, the annual contribution from the ERDF to the programmes under ENI and IPA for which no programme has been submitted to the Commission by 30 June under the cross-border and sea-basin programmes under ENI and IPA shall be allocated to the internal cross-border cooperation programmes under paragraph 1(a) in which the Member State concerned participates.

Resources for European territorial cooperation

7.   In 2015 and 2016, the annual contribution from the ERDF to the programmes under ENI and IPA for which no programme has been submitted to the Commission by 30 June under the cross-border and sea-basin programmes under ENI and IPA shall be allocated to the cross-border cooperation programmes under paragraph 1(a) in which the Member State concerned participates.

Reason

According to the Commission's proposal, and unlike the current period, if the deadline for submitting programmes is not met, the unused ERDF resources can only be allocated to internal cross-border cooperation programmes in which the Member State concerned participates. As this may penalise certain regions if they are unable to meet the deadlines – even if they are not responsible for the failure – it is proposed to keep the current arrangements in place.

Amendment 4

Article 5

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Thematic concentration
  The thematic objectives referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [the CPR] shall be concentrated as follows:






  a) | up to 4 thematic objectives shall be selected for each cross-border cooperation programme; |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Thematic concentration

The thematic objectives referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [the CPR] shall be concentrated as follows:

a)

up to 4 thematic objectives shall be selected for each cross-border cooperation programme;

| b) | up to 4 thematic objectives shall be selected for each transnational cooperation programme; |
| --- | --- |

b)

up to 4 thematic objectives shall be selected for each transnational cooperation programme;

| c) | all thematic objectives may be selected for interregional cooperation programmes pursuant to Article 2(3)(a). |
| --- | --- |

c)

all thematic objectives may be selected for interregional cooperation programmes pursuant to Article 2(3)(a).

Thematic concentration

The thematic objectives referred to in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [the CPR] shall be concentrated as follows:

| a) | up to thematic objectives shall be selected for each cross-border cooperation programme; |
| --- | --- |

a)

up to thematic objectives shall be selected for each cross-border cooperation programme;

| b) | up to thematic objectives shall be selected for each transnational cooperation programme; |
| --- | --- |

b)

up to thematic objectives shall be selected for each transnational cooperation programme;

| c) | all thematic objectives may be selected for interregional cooperation programmes pursuant to Article 2(3)(a). |
| --- | --- |

c)

all thematic objectives may be selected for interregional cooperation programmes pursuant to Article 2(3)(a).

Reason

The purpose of cross-border cooperation is to help mitigate the disadvantages arising from the peripheral location of border regions and to resolve the consequent problems, by establishing and supporting cross-border cooperation in all spheres of life (integration of cross-border areas). Support is given to both cooperation intended to resolve problems through joint efforts and cooperation aimed at promoting integration in various spheres. For border regions it is therefore crucial to maintain a wide range of activities eligible for support, reflecting the many spheres of cross-border cooperation.

The same grounds as for cross-border cooperation apply to transnational cooperation. It is crucial to keep the scope for cooperation as broad as possible for every type of cooperation.

Amendment 5

Article 6(a)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Investment priorities | Investment priorities |
| [...] | [...] |
| (a) | under cross-border cooperation: |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Investment priorities

Investment priorities

[...]

[...]

(a)

under cross-border cooperation:

| (a) | under cross-border cooperation: |
| --- | --- |

(a)

under cross-border cooperation:

| (i) | integrating cross-border labour markets, including cross-border mobility, joint local employment initiatives and joint training (within the thematic objective of promoting employment and supporting labour mobility); |
| --- | --- |

(i)

integrating cross-border labour markets, including cross-border mobility, joint local employment initiatives and joint training (within the thematic objective of promoting employment and supporting labour mobility);

| (i) | integrating cross-border labour markets, including cross-border mobility, joint local employment initiatives and joint training (within the thematic objective of promoting employment and supporting labour mobility); |
| --- | --- |

(i)

integrating cross-border labour markets, including cross-border mobility, joint local employment initiatives and joint training (within the thematic objective of promoting employment and supporting labour mobility);

| (ii) | promoting gender equality and equal opportunities across borders, as well as promoting social inclusion across borders (within the thematic objective of promoting social inclusion and combating poverty); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

promoting gender equality and equal opportunities across borders, as well as promoting social inclusion across borders (within the thematic objective of promoting social inclusion and combating poverty);

| (ii) | promoting gender equality and equal opportunities across borders, as well as promoting social inclusion across borders (within the thematic objective of promoting social inclusion and combating poverty); |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

promoting gender equality and equal opportunities across borders, as well as promoting social inclusion across borders (within the thematic objective of promoting social inclusion and combating poverty);

| (iii) | developing and implementing joint education and training schemes (within the thematic objective of investing in skills, education and lifelong learning); |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

developing and implementing joint education and training schemes (within the thematic objective of investing in skills, education and lifelong learning);

| (iii) | developing and implementing joint education and training schemes (within the thematic objective of investing in skills, education and lifelong learning); |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

developing and implementing joint education and training schemes (within the thematic objective of investing in skills, education and lifelong learning);

| (iv) | promoting legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration); |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

promoting legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration);

| (iv) | promoting legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration); |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

promoting legal and administrative cooperation and cooperation between citizens and institutions (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration);

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

| (vi) | |
| --- | --- |

(vi)

| (vii) | |
| --- | --- |

(vii)

| (viii) | |
| --- | --- |

(viii)

Reason

See point 9 of the ‘Policy Recommendation’.

Amendment 6

Article 6(b)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) | under transnational cooperation: development and implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration). |

Commission text

CoR amendment

(b)

under transnational cooperation: development and implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration).

| (b) | under transnational cooperation: development and implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

under transnational cooperation: development and implementation of macro-regional and sea-basin strategies (within the thematic objective of enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration).

Reason

See point 14 of the ‘Policy Recommendation’.

Amendment 7

Article 6 new paragraph c)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| | | |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Reason

See point 11 of the ‘Policy Recommendation’.

Amendment 8

Article 7(2)(c)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Content of cooperation programmes | Content of cooperation programmes |
| [...] | [...] |
| (c) | the contribution to the integrated strategy for territorial development set out in the partnership contract including; |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Content of cooperation programmes

Content of cooperation programmes

[...]

[...]

(c)

the contribution to the integrated strategy for territorial development set out in the partnership contract including;

| (c) | the contribution to the integrated strategy for territorial development set out in the partnership contract including: |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the contribution to the integrated strategy for territorial development set out in the partnership contract including:

| (i) | the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments and with the European Investment Bank (EIB); |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments and with the European Investment Bank (EIB);

| (i) | the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments and with the European Investment Bank (EIB); |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the mechanisms that ensure coordination between the Funds, the EAFRD, the EMFF and other Union and national funding instruments and with the European Investment Bank (EIB);

| (ii) | where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR]; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR];

| (ii) | where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR]; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

where appropriate, a planned integrated approach to the territorial development of urban, rural, coastal areas and areas with particular territorial features, in particular the implementation arrangements for Articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR];

| (iii) | where appropriate, the list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented; the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [ERDF]; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

where appropriate, the list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented; the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [ERDF];

| (iii) | where appropriate, the list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented; the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [ERDF]; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

where appropriate, the list of cities where integrated actions for sustainable urban development will be implemented; the indicative annual allocation of the ERDF support for these actions, including the resources delegated to cities for management under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [ERDF];

| (iv) | the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented;

| (iv) | the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the identification of the areas in which community-led local development will be implemented;

| (v) | where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies;

| (v) | where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies; |
| --- | --- |

(v)

where appropriate, the contribution of the planned interventions towards macro regional strategies and sea basin strategies;

Reason

The Committee of the Regions considers that setting out information in the programme document on the specific types of support for regional development as described in Article 7(2)(c) is only relevant and should only be mandatory in cases where these mechanisms will be actively applied in an operational programme, or where there is another reason to include a description in the programme document. For this reason it should not be mandatory for ETC programmes to describe these spheres. They should be required to do so only in cases where it is relevant and appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Danish presidency's compromise proposal on the general regulation for Objective 1 programmes (Article 87(2)).

Amendment 9

Article 7(2) (g) (iv)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (iv) | the procedure for setting up the joint secretariat; |

Commission text

CoR amendment

(iv)

the procedure for setting up the joint secretariat;

| (iv) | the procedure for setting up the joint secretariat; |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the procedure for setting up the joint secretariat;

Reason

Setting up intermediary bodies has shown itself to be extremely effective in a wide range of programmes. Hence the Committee of the Regions' call for this procedure to be retained in an area in which it has proved its worth.

Amendment 10

Article 11(2)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Selection of operations | Selection of operations |
| [...] | [...] |
| 2.   Operations selected under cross-border and transnational cooperation shall involve beneficiaries from at least two participating countries, at least one of which shall be from a Member State. An operation may be implemented in a single country, provided that it is for the benefit of the programme area. | 2.   Operations selected under cross-border cooperation shall involve beneficiaries from at least two participating countries, at least one of which shall be from a Member State. An operation may be implemented in a single country, provided that it is for the benefit of the programme area. |
| Operations concerning interregional cooperation under Article 2(3)(a) and (b) shall involve beneficiaries from at least three countries, at least two of which shall be Member States. | Operations concerning interregional cooperation under Article 2(3)(a) and (b) shall involve beneficiaries from at least three countries, at least two of which shall be Member States. |
| | |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Selection of operations

Selection of operations

[...]

[...]

2.   Operations selected under cross-border and transnational cooperation shall involve beneficiaries from at least two participating countries, at least one of which shall be from a Member State. An operation may be implemented in a single country, provided that it is for the benefit of the programme area.

2.   Operations selected under cross-border cooperation shall involve beneficiaries from at least two participating countries, at least one of which shall be from a Member State. An operation may be implemented in a single country, provided that it is for the benefit of the programme area.

Operations concerning interregional cooperation under Article 2(3)(a) and (b) shall involve beneficiaries from at least three countries, at least two of which shall be Member States.

Operations concerning interregional cooperation under Article 2(3)(a) and (b) shall involve beneficiaries from at least three countries, at least two of which shall be Member States.

Reason

Under the Commission proposal, transnational cooperation works on similar terms to cross-border cooperation, i.e. beneficiaries may be from two countries only, and it would be possible for operations to be implemented in just one country. We believe that this definition of cooperation would not reflect its transnational dimension and that it is the rules for interregional cooperation mentioned in the article that should apply here.

Furthermore, a number of current transnational cooperation programmes are designed specifically for the outermost regions. Requiring the involvement of three countries in these programmes would complicate matters considerably.

Amendment 11

Article 11 (4)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Beneficiaries shall cooperate in the development, implementation, staffing and financing of operations. | Beneficiaries shall cooperate in the development, implementation, staffing and financing of operations. |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Beneficiaries shall cooperate in the development, implementation, staffing and financing of operations.

Beneficiaries shall cooperate in the development, implementation, staffing and financing of operations.

Reason

The criteria for establishing the cross-border nature of a project should be made less harsh, especially for smaller projects, which account for a large number of high-quality projects that make an undeniable contribution to the development of cross-border relations but which nevertheless struggle to meet all four criteria.

Amendment 12

Article 15

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Indicators for the European territorial cooperation goal | Indicators for the European territorial cooperation goal |
| Common indicators, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR]. Their baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be fixed for 2022. | Common indicators, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR]. Their baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be fixed for 2022. |
| [...] | [...] |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Indicators for the European territorial cooperation goal

Indicators for the European territorial cooperation goal

Common indicators, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR]. Their baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be fixed for 2022.

Common indicators, as set out in the Annex to this Regulation, shall be used where relevant and in accordance with Article 24(3) of Regulation (EU) No./2012 [CPR]. Their baselines shall be set at zero and cumulative targets shall be fixed for 2022.

[...]

[...]

Reason

The common indicators listed in the Annex should be considered as examples only. In each case it must be determined whether the indicator is relevant to the programme, the objective and the priority. Dealing with the issue of indicators through such a general provision will not ensure the efficacy of either the programme or operations. Moreover, the indicators given in the Annex anticipate the priorities and types of operation for all the programmes.

Amendment 13

Article 16

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Technical assistance
  The amount of the ERDF allocated to technical assistance shall be limited to 6 % of the total amount allocated to a cooperation programmes, but shall not be less than EUR 1 500 000. | Technical assistance
  The amount of the ERDF allocated to technical assistance shall be limited to 6 % of the total amount allocated to a cooperation programmes, but shall not be less than EUR 1 500 000. |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Technical assistance

The amount of the ERDF allocated to technical assistance shall be limited to 6 % of the total amount allocated to a cooperation programmes, but shall not be less than EUR 1 500 000.

Technical assistance

The amount of the ERDF allocated to technical assistance shall be limited to 6 % of the total amount allocated to a cooperation programmes, but shall not be less than EUR 1 500 000.

Reason

While the four pan-European territorial cooperation projects (ESPON, INTERACT, INTERREG IV C and URBACT) certainly have lower costs than investment projects, the share of administrative costs is greater due to the nature of the activities (studies, expertise, exchange of best practices).

Amendment 14

Article 18

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Staff costs of an operation may be calculated as a flat rate of up to 15 % of the direct costs other than the staff costs of that operation. | Staff costs of an operation may be calculated as a flat rate of up to of the direct costs other than the staff costs of that operation. |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Staff costs of an operation may be calculated as a flat rate of up to 15 % of the direct costs other than the staff costs of that operation.

Staff costs of an operation may be calculated as a flat rate of up to of the direct costs other than the staff costs of that operation.

Reason

See point 41 of the ‘Policy Recommendation’.

Amendment 15

Article 19 new paragraph (4)

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Eligibility of operations in cooperation programmes depending on location | Eligibility of operations in cooperation programmes depending on location |
| | [...] |
| | |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Eligibility of operations in cooperation programmes depending on location

Eligibility of operations in cooperation programmes depending on location

[...]

Reason

While current regulations allow for the ‘rules on flexibility’ to be used in the context of cross-border cooperation programmes, Member States (or managing authorities and national authorities) have rarely made use of this option when developing programmes. This complicates the implementation of projects in a multilateral regional framework such as the Euroregions.

Amendment 16

Article 26

Amend as follows:

| Commission text | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Use of the euro | Use of the euro |
| By way of derogation from Article 123 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], expenditure incurred in a currency other than the euro shall be converted into euro by the beneficiaries in the month during which expenditure was incurred. | By way of derogation from Article 123 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], expenditure incurred in a currency other than the euro shall be converted into euro by the beneficiaries in the month during which expenditure . |
| The conversion shall be verified by the managing authority or by the controller in the Member State or third country in which the beneficiary is located. | The conversion shall be verified by the managing authority or by the controller in the Member State or third country in which the beneficiary is located. |

Commission text

CoR amendment

Use of the euro

Use of the euro

By way of derogation from Article 123 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], expenditure incurred in a currency other than the euro shall be converted into euro by the beneficiaries in the month during which expenditure was incurred.

By way of derogation from Article 123 of Regulation (EU) No [...]/2012 [CPR], expenditure incurred in a currency other than the euro shall be converted into euro by the beneficiaries in the month during which expenditure .

The conversion shall be verified by the managing authority or by the controller in the Member State or third country in which the beneficiary is located.

The conversion shall be verified by the managing authority or by the controller in the Member State or third country in which the beneficiary is located.

Reason

In the Committee's view, the period chosen to convert non-euro expenditure into euros should be the same period during which the expenditure is presented for inspection (unless the exchange rate valid during the month in question is used), in accordance with Article 114(4)(a) of the general regulation. This may be a technical point, but the Committee regards as misconceived the current provision for conversion based on the exchange rate valid during the month when expenditure was incurred and thinks that it is likely to create complications (and therefore increase the risk of errors), especially given that expenditure presented for inspection generally relates to different periods. Thus if a single ‘package’ of expenditure were presented, several different exchange rates would be used. The least risky and most simple solution from a technical point of view seems to be to convert all expenditure presented on the basis of a single exchange rate, the rate valid during the month when the expenditure was presented for inspection. The proposed amendment would also increase beneficiaries' certainty as to the amount of resources they are receiving, because it allows the time between conversion into euros and payment of the assistance to be shortened.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/110 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/110

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Airport package’

2012/C 277/11

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the goal of creating the necessary conditions for more efficient use of existing infrastructure but believes that further steps must be taken to fully meet growing demand for capacity. In particular, it is important to expand capacity at overloaded airports, take greater account of the free capacity of regional airports, expedite the creation of a single European air space, and secure competitive operating hours – including night-time hours; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the goal of creating the necessary conditions for more efficient use of existing infrastructure but believes that further steps must be taken to fully meet growing demand for capacity. In particular, it is important to expand capacity at overloaded airports, take greater account of the free capacity of regional airports, expedite the creation of a single European air space, and secure competitive operating hours – including night-time hours;

| — | calls for an improvement of inter-modal connections between airports and other modes of transport. This will boost competitiveness and guarantee that regions are sufficiently linked to the European and global aviation network; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for an improvement of inter-modal connections between airports and other modes of transport. This will boost competitiveness and guarantee that regions are sufficiently linked to the European and global aviation network;

| — | agrees that in line with the Balanced Approach, the most cost-efficient measure should be chosen in order to achieve noise abatement objectives but considers that the proposed right of scrutiny for the Commission exceeds its powers according to the principle of subsidiarity. Operating restrictions must be imposed by regional authorities with due regard to the local situation and to local specifics. An additional right of scrutiny for the Commission is neither necessary nor proportionate; |
| --- | --- |

—

agrees that in line with the Balanced Approach, the most cost-efficient measure should be chosen in order to achieve noise abatement objectives but considers that the proposed right of scrutiny for the Commission exceeds its powers according to the principle of subsidiarity. Operating restrictions must be imposed by regional authorities with due regard to the local situation and to local specifics. An additional right of scrutiny for the Commission is neither necessary nor proportionate;

| — | welcomes the further opening and standardisation of access to the groundhandling services market. This will lead to more competition and ultimately to an even higher quality of groundhandling services offered at EU airports. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should however be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the further opening and standardisation of access to the groundhandling services market. This will lead to more competition and ultimately to an even higher quality of groundhandling services offered at EU airports. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should however be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports;

| — | welcomes the Commission’s proposal to introduce market-based instruments for achieving optimal use of scarce capacity at busy airports but stresses that the regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed. |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the Commission’s proposal to introduce market-based instruments for achieving optimal use of scarce capacity at busy airports but stresses that the regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed.

| Rapporteur | Mr WERNER (DE/ALDE), State Secretary in the Saxon State Ministry for Economic Affairs, Labour and Transport |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents | | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
  Airport policy in the European Union – addressing capacity and quality to promote growth, connectivity and sustainable mobility
  COM(2011) 823 final |

Rapporteur

Mr WERNER (DE/ALDE), State Secretary in the Saxon State Ministry for Economic Affairs, Labour and Transport

Reference documents

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

Airport policy in the European Union – addressing capacity and quality to promote growth, connectivity and sustainable mobility

COM(2011) 823 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC
  COM(2011) 828 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC

COM(2011) 828 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on groundhandling services at Union airports and repealing Council Directive 96/67/EC
  COM(2011) 824 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on groundhandling services at Union airports and repealing Council Directive 96/67/EC

COM(2011) 824 final

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the allocation of slots at European Union airports (recast)
  COM(2011) 827 final |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the allocation of slots at European Union airports (recast)

COM(2011) 827 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments (on COM(2011) 823 final)

| 1. | shares the view that airports are an indispensable part of a modern and efficient transport network. They make an important contribution to economic development, employment and tourism in individual regions, while also strengthening the territorial cohesion of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

shares the view that airports are an indispensable part of a modern and efficient transport network. They make an important contribution to economic development, employment and tourism in individual regions, while also strengthening the territorial cohesion of the European Union;

| 2. | shares the view that noise from aircraft is a nuisance for a growing number of European citizens, especially at night, and that an active noise management strategy is therefore necessary to mitigate the undesired effects; |
| --- | --- |

2.

shares the view that noise from aircraft is a nuisance for a growing number of European citizens, especially at night, and that an active noise management strategy is therefore necessary to mitigate the undesired effects;

| 3. | supports the Commission’s goal of making best possible use of and boosting the potential of air traffic, and in particular its predicted growth; |
| --- | --- |

3.

supports the Commission’s goal of making best possible use of and boosting the potential of air traffic, and in particular its predicted growth;

| 4. | stresses that the EU could promote investment in modernising the airport network and constructing new airports primarily through the use of innovative financial instruments, so as to achieve sustained economic growth in the EU and improve economic links to the rest of the world; |
| --- | --- |

4.

stresses that the EU could promote investment in modernising the airport network and constructing new airports primarily through the use of innovative financial instruments, so as to achieve sustained economic growth in the EU and improve economic links to the rest of the world;

| 5. | shares the view that there is an increasing imbalance between airport capacity and the ever growing demand from tourism and need for transport. Some European airports are already overloaded or are operating at the limits of their capacity. Additional capacity – especially in major hubs – cannot always be made available in line with demand. It can therefore be expected that bottlenecks in capacity will become even more serious in the coming years; |
| --- | --- |

5.

shares the view that there is an increasing imbalance between airport capacity and the ever growing demand from tourism and need for transport. Some European airports are already overloaded or are operating at the limits of their capacity. Additional capacity – especially in major hubs – cannot always be made available in line with demand. It can therefore be expected that bottlenecks in capacity will become even more serious in the coming years;

| 6. | welcomes the goal of tackling the increasing number of bottlenecks and of creating the necessary conditions for more efficient use of existing infrastructure. However, the Committee warns that the measures proposed in the Airport Package will not be enough to achieve this; |
| --- | --- |

6.

welcomes the goal of tackling the increasing number of bottlenecks and of creating the necessary conditions for more efficient use of existing infrastructure. However, the Committee warns that the measures proposed in the Airport Package will not be enough to achieve this;

| 7. | notes that there is sufficient capacity in many regional airports to provide effective relief to airports that suffer capacity bottlenecks, and that regional connections can thereby be improved; |
| --- | --- |

7.

notes that there is sufficient capacity in many regional airports to provide effective relief to airports that suffer capacity bottlenecks, and that regional connections can thereby be improved;

| 8. | believes that further steps must be taken to fully meet growing demand for capacity. In particular, it is important to expand capacity at overloaded airports, take greater account of the free capacity of regional airports, expedite the creation of a single European air space, and secure competitive operating hours – including night-time hours. Small regional airports must also receive meaningful support in order to complement the major airports and make optimum use of existing infrastructure; |
| --- | --- |

8.

believes that further steps must be taken to fully meet growing demand for capacity. In particular, it is important to expand capacity at overloaded airports, take greater account of the free capacity of regional airports, expedite the creation of a single European air space, and secure competitive operating hours – including night-time hours. Small regional airports must also receive meaningful support in order to complement the major airports and make optimum use of existing infrastructure;

| 9. | refers to the need to improve inter-modal connections between airports and other modes of transport. This will boost competitiveness and guarantee that regions are sufficiently linked to the European and global aviation network; |
| --- | --- |

9.

refers to the need to improve inter-modal connections between airports and other modes of transport. This will boost competitiveness and guarantee that regions are sufficiently linked to the European and global aviation network;

| 10. | feels that more efficient allocation of slots is a suitable way of achieving optimal use of scarce capacity at busy airports. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal to introduce market-based instruments for this purpose, although the regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed; |
| --- | --- |

10.

feels that more efficient allocation of slots is a suitable way of achieving optimal use of scarce capacity at busy airports. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal to introduce market-based instruments for this purpose, although the regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed;

| 11. | approves of the proposal to revise the rules and procedures governing the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions. The goal of standardising the way the Balanced Approach is applied should enhance protection of people affected by aircraft noise in line with Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise; |
| --- | --- |

11.

approves of the proposal to revise the rules and procedures governing the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions. The goal of standardising the way the Balanced Approach is applied should enhance protection of people affected by aircraft noise in line with Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise;

| 12. | welcomes the goal of further liberalising the market for groundhandling services. This will lead to more competition and ultimately to an even higher quality of service. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports. It must also be ensured that the regulation does not lead to any unequal treatment of service providers. The Commission’s goal of avoiding distortions of competition can only be achieved when the same conditions apply to all parties involved; |
| --- | --- |

12.

welcomes the goal of further liberalising the market for groundhandling services. This will lead to more competition and ultimately to an even higher quality of service. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports. It must also be ensured that the regulation does not lead to any unequal treatment of service providers. The Commission’s goal of avoiding distortions of competition can only be achieved when the same conditions apply to all parties involved;

| 13. | is concerned by the proposals of the Commission, and the even further-reaching proposals of the Council’s ‘General Approach’, to regulate ground handling infrastructure fees in line with and beyond the provisions of the Airport Charges Directive (Directive 2009/12/EC). Such fees typically comprise a very small percentage of overall airport revenues, particularly at regional airports which are just over the new proposed two million passenger per annum threshold, and constitute small sums in absolute terms also. The administrative costs may well outweigh any potential benefits, given that airports are already obliged to set out such fees in an objective and transparent manner; |
| --- | --- |

13.

is concerned by the proposals of the Commission, and the even further-reaching proposals of the Council’s ‘General Approach’, to regulate ground handling infrastructure fees in line with and beyond the provisions of the Airport Charges Directive (Directive 2009/12/EC). Such fees typically comprise a very small percentage of overall airport revenues, particularly at regional airports which are just over the new proposed two million passenger per annum threshold, and constitute small sums in absolute terms also. The administrative costs may well outweigh any potential benefits, given that airports are already obliged to set out such fees in an objective and transparent manner;

| 14. | stresses the importance of General Aviation to air transport in the EU. It allows the entrepreneurs who create wealth and employment to travel with maximum flexibility and increases the economic power of the peripheral and outermost regions. This is particularly important when considering the issue of slots and accessibility to airports; |
| --- | --- |

14.

stresses the importance of General Aviation to air transport in the EU. It allows the entrepreneurs who create wealth and employment to travel with maximum flexibility and increases the economic power of the peripheral and outermost regions. This is particularly important when considering the issue of slots and accessibility to airports;

Noise-related operating restrictions (in relation to COM(2011) 828 final)

| 15. | welcomes the goal of further specifying the procedures and rules governing the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions, and of making the assessment process more transparent. This will counter the Directive’s inconsistent application in the Member States, and will also afford a comparable level of protection to people affected by aircraft noise. However, the Committee observes that the draft regulation is not yet aligned with Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, especially in terms of the noise assessment and analysis of cost-effectiveness, and would therefore create a heavy administrative burden and in turn significant costs, and undermine public acceptance of air traffic; |
| --- | --- |

15.

welcomes the goal of further specifying the procedures and rules governing the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions, and of making the assessment process more transparent. This will counter the Directive’s inconsistent application in the Member States, and will also afford a comparable level of protection to people affected by aircraft noise. However, the Committee observes that the draft regulation is not yet aligned with Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, especially in terms of the noise assessment and analysis of cost-effectiveness, and would therefore create a heavy administrative burden and in turn significant costs, and undermine public acceptance of air traffic;

| 16. | expects that turning the existing Directive into a regulation will boost the efficacy of noise-related measures and help to avoid distortions of competition in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

16.

expects that turning the existing Directive into a regulation will boost the efficacy of noise-related measures and help to avoid distortions of competition in the European Union;

| 17. | agrees with the Commission’s view that in line with the Balanced Approach, the most cost-efficient measure should be chosen in order to achieve noise abatement objectives. However, the health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport should also be taken into consideration to the greatest possible extent, and not merely on an optional basis. This will enable Member States to reconcile the economic impact of noise abatement measures with the legitimate need for protection of people affected by air traffic noise; |
| --- | --- |

17.

agrees with the Commission’s view that in line with the Balanced Approach, the most cost-efficient measure should be chosen in order to achieve noise abatement objectives. However, the health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport should also be taken into consideration to the greatest possible extent, and not merely on an optional basis. This will enable Member States to reconcile the economic impact of noise abatement measures with the legitimate need for protection of people affected by air traffic noise;

| 18. | approves in principle of the goal of raising the limit value for marginally compliant aircraft. This will make it possible to take into account technological advances in the development of light aircraft. However, the Committee points out that freight aircraft are less likely than passenger aircraft to comply with the stringent 10 EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels) limit. As a result, any ban on marginally compliant aircraft would affect airfreight carriers disproportionately. The Committee therefore recommends that the limit be raised by a smaller amount within an appropriate transition phase. Lifting the limit to 8 EPNdB would be enough to achieve a considerable reduction in aircraft noise; |
| --- | --- |

18.

approves in principle of the goal of raising the limit value for marginally compliant aircraft. This will make it possible to take into account technological advances in the development of light aircraft. However, the Committee points out that freight aircraft are less likely than passenger aircraft to comply with the stringent 10 EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels) limit. As a result, any ban on marginally compliant aircraft would affect airfreight carriers disproportionately. The Committee therefore recommends that the limit be raised by a smaller amount within an appropriate transition phase. Lifting the limit to 8 EPNdB would be enough to achieve a considerable reduction in aircraft noise;

| 19. | considers that an independent appeal body is needed at Member State level; |
| --- | --- |

19.

considers that an independent appeal body is needed at Member State level;

| 20. | welcomes the application of the Balanced Approach to reduce and limit the degree to which people are affected by air traffic noise. This will afford Member States the necessary flexibility in managing noise. At the same time, the Committee shares the Commission’s view that operating restrictions should be a measure of last resort; |
| --- | --- |

20.

welcomes the application of the Balanced Approach to reduce and limit the degree to which people are affected by air traffic noise. This will afford Member States the necessary flexibility in managing noise. At the same time, the Committee shares the Commission’s view that operating restrictions should be a measure of last resort;

| 21. | supports the goal of further specifying the rules for assessing aircraft noise and of making the assessment process more transparent. The planned consultation with people affected by aircraft noise will lead to greater acceptance of noise abatement measures that are implemented. However, the Committee recommends that Member States be given adequate room for manoeuvre when it comes to the composition of the ‘forums for technical cooperation’ provided for in the draft regulation. To the extent that similar bodies are already established in the Member States, it should be possible to recognise them rather than create additional bodies; |
| --- | --- |

21.

supports the goal of further specifying the rules for assessing aircraft noise and of making the assessment process more transparent. The planned consultation with people affected by aircraft noise will lead to greater acceptance of noise abatement measures that are implemented. However, the Committee recommends that Member States be given adequate room for manoeuvre when it comes to the composition of the ‘forums for technical cooperation’ provided for in the draft regulation. To the extent that similar bodies are already established in the Member States, it should be possible to recognise them rather than create additional bodies;

| 22. | believes that the noise assessment method based on the ECAC Report Doc 29 ‘Report on Standard Method of Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports’, which is mentioned in Annex I of the draft regulation, is unsuited to making noise assessment procedures more transparent. An additional assessment method will lead to a loss of comparability with the Environmental Noise Directive or with national calculation rules, for example, and create unnecessary red tape. Noise assessment should therefore be based on the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC); |
| --- | --- |

22.

believes that the noise assessment method based on the ECAC Report Doc 29 ‘Report on Standard Method of Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports’, which is mentioned in Annex I of the draft regulation, is unsuited to making noise assessment procedures more transparent. An additional assessment method will lead to a loss of comparability with the Environmental Noise Directive or with national calculation rules, for example, and create unnecessary red tape. Noise assessment should therefore be based on the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC);

| 23. | considers that the proposed right of scrutiny for the Commission, whereby it can review operating restrictions before their introduction and if necessary remove them, exceeds the powers of the Commission according to the principle of subsidiarity. Operating restrictions must be imposed by regional authorities with due regard to the local situation and to local specifics. An additional right of scrutiny for the Commission is neither necessary nor proportionate. Moreover, under no circumstances will it help to achieve the regulation’s goal of reducing the number of people affected by aircraft noise; |
| --- | --- |

23.

considers that the proposed right of scrutiny for the Commission, whereby it can review operating restrictions before their introduction and if necessary remove them, exceeds the powers of the Commission according to the principle of subsidiarity. Operating restrictions must be imposed by regional authorities with due regard to the local situation and to local specifics. An additional right of scrutiny for the Commission is neither necessary nor proportionate. Moreover, under no circumstances will it help to achieve the regulation’s goal of reducing the number of people affected by aircraft noise;

| 24. | considers the definition of ‘aircraft’ and ‘marginally compliant aircraft’, the updating of the noise certification standards and of the certification procedure, and the amendments to the method and technical report, to be essential elements of the regulation. In this respect, these points are not appropriate for delegating to the Commission the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

24.

considers the definition of ‘aircraft’ and ‘marginally compliant aircraft’, the updating of the noise certification standards and of the certification procedure, and the amendments to the method and technical report, to be essential elements of the regulation. In this respect, these points are not appropriate for delegating to the Commission the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

Groundhandling services (in relation to COM(2011) 824 final)

| 25. | shares the Commission’s view that groundhandling services play a key role in the aviation chain. Efficient and high-quality groundhandling services make an essential contribution to securing an efficient and competitive aviation system; |
| --- | --- |

25.

shares the Commission’s view that groundhandling services play a key role in the aviation chain. Efficient and high-quality groundhandling services make an essential contribution to securing an efficient and competitive aviation system;

| 26. | welcomes the further opening and standardisation of access to the groundhandling services market. This can be expected to further raise the quality of groundhandling services offered at EU airports. This will benefit airlines, freight forwarders and passengers in equal measure. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports; |
| --- | --- |

26.

welcomes the further opening and standardisation of access to the groundhandling services market. This can be expected to further raise the quality of groundhandling services offered at EU airports. This will benefit airlines, freight forwarders and passengers in equal measure. In order to prevent an unfavourable impact on existing employment conditions, air safety and airport capacity, there should be provision for taking appropriate account of local conditions at airports;

| 27. | is in favour of regulating the transfer of staff between service providers. In this connection, calls on the Commission to explore whether Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 already provides contracting authorities with the possibility to transfer staff, as determined by the Member States, without the need for additional transposing measures by the Member States, and whether parameters could be specified for the transfer of staff; |
| --- | --- |

27.

is in favour of regulating the transfer of staff between service providers. In this connection, calls on the Commission to explore whether Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 1370/2007 already provides contracting authorities with the possibility to transfer staff, as determined by the Member States, without the need for additional transposing measures by the Member States, and whether parameters could be specified for the transfer of staff;

| 28. | notes that not all the rules governing the authorisation procedure are yet fit for purpose. In particular, there is room for improvement in the timing of steps in the procedure, in terms of a special regulation abolishing the unworkable suspensive effect of appeals, in terms of responsibility for carrying out the authorisation procedure, and in the award criteria; |
| --- | --- |

28.

notes that not all the rules governing the authorisation procedure are yet fit for purpose. In particular, there is room for improvement in the timing of steps in the procedure, in terms of a special regulation abolishing the unworkable suspensive effect of appeals, in terms of responsibility for carrying out the authorisation procedure, and in the award criteria;

| 29. | shares the Commission’s view that airports should have a determining role in coordinating groundhandling service providers. However, the Committee notes that airports can only perform this role when the necessary legal framework in the Member States is in place. These tasks also entail additional costs, which it will be difficult for airports to meet via the market; |
| --- | --- |

29.

shares the Commission’s view that airports should have a determining role in coordinating groundhandling service providers. However, the Committee notes that airports can only perform this role when the necessary legal framework in the Member States is in place. These tasks also entail additional costs, which it will be difficult for airports to meet via the market;

| 30. | stresses that the further opening of the market must not have a detrimental effect on aviation security. In order to maintain the high level of security at Union airports, staff need to be adequately trained; |
| --- | --- |

30.

stresses that the further opening of the market must not have a detrimental effect on aviation security. In order to maintain the high level of security at Union airports, staff need to be adequately trained;

| 31. | feels that it is important that the duration of training be set at a level that guarantees the quality of groundhandling services. Given that the approval granted to groundhandling services is to be recognised in all Member States, the Committee recommends that the training be designed in a way that creates comparable qualifications, whilst also taking into account cost-efficiency and encouragement of employment; |
| --- | --- |

31.

feels that it is important that the duration of training be set at a level that guarantees the quality of groundhandling services. Given that the approval granted to groundhandling services is to be recognised in all Member States, the Committee recommends that the training be designed in a way that creates comparable qualifications, whilst also taking into account cost-efficiency and encouragement of employment;

| 32. | notes that subcontracting is reserved for third-party providers. Airport operators and users are not to be allowed this possibility. The Committee takes the view that this is discriminatory in a way that distorts competition, and that it contradicts the draft regulation’s objective of strengthening competition. Subcontracting should be allowed for all groundhandling service providers, according to precise rules; |
| --- | --- |

32.

notes that subcontracting is reserved for third-party providers. Airport operators and users are not to be allowed this possibility. The Committee takes the view that this is discriminatory in a way that distorts competition, and that it contradicts the draft regulation’s objective of strengthening competition. Subcontracting should be allowed for all groundhandling service providers, according to precise rules;

Slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

| 33. | believes that revising the regulation will make a vital contribution to the more efficient use of scarce infrastructure capacity. In view of the predicted growth in air traffic and the fact that airport infrastructure is not expanding at a comparable rate, airlines face increasing limitations on their ability to meet demand for transport services. This is a barrier to the economic development of aviation and, therefore, of regions; |
| --- | --- |

33.

believes that revising the regulation will make a vital contribution to the more efficient use of scarce infrastructure capacity. In view of the predicted growth in air traffic and the fact that airport infrastructure is not expanding at a comparable rate, airlines face increasing limitations on their ability to meet demand for transport services. This is a barrier to the economic development of aviation and, therefore, of regions;

| 34. | believes that, in instances where the independent supervisory authority has been asked to decide on the level of fees being charged for use of centralised infrastructure, the managing body of the centralised infrastructure should be entitled to recover from users at the level initially proposed, until such time as the independent supervisory authority issued its final decision. This would reduce an incentive to raise vexatious challenges to fee level decisions; |
| --- | --- |

34.

believes that, in instances where the independent supervisory authority has been asked to decide on the level of fees being charged for use of centralised infrastructure, the managing body of the centralised infrastructure should be entitled to recover from users at the level initially proposed, until such time as the independent supervisory authority issued its final decision. This would reduce an incentive to raise vexatious challenges to fee level decisions;

| 35. | welcomes in principle the introduction of market instruments for allocating slots. This will ensure that slots are allocated to the airlines that can make best use of them. The regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed; |
| --- | --- |

35.

welcomes in principle the introduction of market instruments for allocating slots. This will ensure that slots are allocated to the airlines that can make best use of them. The regions’ connection to the air transport network must continue to be guaranteed;

| 36. | notes that not all of the consequences of trading slots have been outlined. In particular, the Commission fails to mention how trading slots will affect regional airports and therefore regional connectivity; |
| --- | --- |

36.

notes that not all of the consequences of trading slots have been outlined. In particular, the Commission fails to mention how trading slots will affect regional airports and therefore regional connectivity;

| 37. | considers it possible that airlines will make the slots they own at overloaded hubs available for long-distance traffic first and foremost. This would weaken the link between regional airports and hubs. Therefore, the Committee calls for appropriate measures to ensure that regions are connected to the worldwide aviation network; |
| --- | --- |

37.

considers it possible that airlines will make the slots they own at overloaded hubs available for long-distance traffic first and foremost. This would weaken the link between regional airports and hubs. Therefore, the Committee calls for appropriate measures to ensure that regions are connected to the worldwide aviation network;

| 38. | is pleased with the intention to strengthen the independence of airport coordinators. The draft regulation will make it possible in future for airlines to transfer their slots, including for monetary compensation. Such transfers will require the approval and confirmation of the airport coordinator. That is why the Committee considers it all the more important that the airport coordinator be able to make independent and objective decisions; |
| --- | --- |

38.

is pleased with the intention to strengthen the independence of airport coordinators. The draft regulation will make it possible in future for airlines to transfer their slots, including for monetary compensation. Such transfers will require the approval and confirmation of the airport coordinator. That is why the Committee considers it all the more important that the airport coordinator be able to make independent and objective decisions;

| 39. | takes the view that allocating slots free of charge only to have them subsequently sold would be pointless. In particular, airlines should only be given approval to trade slots when they can show that the slots have been regularly used beforehand; |
| --- | --- |

39.

takes the view that allocating slots free of charge only to have them subsequently sold would be pointless. In particular, airlines should only be given approval to trade slots when they can show that the slots have been regularly used beforehand;

| 40. | feels that the change to the rule on minimum use of slots is reasonable. This measure will increase pressure to fully utilise slots that have been obtained. At the same time, it must be possible to allow for exceptional occurrences (such as strikes or volcanic ash). It can be expected that in future more slots will be returned to the slot pool or sold to another airline. This will facilitate market entry for other airlines at overloaded airports; |
| --- | --- |

40.

feels that the change to the rule on minimum use of slots is reasonable. This measure will increase pressure to fully utilise slots that have been obtained. At the same time, it must be possible to allow for exceptional occurrences (such as strikes or volcanic ash). It can be expected that in future more slots will be returned to the slot pool or sold to another airline. This will facilitate market entry for other airlines at overloaded airports;

| 41. | welcomes the possibility created by the charging system for airports to influence the return of unneeded or reserved slots at as early a stage as possible. This will ensure that slots are not blocked and can be used by other airlines; |
| --- | --- |

41.

welcomes the possibility created by the charging system for airports to influence the return of unneeded or reserved slots at as early a stage as possible. This will ensure that slots are not blocked and can be used by other airlines;

| 42. | recognises the importance of the provision for ‘local rules’ to ensure that the regulatory framework allows sufficient flexibility in those regions and their airports, where specific circumstances warrant due regard. In such circumstances regional input is necessary to ensure an optimal and efficient use of capacity at individual airports; |
| --- | --- |

42.

recognises the importance of the provision for ‘local rules’ to ensure that the regulatory framework allows sufficient flexibility in those regions and their airports, where specific circumstances warrant due regard. In such circumstances regional input is necessary to ensure an optimal and efficient use of capacity at individual airports;

| 43. | considers that the proposed right of the European Commission to designate individual ‘network airports’, whereby it can require Member States to treat individual airports distinctly and separately, exceeds its powers according to the principle of subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

43.

considers that the proposed right of the European Commission to designate individual ‘network airports’, whereby it can require Member States to treat individual airports distinctly and separately, exceeds its powers according to the principle of subsidiarity.

| 44. | is concerned by the European Commission’s introduction of the ‘Network Manager’ concept, and in particular by the proposed allocation of significant and far reaching powers to this entity, in the absence of a clear definition of the entity’s governance; |
| --- | --- |

44.

is concerned by the European Commission’s introduction of the ‘Network Manager’ concept, and in particular by the proposed allocation of significant and far reaching powers to this entity, in the absence of a clear definition of the entity’s governance;

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Noise-related operating restrictions (in relation to COM(2011) 828 final)

Article 2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (4)   ‘Marginally compliant aircraft’ means civil aircraft that meet the Chapter 3 certification limits laid down in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) by a cumulative margin of less than 10EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), whereby the cumulative margin is the figure expressed in EPNdB obtained by adding the individual margins (i.e. the differences between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the three reference noise measurement points as defined in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 4 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention; | (4)   ‘Marginally compliant aircraft’ means civil aircraft that meet the Chapter 3 certification limits laid down in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) by a cumulative margin of less than EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), whereby the cumulative margin is the figure expressed in EPNdB obtained by adding the individual margins (i.e. the differences between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the three reference noise measurement points as defined in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 4 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(4)   ‘Marginally compliant aircraft’ means civil aircraft that meet the Chapter 3 certification limits laid down in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) by a cumulative margin of less than 10EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), whereby the cumulative margin is the figure expressed in EPNdB obtained by adding the individual margins (i.e. the differences between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the three reference noise measurement points as defined in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 4 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention;

(4)   ‘Marginally compliant aircraft’ means civil aircraft that meet the Chapter 3 certification limits laid down in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) by a cumulative margin of less than EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in decibels), whereby the cumulative margin is the figure expressed in EPNdB obtained by adding the individual margins (i.e. the differences between the certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the three reference noise measurement points as defined in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 4 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention;

Reason

| 1) | Freight aircraft are less likely than passenger aircraft to comply with the 10 EPNdB limit proposed in the draft regulation. As a result, any ban on marginally compliant aircraft would affect airfreight carriers disproportionately. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Freight aircraft are less likely than passenger aircraft to comply with the 10 EPNdB limit proposed in the draft regulation. As a result, any ban on marginally compliant aircraft would affect airfreight carriers disproportionately.

| 2) | An appropriate transition phase will give airlines an opportunity to plan and carry out any necessary upgrades to their fleet in line with business conditions. |
| --- | --- |

2)

An appropriate transition phase will give airlines an opportunity to plan and carry out any necessary upgrades to their fleet in line with business conditions.

Amendment 2

Noise-related operating restrictions (in relation to COM(2011) 828 final)

Article 10

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Right of scrutiny | |
| 1.   At the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, and without prejudice to a pending appeal procedure, the Commission may scrutinise the decision on an operating restriction, prior to its implementation. Where the Commission finds that the decision does not respect the requirements set out in this Regulation, or is otherwise contrary to Union law, it may suspend the decision. | |
| 2.   The competent authorities shall provide the Commission with information demonstrating compliance with this Regulation. | |
| 3.   The Commission shall decide in accordance with the advisory procedure laid down in Article 13(2), in particular taking into account the criteria in Annex II, whether the competent authority concerned may proceed with the introduction of the operating restriction. The Commission shall communicate its decision to the Council and the Member State concerned. | |
| 4.   Where the Commission has not adopted a decision within a period of six months after it has received the information referred to in paragraph 2, the competent authority may apply the envisaged decision on an operating restriction. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Right of scrutiny

1.   At the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, and without prejudice to a pending appeal procedure, the Commission may scrutinise the decision on an operating restriction, prior to its implementation. Where the Commission finds that the decision does not respect the requirements set out in this Regulation, or is otherwise contrary to Union law, it may suspend the decision.

2.   The competent authorities shall provide the Commission with information demonstrating compliance with this Regulation.

3.   The Commission shall decide in accordance with the advisory procedure laid down in Article 13(2), in particular taking into account the criteria in Annex II, whether the competent authority concerned may proceed with the introduction of the operating restriction. The Commission shall communicate its decision to the Council and the Member State concerned.

4.   Where the Commission has not adopted a decision within a period of six months after it has received the information referred to in paragraph 2, the competent authority may apply the envisaged decision on an operating restriction.

Reason

| 1) | Operating restrictions should only be imposed by the Member States, as is presently the case. The Council has already expressed an opinion on this matter and deleted the relevant article from the Commission’s proposal. The deletion above is also consistent with point 23 of this opinion. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Operating restrictions should only be imposed by the Member States, as is presently the case. The Council has already expressed an opinion on this matter and deleted the relevant article from the Commission’s proposal. The deletion above is also consistent with point 23 of this opinion.

| 2) | As currently worded, Article 10 could call regional mediation agreements into question. These agreements between airports, the relevant region and citizens are often reached after years of difficult and exhausting negotiations. The German Bundesrat, Austrian Bundesrat, French Senate and Dutch First Chamber concluded that the Commission’s right of scrutiny under Article 10 is in breach of the European Union’s principle of subsidiarity. |
| --- | --- |

2)

As currently worded, Article 10 could call regional mediation agreements into question. These agreements between airports, the relevant region and citizens are often reached after years of difficult and exhausting negotiations. The German Bundesrat, Austrian Bundesrat, French Senate and Dutch First Chamber concluded that the Commission’s right of scrutiny under Article 10 is in breach of the European Union’s principle of subsidiarity.

Amendment 3

Noise-related operating restrictions (in relation to COM(2011) 828 final)

Article 11

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 12 concerning: | |
| (a) | amendments of the definitions of aircraft in Article 2 point (3) and of marginally compliant aircraft in Article 2 point (4); |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 12 concerning:

(a)

amendments of the definitions of aircraft in Article 2 point (3) and of marginally compliant aircraft in Article 2 point (4);

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

(b)

| (b) | amendments and updates of the noise certification standards provided for in Articles 4 and 8; and of the certification procedure provided for in Article 6(1). |
| --- | --- |

amendments and updates of the noise certification standards provided for in Articles 4 and 8; and of the certification procedure provided for in Article 6(1).

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

(c)

| (c) | amendments to the method and technical report set out in Annex I. |
| --- | --- |

amendments to the method and technical report set out in Annex I.

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

Reason

The definition of ‘aircraft’ and ‘marginally compliant aircraft’, the updating of the noise certification standards and of the certification procedure, and the amendments to the method and technical report are essential elements of the regulation. In this respect, these points are not appropriate for delegating to the Commission the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Amendment 4

Noise-related operating restrictions (in relation to COM(2011) 828 final)

Article 12

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. | |
| 2.   The delegation of power referred to in Article 11 shall be conferred for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. | |
| 3.   The delegation of power referred to in Article 11 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council. The revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. | |
| 4.   As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. | |
| 5.   A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 11 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.   The delegation of power referred to in Article 11 shall be conferred for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

3.   The delegation of power referred to in Article 11 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council. The revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.   As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.   A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 11 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.

Reason

Amendments 3 and 4 are directly linked. The proposed deletion of Article 11 requires that Article 12 also be deleted.

Amendment 5

Groundhandling services (in relation to COM(2011) 824 final)

Article 13

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 13

  Island airports | Article 13

  Island airports |
| For the selection of suppliers of groundhandling services at an airport as provided for in Articles 7 to 10, a Member State may extend a public service obligation to other airports in that Member State provided that: | For the selection of suppliers of groundhandling services at an airport as provided for in Articles 7 to 10, a Member State may extend a public service obligation to other airports in that Member State provided that: |
| (a) | those airports are located on islands in the same geographical region; and |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 13

Island airports

Article 13

Island airports

For the selection of suppliers of groundhandling services at an airport as provided for in Articles 7 to 10, a Member State may extend a public service obligation to other airports in that Member State provided that:

For the selection of suppliers of groundhandling services at an airport as provided for in Articles 7 to 10, a Member State may extend a public service obligation to other airports in that Member State provided that:

(a)

those airports are located on islands in the same geographical region; and

| (a) | those airports are located on islands in the same geographical region; and |
| --- | --- |

(a)

those airports are located on islands in the same geographical region; and

| (b) | such airports each have a traffic volume of no less than 100 000 passenger movements per year; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

such airports each have a traffic volume of no less than 100 000 passenger movements per year;

| (b) | such airports each have a traffic volume of no less than 100 000 passenger movements per year; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

such airports each have a traffic volume of no less than 100 000 passenger movements per year;

| (c) | and such an extension is approved by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

and such an extension is approved by the Commission.

| (c) | and such an extension is approved by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

and such an extension is approved by the Commission.

The decision on approving the extension constitutes an implementing act which shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 43 (2). This provision is without prejudice to the EU State Aid rules.

The decision on approving the extension constitutes an implementing act which shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 43 (2). This provision is without prejudice to the EU State Aid rules.

Reason

Article 13 of the proposed regulation, which refers to the possibility of extending PSOs to island airports, should state that, in the case of island airports, airport managers are obliged to provide the services stipulated in Article 6(2) of the proposal (i.e. baggage handling, ramp handling, fuel and oil handling and freight and mail handling). It would also be a good idea to point out that when the operation of those services is not financially viable and thus no business is interested in providing them, and not even the air carriers are interested in providing the services themselves through self-handling, then the airport manager should assume the obligation of providing them given the key role of such infrastructure not only in ensuring that the island (which has no comparable alternative) is accessible and connected to the outside, but also in providing basic public services such as emergency health care, fire-fighting, surveillance and sea rescues, as well as other services carried out from airports using helicopters and which otherwise could not be provided (without the supply of fuel, for example).

Amendment 6

Groundhandling services (in relation to COM(2011) 824 final)

Article 28(6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where the Airport Users’ Committee disagrees with a fee set by the managing body of the airport or, where relevant, the managing body of the centralised infrastructure, it may ask the independent supervisory authority of the Member State concerned to decide on the level of the fee. | Where the Airport Users’ Committee disagrees with a fee set by the managing body of the airport or, where relevant, the managing body of the centralised infrastructure, it may ask the independent supervisory authority of the Member State concerned to on the level of the fee. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where the Airport Users’ Committee disagrees with a fee set by the managing body of the airport or, where relevant, the managing body of the centralised infrastructure, it may ask the independent supervisory authority of the Member State concerned to decide on the level of the fee.

Where the Airport Users’ Committee disagrees with a fee set by the managing body of the airport or, where relevant, the managing body of the centralised infrastructure, it may ask the independent supervisory authority of the Member State concerned to on the level of the fee.

Reason

This proposal essentially introduces a detailed appeal procedure in the event of disagreement on fees which could result in significant costs – both in financial terms and in management time. For some airports whose groundhandling revenues amount to less than 1 % of total this is a disproportionate approach.

Amendment 7

Groundhandling services (in relation to COM(2011) 824 final)

Article 28 – new 8

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

To avoid the situation where vexatious challenges are raised simply to postpone the application of a charge pending resolution of any disagreement on the part of users, it would be important that airport authorities be able to recover the charge at the level initially proposed, from the time at which it was set. This is an important issue for regional airports who often have limited income from non-aeronautical services, particularly if they are dominated by carriers that impose a ‘one bag’ rule. This would be a revenue-neutral method of incentivising industry cooperation, similar to the charging system for airports to influence the return of unneeded or unreserved slots.

Amendment 8

Groundhandling services (in relation to COM(2011) 824 final)

Article 32 (3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Suppliers of groundhandling services and self-handling airport users shall respect these minimum quality standards. In addition, airport users and suppliers of groundhandling services shall respect the minimum quality standards in their contractual relations. | Suppliers of groundhandling services and self-handling airport users shall respect these minimum quality standards. In addition, airport users and suppliers of groundhandling services shall respect the minimum quality standards in their contractual relations. |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Suppliers of groundhandling services and self-handling airport users shall respect these minimum quality standards. In addition, airport users and suppliers of groundhandling services shall respect the minimum quality standards in their contractual relations.

Suppliers of groundhandling services and self-handling airport users shall respect these minimum quality standards. In addition, airport users and suppliers of groundhandling services shall respect the minimum quality standards in their contractual relations.

Reason

Given the importance of groundhandling for the smooth functioning of airports, appropriate and proportionate enforcement measures are required to ensure minimum standards are respected.

Amendment 9

Groundhandling services (in relation to COM(2011) 824 final)

Article 35

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, suppliers of groundhandling services may engage in subcontracting. | 1.   Without prejudice to paragraph (3) , suppliers of groundhandling services may engage in subcontracting. |
| 2.   Self-handling airport users may subcontract groundhandling services only if they are temporarily unable to perform self-handling due to force majeure. | |
| 3.   Subcontractors may not subcontract groundhandling services. | .   Subcontractors may not subcontract groundhandling services. |
| 4.   A supplier of groundhandling services as referred to in Article 11 (1) may not subcontract groundhandling services except if it is temporarily unable to provide these groundhandling services due to force majeure. | |
| 5.   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall ensure that the subcontractors comply with the obligations on suppliers of groundhandling services under this Regulation. | .   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall ensure that the subcontractors comply with the obligations on suppliers of groundhandling services under this Regulation. |
| | |
| | |
| 6.   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall inform the managing body of the airport of the name and activities of the subcontractors concerned. | 6.   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall inform the managing body of the airport of the name and activities of the subcontractors concerned. |
| 7.   Where a supplier of groundhandling services applies for an authorisation to provide groundhandling services under the selection procedure laid down in Article 7, it shall indicate the number, activities and names of the subcontractors it intends to use. | 7.   Where a supplier of groundhandling services applies for an authorisation to provide groundhandling services under the selection procedure laid down in Article 7, it shall indicate the number, activities and names of the subcontractors it intends to use. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, suppliers of groundhandling services may engage in subcontracting.

1.   Without prejudice to paragraph (3) , suppliers of groundhandling services may engage in subcontracting.

2.   Self-handling airport users may subcontract groundhandling services only if they are temporarily unable to perform self-handling due to force majeure.

3.   Subcontractors may not subcontract groundhandling services.

.   Subcontractors may not subcontract groundhandling services.

4.   A supplier of groundhandling services as referred to in Article 11 (1) may not subcontract groundhandling services except if it is temporarily unable to provide these groundhandling services due to force majeure.

5.   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall ensure that the subcontractors comply with the obligations on suppliers of groundhandling services under this Regulation.

.   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall ensure that the subcontractors comply with the obligations on suppliers of groundhandling services under this Regulation.

6.   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall inform the managing body of the airport of the name and activities of the subcontractors concerned.

6.   Any supplier of groundhandling services and self-handling airport user using one or more subcontractors shall inform the managing body of the airport of the name and activities of the subcontractors concerned.

7.   Where a supplier of groundhandling services applies for an authorisation to provide groundhandling services under the selection procedure laid down in Article 7, it shall indicate the number, activities and names of the subcontractors it intends to use.

7.   Where a supplier of groundhandling services applies for an authorisation to provide groundhandling services under the selection procedure laid down in Article 7, it shall indicate the number, activities and names of the subcontractors it intends to use.

Reason

| 1) | The prohibition on subcontracting for airports and airport users discriminates vis-à-vis other suppliers of groundhandling services and distorts competition. This contradicts the draft regulation’s objective of strengthening competition. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The prohibition on subcontracting for airports and airport users discriminates vis-à-vis other suppliers of groundhandling services and distorts competition. This contradicts the draft regulation’s objective of strengthening competition.

| 2) | Requirements in terms of service quality and reliability are to be met by all subcontractors in equal measure, just as they are to be met by the contracting entities. Moreover, airports should be allowed to restrict the number of subcontractors when space is limited. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Requirements in terms of service quality and reliability are to be met by all subcontractors in equal measure, just as they are to be met by the contracting entities. Moreover, airports should be allowed to restrict the number of subcontractors when space is limited.

Amendment 10

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 3 (3) (ii)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| upon request from the Commission, in particular where new entrants encounter serious problems in securing landing and takeoff possibilities at the airport in question, or when the network manager considers it necessary to ensure that the airport’s operational plan is consistent with the network’s operational plan, in accordance with Article 6(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/20111. | upon request from the Commission, in particular where new entrants encounter serious problems in securing landing and takeoff possibilities at the airport in question, or when the network manager considers it necessary to ensure that the ’s operational plan is consistent with the ’s operational plan, in accordance with Article 6(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/20111. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

upon request from the Commission, in particular where new entrants encounter serious problems in securing landing and takeoff possibilities at the airport in question, or when the network manager considers it necessary to ensure that the airport’s operational plan is consistent with the network’s operational plan, in accordance with Article 6(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/20111.

upon request from the Commission, in particular where new entrants encounter serious problems in securing landing and takeoff possibilities at the airport in question, or when the network manager considers it necessary to ensure that the ’s operational plan is consistent with the ’s operational plan, in accordance with Article 6(7) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 677/20111.

Reason

The role of the Network Manager should be one of coordination at the Network level, rather than giving directions at local level. Each airport is responsible for its own Airport Operations Plan - not the Network Manager.

Amendment 11

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 3 (9)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| At the request of the Commission, which may act on its own initiative or on the initiative of the network manager, and after consulting the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4, the Member State shall ensure that an airport with no designation status be designated as belonging to the network. The decision shall be communicated to the Commission. If the Commission considers that the airport is no longer of interest for the network, the Member State, after consulting the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4, shall change the designation of the airport to that of an airport with no designation status. | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

At the request of the Commission, which may act on its own initiative or on the initiative of the network manager, and after consulting the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4, the Member State shall ensure that an airport with no designation status be designated as belonging to the network. The decision shall be communicated to the Commission. If the Commission considers that the airport is no longer of interest for the network, the Member State, after consulting the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4, shall change the designation of the airport to that of an airport with no designation status.

Reason

The definition of a ‘network airport’ as in the EC’s current proposals is very broad and gives powers to the Commission, which would be able to make subjective decisions as to whether an airport has ‘an impact on the functioning of the European air-traffic management network’. In particular regional airports are more likely to experience ‘a sudden and significant increase in traffic’ and so the concept of a ‘network airport’ and its associated obligations should be removed or at the very least more tightly defined. No justification for the introduction of this paragraph since the concept of network airports has no relevance to this regulation.

Amendment 12

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 3 (10)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| If a decision is taken under paragraphs 6, 8 or 9, the Member State shall communicate it to the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4 no later than 1 April for the winter scheduling period and no later than 1 September for the summer scheduling period. | If a decision is taken under paragraphs 6, the Member State shall communicate it to the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4 no later than 1 April for the winter scheduling period and no later than 1 September for the summer scheduling period. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

If a decision is taken under paragraphs 6, 8 or 9, the Member State shall communicate it to the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4 no later than 1 April for the winter scheduling period and no later than 1 September for the summer scheduling period.

If a decision is taken under paragraphs 6, the Member State shall communicate it to the bodies mentioned in paragraph 4 no later than 1 April for the winter scheduling period and no later than 1 September for the summer scheduling period.

Reason

See Amendment 11.

Amendment 13

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 5 (1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Member State responsible for a network airport, a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport shall ensure the appointment of a qualified natural or legal person as schedules facilitator or airport coordinator, after having consulted the air carriers using the airport regularly, their representative organisations and the managing body of the airport and the coordination committee, where such a committee exists. The same schedules facilitator or coordinator may be appointed for more than one airport. | The Member State responsible for a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport shall ensure the appointment of a qualified natural or legal person as schedules facilitator or airport coordinator, after having consulted the air carriers using the airport regularly, their representative organisations and the managing body of the airport and the coordination committee, where such a committee exists. The same schedules facilitator or coordinator may be appointed for more than one airport. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Member State responsible for a network airport, a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport shall ensure the appointment of a qualified natural or legal person as schedules facilitator or airport coordinator, after having consulted the air carriers using the airport regularly, their representative organisations and the managing body of the airport and the coordination committee, where such a committee exists. The same schedules facilitator or coordinator may be appointed for more than one airport.

The Member State responsible for a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport shall ensure the appointment of a qualified natural or legal person as schedules facilitator or airport coordinator, after having consulted the air carriers using the airport regularly, their representative organisations and the managing body of the airport and the coordination committee, where such a committee exists. The same schedules facilitator or coordinator may be appointed for more than one airport.

Reason

The Member States and not the European Commission are responsible for all their airports, no matter whether they are schedule facilitated or coordinated.

Amendment 14

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 6

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 6
  Transparency of coordination activities and schedules facilitation | Article 6
  Transparency of coordination activities and schedules facilitation |
| 1.   At the end of each scheduling period, he coordinator or schedules facilitator shall submit to the Member States concerned and to the Commission an activity report describing the general slot allocation and/or schedules facilitation situation, examining, in particular, the application of Article 9(5) and Articles and , as well as any complaints regarding the application of Articles and 10 submitted to the coordination committee and the steps taken to resolve them. The report shall also contain the results of a survey conducted among the interested parties on the quality of services provided by the coordinator. | 1.   At the end of each scheduling period, he coordinator or schedules facilitator shall submit to the Member States concerned and to the Commission an activity report describing the general slot allocation and/or schedules facilitation situation, examining, in particular, the application of Article 9(5) and Articles and , as well as any complaints regarding the application of Articles and 10 submitted to the coordination committee and the steps taken to resolve them. The report shall also contain the results of a survey conducted among the interested parties on the quality of services provided by the coordinator. |
| 2.   The Commission may adopt a template for the activity report mentioned in paragraph 1. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). | 2.   The Commission may adopt a template for the activity report mentioned in paragraph 1. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). |
| 3.   The coordinator shall maintain an up-to-date, freely-accessible electronic database, containing the following information: | 3.   The coordinator shall maintain an up-to-date, freely-accessible electronic database, containing the following information: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 6

Transparency of coordination activities and schedules facilitation

Article 6

Transparency of coordination activities and schedules facilitation

1.   At the end of each scheduling period, he coordinator or schedules facilitator shall submit to the Member States concerned and to the Commission an activity report describing the general slot allocation and/or schedules facilitation situation, examining, in particular, the application of Article 9(5) and Articles and , as well as any complaints regarding the application of Articles and 10 submitted to the coordination committee and the steps taken to resolve them. The report shall also contain the results of a survey conducted among the interested parties on the quality of services provided by the coordinator.

1.   At the end of each scheduling period, he coordinator or schedules facilitator shall submit to the Member States concerned and to the Commission an activity report describing the general slot allocation and/or schedules facilitation situation, examining, in particular, the application of Article 9(5) and Articles and , as well as any complaints regarding the application of Articles and 10 submitted to the coordination committee and the steps taken to resolve them. The report shall also contain the results of a survey conducted among the interested parties on the quality of services provided by the coordinator.

2.   The Commission may adopt a template for the activity report mentioned in paragraph 1. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2).

2.   The Commission may adopt a template for the activity report mentioned in paragraph 1. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2).

3.   The coordinator shall maintain an up-to-date, freely-accessible electronic database, containing the following information:

3.   The coordinator shall maintain an up-to-date, freely-accessible electronic database, containing the following information:

Reason

As regards accessibility and transparency of information, Article 6 of the draft regulation stipulates that the coordinator shall have a freely-accessible electronic database. It should be spelt out that this information should be accessible to everyone and not just airports and air carriers. Under the previous regulation ((EEC) 95/93), this information was restricted to ‘interested parties [airlines], in particular to members or observers of the coordination committee’, with no reference made to other interested parties such as regional administrations. This has already been corrected in the proposal (see final paragraph struck out on page 33 of COM(2011) 827 final). However, it must be stipulated expressly that the information in the database should be accessible to any interested third party (local administrations, university study and research centres or even consultancies which at the end of the day are working to improve public policies and business initiatives). Opening up the database to these groups in no way undermines the rules of free competition, nor does it affect the confidentiality and discretion required in business strategies, given that all of this information is already available beforehand to airlines. At the same time, information and communication technologies allow this information to be stored and made available immediately to any interested party either free of change or at a low cost. This information should therefore be made available to the public as a valuable tool not only to make the way in which slots are distributed more transparent, but also to support scheduling and planning within the industries concerned (hotel establishments, leisure, the restaurant industry) and facilitate coordination of administrative responsibilities, such as planning of tourist promotion campaigns by regional authorities and negotiating strategies with wholesale operators.

Amendment 15

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 7 (1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Air carriers operating or intending to operate at a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport belonging to the network shall submit to the schedules facilitator or coordinator all relevant information requested by them. ⇨If this information changes, the air carriers shall inform the schedules facilitator and the coordinator as soon as possible. ⇦ All relevant information shall be provided in the format and within the time-limit specified by the schedules facilitator or coordinator. In particular, an air carrier shall inform the coordinator, at the time of the request for allocation, whether it would benefit from the status of new entrant, in accordance with Article 2(2), in respect of requested slots. | Air carriers operating or intending to operate at a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport shall submit to the schedules facilitator or coordinator all relevant information requested by them. ⇨If this information changes, the air carriers shall inform the schedules facilitator and the coordinator as soon as possible. ⇦ All relevant information shall be provided in the format and within the time-limit specified by the schedules facilitator or coordinator. In particular, an air carrier shall inform the coordinator, at the time of the request for allocation, whether it would benefit from the status of new entrant, in accordance with Article 2(2), in respect of requested slots. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Air carriers operating or intending to operate at a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport belonging to the network shall submit to the schedules facilitator or coordinator all relevant information requested by them. ⇨If this information changes, the air carriers shall inform the schedules facilitator and the coordinator as soon as possible. ⇦ All relevant information shall be provided in the format and within the time-limit specified by the schedules facilitator or coordinator. In particular, an air carrier shall inform the coordinator, at the time of the request for allocation, whether it would benefit from the status of new entrant, in accordance with Article 2(2), in respect of requested slots.

Air carriers operating or intending to operate at a schedules facilitated or coordinated airport shall submit to the schedules facilitator or coordinator all relevant information requested by them. ⇨If this information changes, the air carriers shall inform the schedules facilitator and the coordinator as soon as possible. ⇦ All relevant information shall be provided in the format and within the time-limit specified by the schedules facilitator or coordinator. In particular, an air carrier shall inform the coordinator, at the time of the request for allocation, whether it would benefit from the status of new entrant, in accordance with Article 2(2), in respect of requested slots.

Reason

See Amendment 11

Amendment 16

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 8 (1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| At a coordinated airport, the Member State responsible shall ensure that a coordination committee is set up. The same coordination committee may be designated for more than one airport. Membership of this committee shall be open at least to the air carriers using the airport(s) in question regularly and their representative organisations, the managing body of the airport concerned, the relevant air traffic control authorities, the representatives of general aviation using the airport regularly, the network manager, the performance review body and the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned. | At a coordinated airport, the Member State responsible shall ensure that a coordination committee is set up. The same coordination committee may be designated for more than one airport. Membership of this committee shall be open at least to the air carriers using the airport(s) in question regularly and their representative organisations, the managing body of the airport concerned, the relevant air traffic control authorities, the representatives of general aviation using the airport regularly, the network manager, the performance review body and the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

At a coordinated airport, the Member State responsible shall ensure that a coordination committee is set up. The same coordination committee may be designated for more than one airport. Membership of this committee shall be open at least to the air carriers using the airport(s) in question regularly and their representative organisations, the managing body of the airport concerned, the relevant air traffic control authorities, the representatives of general aviation using the airport regularly, the network manager, the performance review body and the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned.

At a coordinated airport, the Member State responsible shall ensure that a coordination committee is set up. The same coordination committee may be designated for more than one airport. Membership of this committee shall be open at least to the air carriers using the airport(s) in question regularly and their representative organisations, the managing body of the airport concerned, the relevant air traffic control authorities, the representatives of general aviation using the airport regularly, the network manager, the performance review body and the national supervisory authority of the Member State concerned.

Reason

Requiring representatives of local or regional government to be included in the coordination committee would not be appropriate. The Member States are already required to appoint representatives of the national supervisory authority to the committee. There should only be local/regional participation when special circumstances so require.

Amendment 17

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 9 (8)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The coordinator shall also take into account additional guidelines established by the air transport industry world-wide or Union-wide as well as local guidelines proposed by the coordination committee and approved by the Member State or any other competent body responsible for the airport in question, provided that such guidelines do not affect the independent status of the coordinator, comply with Union law, aim at improving the efficient use of airport capacity and have been notified in advance to and pre-approved by the Commission. | The coordinator shall also take into account additional guidelines established by the air transport industry world-wide or Union-wide as well as local guidelines proposed by the coordination committee and approved by the Member State or any other competent body responsible for the airport in question, provided that such guidelines do not affect the independent status of the coordinator, comply with Union law, and aim at improving the efficient use of airport capacity |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The coordinator shall also take into account additional guidelines established by the air transport industry world-wide or Union-wide as well as local guidelines proposed by the coordination committee and approved by the Member State or any other competent body responsible for the airport in question, provided that such guidelines do not affect the independent status of the coordinator, comply with Union law, aim at improving the efficient use of airport capacity and have been notified in advance to and pre-approved by the Commission.

The coordinator shall also take into account additional guidelines established by the air transport industry world-wide or Union-wide as well as local guidelines proposed by the coordination committee and approved by the Member State or any other competent body responsible for the airport in question, provided that such guidelines do not affect the independent status of the coordinator, comply with Union law, and aim at improving the efficient use of airport capacity

Reason

Local rules do exist and are essential to take into account specific/local circumstances at a given local airport (for example, environment, accessibility, geographical diversity, special weather conditions). In the same way that local situations and specifics must be taken into account when considering operating restrictions with regards to Noise, so too must specific circumstances be taken into account when allocating slots, to ensure that a regulatory framework is flexible enough to truly deliver optimal and efficient use of capacity at individual airports.

Amendment 18

Allocation of slots (in relation to COM(2011) 827 final)

Article 12 (1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Where public service obligations have been imposed on a route in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, a Member State may reserve the slots required for the operations envisaged on that route at a coordinated airport. If the reserved slots on the route concerned are not used, they shall be made available to any other air carrier interested in operating the route in accordance with the public service obligations, subject to paragraph 2. If no other carrier is interested in operating the route and the Member State concerned does not issue a call for tenders under Article 16(10), Article 17(3) to (7), and Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the slots shall either be reserved for another route subject to public service obligations or be returned to the pool. | Where public service obligations have been imposed on a route in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, a Member State may reserve the slots required for the operations envisaged on that route at a coordinated airport. If the reserved slots on the route concerned are not used, they shall be made available to any other air carrier interested in operating the route in accordance with the public service obligations, subject to paragraph 2. If no other carrier is interested in operating the route and the Member State concerned does not issue a call for tenders under Article 16(10), Article 17(3) to (7), and Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the slots shall either be reserved for another route subject to public service obligations or be returned to the pool. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Where public service obligations have been imposed on a route in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, a Member State may reserve the slots required for the operations envisaged on that route at a coordinated airport. If the reserved slots on the route concerned are not used, they shall be made available to any other air carrier interested in operating the route in accordance with the public service obligations, subject to paragraph 2. If no other carrier is interested in operating the route and the Member State concerned does not issue a call for tenders under Article 16(10), Article 17(3) to (7), and Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the slots shall either be reserved for another route subject to public service obligations or be returned to the pool.

Where public service obligations have been imposed on a route in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, a Member State may reserve the slots required for the operations envisaged on that route at a coordinated airport. If the reserved slots on the route concerned are not used, they shall be made available to any other air carrier interested in operating the route in accordance with the public service obligations, subject to paragraph 2. If no other carrier is interested in operating the route and the Member State concerned does not issue a call for tenders under Article 16(10), Article 17(3) to (7), and Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, the slots shall either be reserved for another route subject to public service obligations or be returned to the pool.

Reason

Stricter reservation requirements are not necessary. The draft regulation already provides the Member States with sufficient reservation rights. Provided that there are no public service obligations, there should be no provision for reservation rights for island airports, so as not to impede competition unnecessarily.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/125 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/125

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Connecting Europe facility’

2012/C 277/12

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | recalls the importance of the European policy in the field of transport, energy and telecommunications as a key instrument to ensure the increase of the competitiveness of cities and regions and contribute to the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion within the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

recalls the importance of the European policy in the field of transport, energy and telecommunications as a key instrument to ensure the increase of the competitiveness of cities and regions and contribute to the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion within the EU;

| — | supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a single funding instrument for the transport, energy and telecommunications sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a single funding instrument for the transport, energy and telecommunications sector;

| — | welcomes its focus on filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections as well as the introduction of innovative financial instruments, in order to ensure the highest leverage effect of public spending and delivering higher added value for EU citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes its focus on filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections as well as the introduction of innovative financial instruments, in order to ensure the highest leverage effect of public spending and delivering higher added value for EU citizens;

| — | calls for implementation to take place in close cooperation with Member States, local and regional authorities and the actors on the ground in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; |
| --- | --- |

—

calls for implementation to take place in close cooperation with Member States, local and regional authorities and the actors on the ground in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

| — | considers that the implementation should also be in line with the objectives of both the Europe 2020 strategy and the Cohesion policy, and in complementarity and consistency with the Cohesion Policy Funds; |
| --- | --- |

—

considers that the implementation should also be in line with the objectives of both the Europe 2020 strategy and the Cohesion policy, and in complementarity and consistency with the Cohesion Policy Funds;

| — | insists that the funding is fairly allocated between all EU Member States and regions whilst taking into account the specific territorial circumstances of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

—

insists that the funding is fairly allocated between all EU Member States and regions whilst taking into account the specific territorial circumstances of the EU;

| — | asks the European Commission to clarify that the EUR 10 bn to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund respect the Cohesion Fund Regulation, including national quotas applying to Member States. |
| --- | --- |

—

asks the European Commission to clarify that the EUR 10 bn to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund respect the Cohesion Fund Regulation, including national quotas applying to Member States.

| Rapporteur | Ivan ŽAGAR (SI/EPP), Mayor of Slovenska Bistrica |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents | | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility
  COM(2011) 665 final/3 – 2011/0302 (COD) |

Rapporteur

Ivan ŽAGAR (SI/EPP), Mayor of Slovenska Bistrica

Reference documents

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility

COM(2011) 665 final/3 – 2011/0302 (COD)

| | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks
  COM(2011)659 final/2 – 2011/0301 (COD) |
| --- | --- |

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks

COM(2011)659 final/2 – 2011/0301 (COD)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General assessment

| 1. | recalls that the European policy of transport, telecommunications and digital facilities should be conceived as a key instrument to ensure the increase of the competitiveness of cities and regions, the free movement of goods and persons, the integration of the Single Market and economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU and its connection to the rest of the world; |
| --- | --- |

1.

recalls that the European policy of transport, telecommunications and digital facilities should be conceived as a key instrument to ensure the increase of the competitiveness of cities and regions, the free movement of goods and persons, the integration of the Single Market and economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU and its connection to the rest of the world;

| 2. | welcomes the potential role of the Connecting Europe Facility to boost growth and jobs and make Europe more competitive (1) and supports the focus of the Commission on filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections; |
| --- | --- |

2.

welcomes the potential role of the Connecting Europe Facility to boost growth and jobs and make Europe more competitive (1) and supports the focus of the Commission on filling in missing links, removing bottlenecks and providing adequate cross-border connections;

| 3. | supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a funding instrument, for the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors; |
| --- | --- |

3.

supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a funding instrument, for the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors;

| 4. | calls for implementation to take place in close cooperation with Member States, local and regional authorities and the actors on the ground in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; |
| --- | --- |

4.

calls for implementation to take place in close cooperation with Member States, local and regional authorities and the actors on the ground in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

| 5. | calls for a more transparent, coherent and simplified approach to EU financing able to attract the private sector financing which is nowadays necessary to achieve the EU's objectives; |
| --- | --- |

5.

calls for a more transparent, coherent and simplified approach to EU financing able to attract the private sector financing which is nowadays necessary to achieve the EU's objectives;

| 6. | considers that the implementation of the CEF should also contribute to the strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion objectives and should be interconnected with the Cohesion Policy Funds so that they complement and are consistent with each other; |
| --- | --- |

6.

considers that the implementation of the CEF should also contribute to the strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion objectives and should be interconnected with the Cohesion Policy Funds so that they complement and are consistent with each other;

| 7. | welcomes the Commission's proposals to earmark EUR 10 billion from Cohesion Fund in the CEF to support coordinated transport infrastructure projects implementation on the TEN-T core network in the Cohesion Member States; stresses the need to respect, to the greatest possible extent, the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund, in order to ensure favourable financial support conditions, as provided by the Cohesion Fund, for all types of eligible projects, including road cross-border projects; |
| --- | --- |

7.

welcomes the Commission's proposals to earmark EUR 10 billion from Cohesion Fund in the CEF to support coordinated transport infrastructure projects implementation on the TEN-T core network in the Cohesion Member States; stresses the need to respect, to the greatest possible extent, the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund, in order to ensure favourable financial support conditions, as provided by the Cohesion Fund, for all types of eligible projects, including road cross-border projects;

| 8. | considers that CEF projects should follow the priorities of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth – the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; |
| --- | --- |

8.

considers that CEF projects should follow the priorities of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth – the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

| 9. | underlines the difficulty for many Member States of developing by themselves complex cross-border transport infrastructure projects, while at EU level there is a critical mass of demand for more synergies between various financing programmes and policy sectors which must ensure the highest leverage effect of the public spending that carries higher added value for the EU citizens; |
| --- | --- |

9.

underlines the difficulty for many Member States of developing by themselves complex cross-border transport infrastructure projects, while at EU level there is a critical mass of demand for more synergies between various financing programmes and policy sectors which must ensure the highest leverage effect of the public spending that carries higher added value for the EU citizens;

Legal framework

CEF - General context

| 10. | supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a single funding instrument for the transport, energy and telecommunication sectors; |
| --- | --- |

10.

supports the creation of the new Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument as a common legal framework and as a single funding instrument for the transport, energy and telecommunication sectors;

| 11. | underlines that in the framework of transport projects, we should consider their inter-linkages with other forms of transport concerning hubs, e.g. air transport, the underground/metro, etc.; access to a fast broadband network and services must be provided, particularly in areas that are not commercially attractive, such as low population-density rural areas, where ICT can make it easier to provide public services and contribute to preserving the rural population and to territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

11.

underlines that in the framework of transport projects, we should consider their inter-linkages with other forms of transport concerning hubs, e.g. air transport, the underground/metro, etc.; access to a fast broadband network and services must be provided, particularly in areas that are not commercially attractive, such as low population-density rural areas, where ICT can make it easier to provide public services and contribute to preserving the rural population and to territorial cohesion;

| 12. | would like the treatment of regions with a different development index to be clarified so that they reflect specific territorial circumstances of the EU, including regions with severe and permanent demographic and natural handicaps and the outermost dimension, and cover Europe's regions in a balanced way; |
| --- | --- |

12.

would like the treatment of regions with a different development index to be clarified so that they reflect specific territorial circumstances of the EU, including regions with severe and permanent demographic and natural handicaps and the outermost dimension, and cover Europe's regions in a balanced way;

Sectoral objectives

| 13. | supports the efforts to promote clean and sustainable transport systems, especially rail and maritime transport, which are effective and competitive modes that must be equipped with proper infrastructure and organised services. In order to ensure that these sustainable modes of transport function smoothly, it is also necessary to develop inland logistical hubs providing optimum intermodal exchange and overall system efficiency; |
| --- | --- |

13.

supports the efforts to promote clean and sustainable transport systems, especially rail and maritime transport, which are effective and competitive modes that must be equipped with proper infrastructure and organised services. In order to ensure that these sustainable modes of transport function smoothly, it is also necessary to develop inland logistical hubs providing optimum intermodal exchange and overall system efficiency;

| 14. | feels that due account must be taken of the particular circumstances of a range of areas in the EU, including regions in the new Member States where infrastructure has to date been poorly developed and has lacked adequate funding, especially where this brings major regional added value, for instance for cross-border transport; |
| --- | --- |

14.

feels that due account must be taken of the particular circumstances of a range of areas in the EU, including regions in the new Member States where infrastructure has to date been poorly developed and has lacked adequate funding, especially where this brings major regional added value, for instance for cross-border transport;

| 15. | stresses the need to promote the interconnection of energy networks and the functioning of the internal energy market in the EU as well as to acknowledge the EU's energy independency as one of the key priorities of this instrument and to bolster the security of supply; |
| --- | --- |

15.

stresses the need to promote the interconnection of energy networks and the functioning of the internal energy market in the EU as well as to acknowledge the EU's energy independency as one of the key priorities of this instrument and to bolster the security of supply;

| 16. | stresses the fact that the investments in the telecommunication broadband network and digital service infrastructure platforms are essential to achieving the EU's Digital Agenda and contributing to the EU 2020 objectives as well as to delivering European public services; |
| --- | --- |

16.

stresses the fact that the investments in the telecommunication broadband network and digital service infrastructure platforms are essential to achieving the EU's Digital Agenda and contributing to the EU 2020 objectives as well as to delivering European public services;

Budgetary issues

| 17. | welcomes the creation of CEF instrument and its financial resources which must not be called into question, in order to ensure the CEF's effectiveness and leverage effect on other sources of public and private finance. But warns against any attempt that could be to the detriment of the Structural Funds; |
| --- | --- |

17.

welcomes the creation of CEF instrument and its financial resources which must not be called into question, in order to ensure the CEF's effectiveness and leverage effect on other sources of public and private finance. But warns against any attempt that could be to the detriment of the Structural Funds;

| 18. | is concerned, owing to the state on the financial markets, about the expected impact and leverage effect of the CEF funding measures on the regional and local public financing planned for infrastructure investment; |
| --- | --- |

18.

is concerned, owing to the state on the financial markets, about the expected impact and leverage effect of the CEF funding measures on the regional and local public financing planned for infrastructure investment;

| 19. | insists that the funding is fairly allocated between all EU Member States and regions, and takes into account the quality and added-value of CEF funded projects in transport, energy and telecommunications networks for the weakest regions, including those suffering from permanent geographical and natural handicaps, very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions, with due consideration for effectiveness and the leverage effect of the proposed projects; |
| --- | --- |

19.

insists that the funding is fairly allocated between all EU Member States and regions, and takes into account the quality and added-value of CEF funded projects in transport, energy and telecommunications networks for the weakest regions, including those suffering from permanent geographical and natural handicaps, very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions, with due consideration for effectiveness and the leverage effect of the proposed projects;

| 20. | asks the European Commission to clarify that the EUR 10bn, to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund, respect the Cohesion Fund Regulation, including the national quotas applying to Members States; |
| --- | --- |

20.

asks the European Commission to clarify that the EUR 10bn, to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund, respect the Cohesion Fund Regulation, including the national quotas applying to Members States;

| 21. | stresses the fact that eligibility rules shall be extended concerning administrative costs; |
| --- | --- |

21.

stresses the fact that eligibility rules shall be extended concerning administrative costs;

Forms of financing and financial provisions

| 22. | supports a more transparent, coherent and simplified approach to EU financing in order to attract private sector financing; therefore requests that administrative costs be added to eligible expenses so that the objectives can be achieved more effectively and stresses that new funding sources shall by no means replace traditional EU financing, but rather complement it; |
| --- | --- |

22.

supports a more transparent, coherent and simplified approach to EU financing in order to attract private sector financing; therefore requests that administrative costs be added to eligible expenses so that the objectives can be achieved more effectively and stresses that new funding sources shall by no means replace traditional EU financing, but rather complement it;

| 23. | welcomes the introduction of innovative financial instruments, particularly the use of EU project bonds, which will attract private investors and stimulate public-private partnerships in the EU. Considering the state of financial markets, the guarantee for these bonds should lie with the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

23.

welcomes the introduction of innovative financial instruments, particularly the use of EU project bonds, which will attract private investors and stimulate public-private partnerships in the EU. Considering the state of financial markets, the guarantee for these bonds should lie with the Commission;

| 24. | asks the Commission to foresee capacity building measures for the use of innovative financial instruments, in order to support participation of public authorities who do not have the required expertise, especially at regional and local level; welcomes the adoption on 6 July 2012 of the Regulation launching the 2012-2013 pilot phase of the EU project bonds initiative aimed at mobilising up to EUR 4,5 billion in private sector financing for key strategic infrastructure projects (2); supports that if successful, the pilot phase will be followed by an operational phase during 2014-2020 under the EU's Connecting Europe Facility; |
| --- | --- |

24.

asks the Commission to foresee capacity building measures for the use of innovative financial instruments, in order to support participation of public authorities who do not have the required expertise, especially at regional and local level; welcomes the adoption on 6 July 2012 of the Regulation launching the 2012-2013 pilot phase of the EU project bonds initiative aimed at mobilising up to EUR 4,5 billion in private sector financing for key strategic infrastructure projects (2); supports that if successful, the pilot phase will be followed by an operational phase during 2014-2020 under the EU's Connecting Europe Facility;

Grants

| 25. | welcomes working programmes as instruments using the form of grants used in case of particular measures; |
| --- | --- |

25.

welcomes working programmes as instruments using the form of grants used in case of particular measures;

| 26. | states that eligibility of expenditure, as defined by CEF, can be a limiting factor in implementation of projects; therefore it should be modified in terms of eligibility dates and particular items of eligible costs, such as preparation costs, not recoverable VAT, land purchase; |
| --- | --- |

26.

states that eligibility of expenditure, as defined by CEF, can be a limiting factor in implementation of projects; therefore it should be modified in terms of eligibility dates and particular items of eligible costs, such as preparation costs, not recoverable VAT, land purchase;

| 27. | is concerned about the fact that all proposals for grants shall be subject to agreement solely by Member States. Therefore the Committee of the Regions asks for local and regional authorities to be part of the process of selection when appropriate and according to their legal competences; |
| --- | --- |

27.

is concerned about the fact that all proposals for grants shall be subject to agreement solely by Member States. Therefore the Committee of the Regions asks for local and regional authorities to be part of the process of selection when appropriate and according to their legal competences;

| 28. | stresses that, considering the current situation faced by local and regional authorities, beneficiaries will not be able to start their works in time. Consequently, provisions concerning cancellation of the projects shall not be too restrictive, and therefore allow a three years period instead of two years proposed by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

28.

stresses that, considering the current situation faced by local and regional authorities, beneficiaries will not be able to start their works in time. Consequently, provisions concerning cancellation of the projects shall not be too restrictive, and therefore allow a three years period instead of two years proposed by the European Commission;

Procurement

| 29. | recalls that the 10 billion Euros to be ring-fenced from the Cohesion Fund shall be managed under the rules of direct management and not under the ‘first come first served principle’; stresses that a ‘first come, first served’ approach may risk accentuating the imbalance of the EU Cohesion countries which face more difficulties regarding administrative, human and financial conditions which may become an obstacle for some Member States and Regions to present mature projects; |
| --- | --- |

29.

recalls that the 10 billion Euros to be ring-fenced from the Cohesion Fund shall be managed under the rules of direct management and not under the ‘first come first served principle’; stresses that a ‘first come, first served’ approach may risk accentuating the imbalance of the EU Cohesion countries which face more difficulties regarding administrative, human and financial conditions which may become an obstacle for some Member States and Regions to present mature projects;

| 30. | proposes that the rules for the eligibility of expenditure of the EUR 10bn to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund should be in line with the regulation applying to this Fund; |
| --- | --- |

30.

proposes that the rules for the eligibility of expenditure of the EUR 10bn to be transferred from the Cohesion Fund should be in line with the regulation applying to this Fund;

Financial instruments

| 31. | asks that, without prejudice to the issues of competence, the financial support of projects beneath the level of trans- European networks must comply with the principle of subsidiarity; |
| --- | --- |

31.

asks that, without prejudice to the issues of competence, the financial support of projects beneath the level of trans- European networks must comply with the principle of subsidiarity;

Programming, implementation and control

| 32. | supports multiannual work programmes that shall be communicated to all parties concerned. In line with the principles of multilevel governance, preparation of work programmes should involve partners at all levels; |
| --- | --- |

32.

supports multiannual work programmes that shall be communicated to all parties concerned. In line with the principles of multilevel governance, preparation of work programmes should involve partners at all levels;

Multi-level governance

| 33. | stresses that local and regional authorities are legally responsible for many of the areas covered by the CEF and are directly affected by the proposed measures to finance Trans-European transport, energy and telecommunication infrastructures; it is therefore imperative that the principles of multilevel governance are respected to ensure balanced territorial development; |
| --- | --- |

33.

stresses that local and regional authorities are legally responsible for many of the areas covered by the CEF and are directly affected by the proposed measures to finance Trans-European transport, energy and telecommunication infrastructures; it is therefore imperative that the principles of multilevel governance are respected to ensure balanced territorial development;

| 34. | considers that the CEF proposal does not appear to raise any issue regarding its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity (3); recalls that, due to their scale and effects, CEF projects may involve trans-national dimension and therefore they have to be achieved at the most appropriate level: EU, national, regional or local; |
| --- | --- |

34.

considers that the CEF proposal does not appear to raise any issue regarding its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity (3); recalls that, due to their scale and effects, CEF projects may involve trans-national dimension and therefore they have to be achieved at the most appropriate level: EU, national, regional or local;

| 35. | insists that the regional and local authorities and other relevant stakeholders need to be included in the decision-making and planning process within the Member States concerning the CEF's indicative list of projects that could potentially be financed; |
| --- | --- |

35.

insists that the regional and local authorities and other relevant stakeholders need to be included in the decision-making and planning process within the Member States concerning the CEF's indicative list of projects that could potentially be financed;

| 36. | insists that local and regional authorities should be informed as early as possible of the CEF proposals and be actively supported to integrate them in project preparation and territorial strategies for development. It is also crucial that all stakeholders in the individual regions cooperate in the preparation of future CEF projects and their implementation; |
| --- | --- |

36.

insists that local and regional authorities should be informed as early as possible of the CEF proposals and be actively supported to integrate them in project preparation and territorial strategies for development. It is also crucial that all stakeholders in the individual regions cooperate in the preparation of future CEF projects and their implementation;

| 37. | is of the opinion that strategic measures to encourage regional and national authorities need to be developed to prepare the lists of proposed investments in the fields of energy and telecommunication by the end of 2012, as only this way will enough time be left for individual Member States to prepare their project documentation; |
| --- | --- |

37.

is of the opinion that strategic measures to encourage regional and national authorities need to be developed to prepare the lists of proposed investments in the fields of energy and telecommunication by the end of 2012, as only this way will enough time be left for individual Member States to prepare their project documentation;

Management and implementation

| 38. | stresses that new technologies (e.g. infrastructure for alternative fuels) have higher entry barriers than traditional infrastructure such as road and rail and therefore grants shall be enabled up to 50 % instead of 20 %; |
| --- | --- |

38.

stresses that new technologies (e.g. infrastructure for alternative fuels) have higher entry barriers than traditional infrastructure such as road and rail and therefore grants shall be enabled up to 50 % instead of 20 %;

| 39. | stresses that the implementation of the CEF by the European Commission's executive agency as management authority should be carried out in close cooperation with other relevant public authorities. Additional costs for establishment and operation of the agency should be avoided; |
| --- | --- |

39.

stresses that the implementation of the CEF by the European Commission's executive agency as management authority should be carried out in close cooperation with other relevant public authorities. Additional costs for establishment and operation of the agency should be avoided;

| 40. | underlines that the rules regulating CEF funds need to be defined, when individual partners from different Member States are not able to reach an agreement on the implementation of an individual project; |
| --- | --- |

40.

underlines that the rules regulating CEF funds need to be defined, when individual partners from different Member States are not able to reach an agreement on the implementation of an individual project;

| 41. | consequently suggests that the EC analyse the usefulness of the EGTC in order to cope with potential difficulties in the implementation of cross-border projects due to different national legislations and the combination of different financial sources defined in various regulations; |
| --- | --- |

41.

consequently suggests that the EC analyse the usefulness of the EGTC in order to cope with potential difficulties in the implementation of cross-border projects due to different national legislations and the combination of different financial sources defined in various regulations;

Compliance with other EU policies – Cohesion Policy

| 42. | highlights the need to ensure a coherent compatibility between projects financed through Structural and Cohesion funds and CEF and the expected impact of the CEF on the smaller projects; |
| --- | --- |

42.

highlights the need to ensure a coherent compatibility between projects financed through Structural and Cohesion funds and CEF and the expected impact of the CEF on the smaller projects;

| 43. | asks the Commission to provide clear measures that guarantee coordination and compatibility between the regulations applying to Structural Funds, especially when it comes to the drafting of the Common Strategic Framework and Partnership Contracts, but also concerning the eligibility rules and possible overlapping of funded projects; |
| --- | --- |

43.

asks the Commission to provide clear measures that guarantee coordination and compatibility between the regulations applying to Structural Funds, especially when it comes to the drafting of the Common Strategic Framework and Partnership Contracts, but also concerning the eligibility rules and possible overlapping of funded projects;

| 44. | draws attention to the impact of the CEF on the territorial planning and regional and local development strategies and supports capacity-building measures to support regional and local authorities to be best prepared for being able to put forward mature projects to be financed through CEF; |
| --- | --- |

44.

draws attention to the impact of the CEF on the territorial planning and regional and local development strategies and supports capacity-building measures to support regional and local authorities to be best prepared for being able to put forward mature projects to be financed through CEF;

| 45. | insists that the operational programmes and regulations for the 2014-2020 programme period are approved on time, so that project implementation could start at the beginning of 2014; |
| --- | --- |

45.

insists that the operational programmes and regulations for the 2014-2020 programme period are approved on time, so that project implementation could start at the beginning of 2014;

General and final provisions

| 46. | supports the Commission's proposal to move towards a more results-oriented approach by using clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators agreed in advance. A few clear and reliable indicators should be defined. Indicators should be general, fair, proportional and based on the principle of equal treatment. Strategic planning instruments will therefore need to be available to LRAs with the purpose of avoiding additional administrative burden concerning reporting, adding a need for evaluation that includes impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

46.

supports the Commission's proposal to move towards a more results-oriented approach by using clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators agreed in advance. A few clear and reliable indicators should be defined. Indicators should be general, fair, proportional and based on the principle of equal treatment. Strategic planning instruments will therefore need to be available to LRAs with the purpose of avoiding additional administrative burden concerning reporting, adding a need for evaluation that includes impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion;

| 47. | asks that Member States make more use of the technical help that is available for operational programmes in order to improve the capacities of local and regional bodies and other participants for drawing of EU funds. In the framework of the CEF instrument it is especially important that the less developed Member States also prepare quality projects with the help of technical assistance resources and can, thus, be an equal candidate in comparison to other Member States when applying for the calls for proposals for EU co-financing; |
| --- | --- |

47.

asks that Member States make more use of the technical help that is available for operational programmes in order to improve the capacities of local and regional bodies and other participants for drawing of EU funds. In the framework of the CEF instrument it is especially important that the less developed Member States also prepare quality projects with the help of technical assistance resources and can, thus, be an equal candidate in comparison to other Member States when applying for the calls for proposals for EU co-financing;

| 48. | seeks a more detailed definition with regard to preparing project documentation, preparing projects, initiating procedures and the applications of individual participants (division of tasks between national bodies and regional and local authorities) in the framework of the CEF instrument. |
| --- | --- |

48.

seeks a more detailed definition with regard to preparing project documentation, preparing projects, initiating procedures and the applications of individual participants (division of tasks between national bodies and regional and local authorities) in the framework of the CEF instrument.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

COM(2011) 665 final/3

Amendment 1

Add a new recital after recital 2

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

Social and territorial cohesion in Europe depends largely on the EU's ability to achieve balance between different areas and keep them well-connected. When structuring Europe's regions around major, environmentally-sustainable transport networks, account must be taken not only of the need to link up areas that are already developed: communication links must also themselves provide a focus that boosts the most socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Implementing Connecting Europe facilities must also be a key factor in territorial spatial planning and balance between regions.

Amendment 2

Article 3(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by developing modern and high performing trans-European networks, thus bringing forward benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Single Market and creating an environment more conducive to private and public investment through a combination of financial instruments and Union direct support and by exploiting synergies across the sectors. | contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by developing modern and high performing trans-European networks, thus bringing forward benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Single Market and creating an environment more conducive to private and public investment through a combination of financial instruments and Union direct support and by exploiting synergies across the sectors. |
| [...] | [...] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by developing modern and high performing trans-European networks, thus bringing forward benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Single Market and creating an environment more conducive to private and public investment through a combination of financial instruments and Union direct support and by exploiting synergies across the sectors.

contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by developing modern and high performing trans-European networks, thus bringing forward benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Single Market and creating an environment more conducive to private and public investment through a combination of financial instruments and Union direct support and by exploiting synergies across the sectors.

[...]

[...]

Reason

See point 12.

Amendment 3

Article 5(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The financial envelope of the Connecting Europe Facility may cover expenses pertaining to, preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities which are required for the management of the Programme and the achievement of its objectives, in particular studies, meetings of experts, as far as they are related to the general objectives of this Regulation, expenses linked to IT networks focusing on information processing and exchange, together with all other technical and administrative assistance expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme. | The financial envelope of the Connecting Europe Facility may cover expenses pertaining to, preparatory, monitoring, control, audit evaluation activities which are required for the management of the Programme and the achievement of its objectives, in particular studies, meetings of experts, as far as they are related to the general objectives of this Regulation, expenses linked to IT networks focusing on information processing and exchange, together with all other technical and administrative assistance expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme. |
| [...] | [...] |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The financial envelope of the Connecting Europe Facility may cover expenses pertaining to, preparatory, monitoring, control, audit and evaluation activities which are required for the management of the Programme and the achievement of its objectives, in particular studies, meetings of experts, as far as they are related to the general objectives of this Regulation, expenses linked to IT networks focusing on information processing and exchange, together with all other technical and administrative assistance expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme.

The financial envelope of the Connecting Europe Facility may cover expenses pertaining to, preparatory, monitoring, control, audit evaluation activities which are required for the management of the Programme and the achievement of its objectives, in particular studies, meetings of experts, as far as they are related to the general objectives of this Regulation, expenses linked to IT networks focusing on information processing and exchange, together with all other technical and administrative assistance expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Programme.

[...]

[...]

Reason

See point 22.

Amendment 4

Article 7(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In the field of transport, only actions contributing to projects of common interest according to Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines] and programme support actions, shall be eligible for support through Union financial aid in the form of procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. In the form of grants, only the following actions shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid under this Regulation: | In the field of transport, only actions contributing to projects of common interest according to Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines] and programme support actions, shall be eligible for support through Union financial aid in the form of procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. In the form of grants, only the following actions shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid under this Regulation: |
| (a) | actions implementing the core network according to Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines], including the deployment of new technologies and innovation according to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In the field of transport, only actions contributing to projects of common interest according to Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines] and programme support actions, shall be eligible for support through Union financial aid in the form of procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. In the form of grants, only the following actions shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid under this Regulation:

In the field of transport, only actions contributing to projects of common interest according to Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines] and programme support actions, shall be eligible for support through Union financial aid in the form of procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. In the form of grants, only the following actions shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid under this Regulation:

(a)

actions implementing the core network according to Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines], including the deployment of new technologies and innovation according to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| (a) | actions implementing the core network according to Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines], including the deployment of new technologies and innovation according to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

actions implementing the core network according to Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines], including the deployment of new technologies and innovation according to Article 39 of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| (b) | studies for projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

studies for projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

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

(c)

| (c) | actions supporting projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

actions supporting projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| | studies for projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

studies for projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| (d) | actions supporting traffic management systems in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

actions supporting traffic management systems in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| | actions supporting projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

actions supporting projects of common interest as defined in Article 8(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| (e) | actions supporting freight transport services in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

actions supporting freight transport services in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| | actions supporting traffic management systems in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

actions supporting traffic management systems in accordance with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) No XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| (f) | actions to reduce rail freight noise by retrofitting of existing rolling stock; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

actions to reduce rail freight noise by retrofitting of existing rolling stock;

| | actions supporting freight transport services in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines]; |
| --- | --- |

actions supporting freight transport services in accordance with Article 38 of Regulation XXX/2012 [TEN-T Guidelines];

| (g) | programme support actions. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

programme support actions.

| | actions to reduce rail freight noise by retrofitting of existing rolling stock; |
| --- | --- |

actions to reduce rail freight noise by retrofitting of existing rolling stock;

| | programme support actions. |
| --- | --- |

programme support actions.

[...]

[...]

Amendment 5

Article 7(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| In the field of telecommunication, all actions implementing the projects of common interest and programme support actions set out in the Annex of the Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [INFSO Guidelines] shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid in the form of a grant, procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. | In the field of telecommunication, all actions implementing the projects of common interest and programme support actions set out in the Annex of the Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [INFSO Guidelines] shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid in the form of a grant, procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation. |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

In the field of telecommunication, all actions implementing the projects of common interest and programme support actions set out in the Annex of the Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [INFSO Guidelines] shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid in the form of a grant, procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation.

In the field of telecommunication, all actions implementing the projects of common interest and programme support actions set out in the Annex of the Regulation (EU) No XXXX/2012 [INFSO Guidelines] shall be eligible to receive Union financial aid in the form of a grant, procurement and financial instruments under this Regulation.

Reason

Under Article 2(9) of the proposal for a regulation, public bodies may also be the (direct) beneficiaries of financial assistance. This is to be welcomed. The resources should also be available to Member States and regions as financial support for broadband expansion schemes.

Amendment 6

Article 8(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Expenditure may be eligible from the date on which an application for aid is submitted. [Expenditure for actions resulting from projects included in the first multiannual programme may be eligible as from 1 January 2014]. | Expenditure may be eligible from the date on which an application for aid is submitted. [Expenditure for actions resulting from projects included in the first multiannual programme may be eligible as from 1 January 2014]. |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Expenditure may be eligible from the date on which an application for aid is submitted. [Expenditure for actions resulting from projects included in the first multiannual programme may be eligible as from 1 January 2014].

Expenditure may be eligible from the date on which an application for aid is submitted. [Expenditure for actions resulting from projects included in the first multiannual programme may be eligible as from 1 January 2014].

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 7

Article 8(6)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Expenditure related to the purchase of land shall not be an eligible cost. | Expenditure related to the purchase of land shall be an eligible cost. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Expenditure related to the purchase of land shall not be an eligible cost.

Expenditure related to the purchase of land shall be an eligible cost.

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 8

Article 8(7)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| VAT shall not be an eligible cost. | VAT shall be an eligible cost. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

VAT shall not be an eligible cost.

VAT shall be an eligible cost.

Reason

See point 26.

Amendment 9

Article 9(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Proposals may be submitted by one or several Member States, international organisations, joint undertakings, or public or private undertakings or bodies established in Member States. | Proposals may be submitted by one or several Member States, international organisations, joint undertakings, or public or private undertakings or bodies established in Member States. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Proposals may be submitted by one or several Member States, international organisations, joint undertakings, or public or private undertakings or bodies established in Member States.

Proposals may be submitted by one or several Member States, international organisations, joint undertakings, or public or private undertakings or bodies established in Member States.

Reason

See point 27.

Amendment 10

Article 10(2)(b)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| with regard to grants for works:






  (i) | rail and inland waterways: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 20 % of the eligible cost;the funding rate may be increased to 30 % for actions addressing bottlenecks; the funding rate may be increased to 40 % for actions concerning cross-border sections; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

with regard to grants for works:

(i)

rail and inland waterways: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 20 % of the eligible cost;the funding rate may be increased to 30 % for actions addressing bottlenecks; the funding rate may be increased to 40 % for actions concerning cross-border sections;

with regard to grants for works:

| (i) | rail and inland waterways: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 20 % of the eligible cost;the funding rate may be increased to 30 % for actions addressing bottlenecks; the funding rate may be increased to 40 % for actions concerning cross-border sections; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

rail and inland waterways: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 20 % of the eligible cost;the funding rate may be increased to 30 % for actions addressing bottlenecks; the funding rate may be increased to 40 % for actions concerning cross-border sections;

[...]

[...]

Reason

In certain countries, such as Spain, a greater effort must be made to meet the European rail interoperability standards, bearing in mind the situation at the outset, with a different gauge and a different electrification system inter alia. In this respect it is considered essential to prioritise measures that would make it possible to effectively make a start on interoperability with the emergence of new operators from the business side of the transport and logistics sectors who would have to use the networks being created, supply of state-of-the-art rolling stock, vehicles and equipment, etc. Thus it is felt that the introduction, already well underway, of technical solutions such as the ‘third rail’ (three rails per track, allowing for two gauges) on existing routes, will create interoperable transport services without having to wait for the completion of corridors specifically designed to these standards, which would mean such services not beginning until after 2020. Such actions should be seen as ‘seeding’ initiatives towards achieving the full interoperability of the future corridors which will be completed over the longer term, and should therefore be given priority in the financing instruments. One solution might be to give these actions the same status as the cross-border sections. In any case, this proposal is in line with point 17 of the policy recommendations, since in railway terms Spain is one of ‘the weakest regions and regions with the most problems’ because of its different track gauge. It also fits in with point 26, because within the conventional rail network, Spain belongs to the group of ‘regions lagging behind’ on account of its different track gauge.

Amendment 11

Article 10(4)(a)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| actions in the field of broadband networks: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 50 % of the eligible cost; | actions in the field of broadband networks: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed  % of the eligible cost; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

actions in the field of broadband networks: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed 50 % of the eligible cost;

actions in the field of broadband networks: the amount of Union financial aid shall not exceed  % of the eligible cost;

Reason

A significant financial investment is needed to roll out broadband networks in sparsely populated areas, and economic operators have little or no incentive to extend their commercial activities to these areas. The electronic communications sector will therefore find it difficult to achieve the EU Digital Agenda's goals for broadband access on the basis of the proposed co-financing rate.

Amendment 12

Article 10(5)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Co-financing rates mentioned above may be increased by up to 10 percentage points for actions having cross-sector synergies, reaching climate mitigation objectives, enhancing climate resilience or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. This increase should not apply to co-financing rates referred to in Article 11. | Co-financing rates mentioned above may be increased by up to 10 percentage points for actions having cross-sector synergies, reaching climate mitigation objectives, enhancing climate resilience or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. This increase should not apply to co-financing rates referred to in Article 11. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Co-financing rates mentioned above may be increased by up to 10 percentage points for actions having cross-sector synergies, reaching climate mitigation objectives, enhancing climate resilience or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. This increase should not apply to co-financing rates referred to in Article 11.

Co-financing rates mentioned above may be increased by up to 10 percentage points for actions having cross-sector synergies, reaching climate mitigation objectives, enhancing climate resilience or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. This increase should not apply to co-financing rates referred to in Article 11.

Reason

There is a need to introduce differentiated treatment for both less developed regions and those with severe and permanent demographic and natural handicaps, as all these criteria affect regional development, and must therefore be taken equally into account when assessing co-financing rates. The European Commission has accordingly included specific provisions to ensure that special attention is addressed to the specific difficulties of regions with these particular territorial characteristics in its proposal for a regulation on the European Regional Development Fund for the next programming period, on the basis of Article 174 TFEU.

Amendment 13

Article 11(2)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Applicable rules for the transport sector under this Regulation shall apply to these specific calls. When implementing these calls, greatest possible priority shall be given to projects respecting the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund. | Applicable rules for the transport sector under this Regulation shall apply to these specific calls. When implementing these calls, the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Applicable rules for the transport sector under this Regulation shall apply to these specific calls. When implementing these calls, greatest possible priority shall be given to projects respecting the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund.

Applicable rules for the transport sector under this Regulation shall apply to these specific calls. When implementing these calls, the national allocations under the Cohesion Fund

Reason

See point 7.

Amendment 14

Article 12(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall cancel, except in duly justified cases, financial aid granted for actions which have not been started within one year following the start date of the action established in the conditions governing the granting of aid. | The Commission shall cancel, except in duly justified cases, financial aid granted for actions which have not been started within following the start date of the action established in the conditions governing the granting of aid. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall cancel, except in duly justified cases, financial aid granted for actions which have not been started within one year following the start date of the action established in the conditions governing the granting of aid.

The Commission shall cancel, except in duly justified cases, financial aid granted for actions which have not been started within following the start date of the action established in the conditions governing the granting of aid.

Reason

This will ensure greater flexibility needed to help beneficiaries to overcome implementation constraints.

Amendment 15

Article 12(2)(c)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| following an evaluation of the progress of the project, in particular in the event of major delays in the implementation of the action. | following an evaluation of the progress of the project, in particular in the event of major delays in the implementation of the action. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

following an evaluation of the progress of the project, in particular in the event of major delays in the implementation of the action.

following an evaluation of the progress of the project, in particular in the event of major delays in the implementation of the action.

Reason

See point 28.

Amendment 16

Article 12(3)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission may request the reimbursement of the financial aid granted if, within two years of the finishing date established in the conditions governing the granting of aid, the implementation of the action receiving the financial aid has not been completed. | The Commission may request the reimbursement of the financial aid granted if, within years of the finishing date established in the conditions governing the granting of aid, the implementation of the action receiving the financial aid has not been completed. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission may request the reimbursement of the financial aid granted if, within two years of the finishing date established in the conditions governing the granting of aid, the implementation of the action receiving the financial aid has not been completed.

The Commission may request the reimbursement of the financial aid granted if, within years of the finishing date established in the conditions governing the granting of aid, the implementation of the action receiving the financial aid has not been completed.

Reason

See point 28.

Amendment 17

Article 12(4)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Before the Commission takes any of the decisions provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, it shall examine the case at hand and inform the beneficiaries concerned so that they may present their observations within a given timeframe. | Before the Commission takes any of the decisions provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, it shall examine the case at hand and inform the beneficiaries concerned so that they may present their observations within . |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Before the Commission takes any of the decisions provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, it shall examine the case at hand and inform the beneficiaries concerned so that they may present their observations within a given timeframe.

Before the Commission takes any of the decisions provided for in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, it shall examine the case at hand and inform the beneficiaries concerned so that they may present their observations within .

Reason

See point 28.

Amendment 18

Article 17(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall adopt multiannual and annual work programmes for each sector. The Commission may also adopt multiannual and annual work programmes that cover more than one sector. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 24(2). | The Commission shall adopt multiannual and annual work programmes for each sector. The Commission may also adopt multiannual and annual work programmes that cover more than one sector. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 24(2). |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall adopt multiannual and annual work programmes for each sector. The Commission may also adopt multiannual and annual work programmes that cover more than one sector. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 24(2).

The Commission shall adopt multiannual and annual work programmes for each sector. The Commission may also adopt multiannual and annual work programmes that cover more than one sector. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 24(2).

Reason

See point 32.

Amendment 19

Article 17 (new point 8)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

New technologies (e.g. infrastructure for alternative fuels) have higher entry barriers than traditional infrastructure such as road and rail. They are part of the new Ten-T guidelines, but lack funding clauses in the CEF. Such projects are more difficult to finance. On the other hand, they promote the oil independence and the goals of the White Paper of transportation to cut by half conventional fuel vehicles in cities by 2030. As such, we feel it is not consistence that innovation in transport will be limited to 20 % grants, the lowest of all modes.

Amendment 20

Article 17 (new point 9)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Amendment 21

Article 26(1)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| No later than mid-2018, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value, in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall additionally address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures. | No later than mid-2018, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value, in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall additionally address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

No later than mid-2018, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value, in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall additionally address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures.

No later than mid-2018, an evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources and its European added value, in view of a decision on the renewal, modification or suspension of the measures. The evaluation shall additionally address the scope for simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures.

Reason

See point 46.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  This role was highlighted by the Conclusions of the European Council of 28/29 June 2012 (page 11, ‘The contribution of European policies to growth’).

1

(2)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks.

2

(3)  The CoR opinion on the CEF takes into account the consultation of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network of the Committee of the Regions. The report of the consultation is available on the CoR website: http://extranet.cor.europa.eu/subsidiarity/Pages/default.aspx.

3

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/137 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/137

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC’

2012/C 277/13

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | notes that the challenge with high and maximum voltages is to bring renewable electricity from offshore and onshore sites to regions with the greatest energy requirements in a cost-effective and efficient manner, and that in the case of low and medium-voltage electricity, the required infrastructure for a multitude of new, decentralised producers feeding electricity into the system must be created; |
| --- | --- |

—

notes that the challenge with high and maximum voltages is to bring renewable electricity from offshore and onshore sites to regions with the greatest energy requirements in a cost-effective and efficient manner, and that in the case of low and medium-voltage electricity, the required infrastructure for a multitude of new, decentralised producers feeding electricity into the system must be created;

| — | underlines the need to send an unequivocal political signal from the Commission to Member States, to the economy and the banking sector, and to partners across the globe, that the course of increasing the share of renewables in the energy mix of the future that has been embarked upon is irreversible and is a worthwhile area of private investment; |
| --- | --- |

—

underlines the need to send an unequivocal political signal from the Commission to Member States, to the economy and the banking sector, and to partners across the globe, that the course of increasing the share of renewables in the energy mix of the future that has been embarked upon is irreversible and is a worthwhile area of private investment;

| — | stresses that in order to achieve the Europe 2020 goals, there should further development of smart networks at local and regional level, as called for in earlier CoR opinions (CdR 160/2008 fin, CdR 8/2009 fin, CdR 244/2010 fin, CdR 312/2010 fin, CdR 7/2011 fin and CdR 104/2011 fin). End-user prices must, in connection with computer-based load management, be connected to production and demand so as to act as an incentive for energy efficiency and more effectively align decentralised energy production with decentralised energy consumption; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses that in order to achieve the Europe 2020 goals, there should further development of smart networks at local and regional level, as called for in earlier CoR opinions (CdR 160/2008 fin, CdR 8/2009 fin, CdR 244/2010 fin, CdR 312/2010 fin, CdR 7/2011 fin and CdR 104/2011 fin). End-user prices must, in connection with computer-based load management, be connected to production and demand so as to act as an incentive for energy efficiency and more effectively align decentralised energy production with decentralised energy consumption;

| — | believes it should be examined whether, as a less intrusive tool, less detailed draft guidelines for the reference of national decision makers would not be more suitable. That way, the Commission would allow the Member States as broad a scope as possible for deciding on the concrete integration of existing structures. This concerns planning and authorisation authorities in the Member States – which may be structured along federal lines – as well as the existing regional groups from the third internal market package. In general, assigning tasks to existing, successful institutions should take priority over creating new structures. |
| --- | --- |

—

believes it should be examined whether, as a less intrusive tool, less detailed draft guidelines for the reference of national decision makers would not be more suitable. That way, the Commission would allow the Member States as broad a scope as possible for deciding on the concrete integration of existing structures. This concerns planning and authorisation authorities in the Member States – which may be structured along federal lines – as well as the existing regional groups from the third internal market package. In general, assigning tasks to existing, successful institutions should take priority over creating new structures.

| Rapporteur | Heinz LEHMANN (DE/EPP), Member of the Saxony Landtag |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation on Guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC
  COM(2011) 658 final - 2011/0300 (COD) |

Rapporteur

Heinz LEHMANN (DE/EPP), Member of the Saxony Landtag

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation on Guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision No 1364/2006/EC

COM(2011) 658 final - 2011/0300 (COD)

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes the fact that this Regulation aims at the full integration of the internal energy market, ensuring that no Member State is isolated from the European network, guaranteeing security of supply and solidarity among Member States and adhering to the principles of sustainable development and protection of the environment. This is a key prerequisite for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, boosting energy efficiency and increasing the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption – all by 20 % by 2020; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the fact that this Regulation aims at the full integration of the internal energy market, ensuring that no Member State is isolated from the European network, guaranteeing security of supply and solidarity among Member States and adhering to the principles of sustainable development and protection of the environment. This is a key prerequisite for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, boosting energy efficiency and increasing the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption – all by 20 % by 2020;

| 2. | stresses the crucial importance of this initiative, which should ensure energy security, with technical solutions of all kinds serving that end being used, especially the development of transport and distribution systems and all kinds of already available and potential renewables, and using available support measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

stresses the crucial importance of this initiative, which should ensure energy security, with technical solutions of all kinds serving that end being used, especially the development of transport and distribution systems and all kinds of already available and potential renewables, and using available support measures;

| 3. | expects this proposal to contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and bring forward crucial benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

3.

expects this proposal to contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and bring forward crucial benefits for the entire European Union in terms of competitiveness and economic, social and territorial cohesion;

| 4. | welcomes the fact that in order to meet the objectives more quickly, the initiative identifies, for the period up to 2020 and beyond, a limited number of trans-European priority corridors and areas covering electricity and gas networks as well as transport infrastructure for oil, natural gas, carbon dioxide and biomethane (cleaned biogas from biogas plants), for which European Union action is most warranted. By streamlining and speeding up approval procedures, strengthening legitimacy through timely public consultation, facilitating regulatory treatment of projects, fairly distributing costs according to use and thereby aligning profits and risk, and providing the necessary market-based and direct financial support through the EU, the initiative will make a sustained contribution to accelerating initiatives of common interest; |
| --- | --- |

4.

welcomes the fact that in order to meet the objectives more quickly, the initiative identifies, for the period up to 2020 and beyond, a limited number of trans-European priority corridors and areas covering electricity and gas networks as well as transport infrastructure for oil, natural gas, carbon dioxide and biomethane (cleaned biogas from biogas plants), for which European Union action is most warranted. By streamlining and speeding up approval procedures, strengthening legitimacy through timely public consultation, facilitating regulatory treatment of projects, fairly distributing costs according to use and thereby aligning profits and risk, and providing the necessary market-based and direct financial support through the EU, the initiative will make a sustained contribution to accelerating initiatives of common interest;

| 5. | points out that the common European energy network has to meet higher safety standards. In particular, the possibility must be ruled out that cyber or physical attacks could jeopardise security of supply in Europe and adversely affect the economic output of Member States; |
| --- | --- |

5.

points out that the common European energy network has to meet higher safety standards. In particular, the possibility must be ruled out that cyber or physical attacks could jeopardise security of supply in Europe and adversely affect the economic output of Member States;

A.   
  State of play

| 6. | notes that each EU Member State currently relies on an energy mix determined by geographical, geological, and technological conditions, local energy policies, and national requirements. It consists of a base load that has hitherto mainly been fed by fossil, nuclear and some renewable sources (hydropower and solid biomass), and a variable load including a number of flexible fossil sources and a share of weather-dependent renewable sources, which is currently subject to fluctuations. In order to meet agreed climate targets, it will be necessary above all to improve energy efficiency, reduce consumption of energy used for heating and motor fuels (not taken into account in primary energy balances) and increase the share of total energy production made up by renewables. The resulting natural fluctuations must be balanced by a series of measures, such as modernising existing power stations, building highly versatile gas-fired power stations that combine production of heat and electricity, expanding pumped hydro-storage capacity or other storage technologies, and upgrading and expanding available transmission and distribution systems. All levels of the network are in need of modernisation. Whereas in the case of low and medium-voltage electricity, the required infrastructure for a multitude of new, decentralised producers feeding electricity into the system must be created, the challenge with high and maximum voltages is to bring renewable electricity from offshore and onshore sites to regions with the greatest energy requirements in a cost-effective and efficient manner; |
| --- | --- |

6.

notes that each EU Member State currently relies on an energy mix determined by geographical, geological, and technological conditions, local energy policies, and national requirements. It consists of a base load that has hitherto mainly been fed by fossil, nuclear and some renewable sources (hydropower and solid biomass), and a variable load including a number of flexible fossil sources and a share of weather-dependent renewable sources, which is currently subject to fluctuations. In order to meet agreed climate targets, it will be necessary above all to improve energy efficiency, reduce consumption of energy used for heating and motor fuels (not taken into account in primary energy balances) and increase the share of total energy production made up by renewables. The resulting natural fluctuations must be balanced by a series of measures, such as modernising existing power stations, building highly versatile gas-fired power stations that combine production of heat and electricity, expanding pumped hydro-storage capacity or other storage technologies, and upgrading and expanding available transmission and distribution systems. All levels of the network are in need of modernisation. Whereas in the case of low and medium-voltage electricity, the required infrastructure for a multitude of new, decentralised producers feeding electricity into the system must be created, the challenge with high and maximum voltages is to bring renewable electricity from offshore and onshore sites to regions with the greatest energy requirements in a cost-effective and efficient manner;

| 7. | in order to ensure the energy security of the Member States, solutions should be introduced based on modernisation and further exploitation and expansion of existing conventional and alternative commercial sources, as they make a decisive contribution to ensuring the stability of the electrical energy systems, e.g. at local and national level; |
| --- | --- |

7.

in order to ensure the energy security of the Member States, solutions should be introduced based on modernisation and further exploitation and expansion of existing conventional and alternative commercial sources, as they make a decisive contribution to ensuring the stability of the electrical energy systems, e.g. at local and national level;

| 8. | stresses that current ideas must emphasise testing feasible transmission and storage technologies, deploying information and communication technologies, and encouraging the development of local and regional energy plans; |
| --- | --- |

8.

stresses that current ideas must emphasise testing feasible transmission and storage technologies, deploying information and communication technologies, and encouraging the development of local and regional energy plans;

| 9. | notes that in the coming decades, natural gas can also play an important role in balancing electricity generation in Europe. To this end, gas imports must be diversified, its production developed in the EU Member States, using conventional and unconventional sources, biomethane (cleaned biogas) produced from biogas plants, gas networks extended using transmission pipelines, and storage capacities enhanced. Operating additional gas power stations for regulating power will require a stronger pipeline network in those Member States where natural gas is an important energy source; |
| --- | --- |

9.

notes that in the coming decades, natural gas can also play an important role in balancing electricity generation in Europe. To this end, gas imports must be diversified, its production developed in the EU Member States, using conventional and unconventional sources, biomethane (cleaned biogas) produced from biogas plants, gas networks extended using transmission pipelines, and storage capacities enhanced. Operating additional gas power stations for regulating power will require a stronger pipeline network in those Member States where natural gas is an important energy source;

| 10. | recognises that fossil fuels will inevitably play a part in the European energy mix in the foreseeable future too, even if their share falls steadily. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology can, during this time, make a contribution to controlling CO2 emissions, but this presupposes that it can be developed into a technically feasible system that can be run affordably and safely. There is, however, still a need for research and development with a view to practical testing, especially as regards technical and economic aspects and the associated environmental impact. Nonetheless, the future development of a cross-border network for carbon dioxide transport as well requires steps to be taken now at European level; |
| --- | --- |

10.

recognises that fossil fuels will inevitably play a part in the European energy mix in the foreseeable future too, even if their share falls steadily. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology can, during this time, make a contribution to controlling CO2 emissions, but this presupposes that it can be developed into a technically feasible system that can be run affordably and safely. There is, however, still a need for research and development with a view to practical testing, especially as regards technical and economic aspects and the associated environmental impact. Nonetheless, the future development of a cross-border network for carbon dioxide transport as well requires steps to be taken now at European level;

B.   
  Subsidiarity

| 11. | stresses that the EU has agreed to climate targets, the achievement of which will require a considerable amount of effort on the part of all Member States. Part of this effort involves expanding energy infrastructure in as intelligent a way as possible. In addition to hooking up a multitude of small electricity producers that use renewable sources to existing networks, developing intelligent distribution networks able to manage demand and supply on a decentralised basis, and increasing and facilitating interconnections to countries with energy resources in order to boost the production of electricity from renewable energy sources, national infrastructures must also be connected to one another in an efficient and, most importantly, flexible manner. The Commission already picked up on these ideas some years ago with TEN-E; |
| --- | --- |

11.

stresses that the EU has agreed to climate targets, the achievement of which will require a considerable amount of effort on the part of all Member States. Part of this effort involves expanding energy infrastructure in as intelligent a way as possible. In addition to hooking up a multitude of small electricity producers that use renewable sources to existing networks, developing intelligent distribution networks able to manage demand and supply on a decentralised basis, and increasing and facilitating interconnections to countries with energy resources in order to boost the production of electricity from renewable energy sources, national infrastructures must also be connected to one another in an efficient and, most importantly, flexible manner. The Commission already picked up on these ideas some years ago with TEN-E;

| 12. | acknowledges that in parallel to this, the Member States have developed national plans to increase the share of renewables in their energy mix and legislated correspondingly. Once the third EU energy package comes into force, there will also be a series of transnational institutions and groups successfully working together; |
| --- | --- |

12.

acknowledges that in parallel to this, the Member States have developed national plans to increase the share of renewables in their energy mix and legislated correspondingly. Once the third EU energy package comes into force, there will also be a series of transnational institutions and groups successfully working together;

| 13. | notes that despite the structures which have since developed, concrete, transnational energy projects face difficulties resulting from the composition of national infrastructures, specific energy policy priorities, or different responsibilities. These incompatibilities have led to time being lost on areas like planning, funding and development of TEN-E projects; |
| --- | --- |

13.

notes that despite the structures which have since developed, concrete, transnational energy projects face difficulties resulting from the composition of national infrastructures, specific energy policy priorities, or different responsibilities. These incompatibilities have led to time being lost on areas like planning, funding and development of TEN-E projects;

| 14. | notes that with its proposal for a regulation, the Commission seeks to ensure that these incompatibilities are recognised as early on as possible and that the proposed consultation process is used to overcome them as quickly as possible. The Commission's plan aims to accelerate a restricted number of transnational key projects and national projects with significant transnational impact, which should be seen as the building blocks of a future European high-voltage transmission network; |
| --- | --- |

14.

notes that with its proposal for a regulation, the Commission seeks to ensure that these incompatibilities are recognised as early on as possible and that the proposed consultation process is used to overcome them as quickly as possible. The Commission's plan aims to accelerate a restricted number of transnational key projects and national projects with significant transnational impact, which should be seen as the building blocks of a future European high-voltage transmission network;

| 15. | acknowledges that the much more extensive task of upgrading national networks to meet future energy demand is still in the hands of the Member States, and is only indirectly affected by the proposal. This procedure is based on Articles 170-172 of the TFEU. While this does affect the subsidiarity principle, due to the limited number of projects with transnational scope concerned, it does not breach it; |
| --- | --- |

15.

acknowledges that the much more extensive task of upgrading national networks to meet future energy demand is still in the hands of the Member States, and is only indirectly affected by the proposal. This procedure is based on Articles 170-172 of the TFEU. While this does affect the subsidiarity principle, due to the limited number of projects with transnational scope concerned, it does not breach it;

| 16. | underlines the fact that the value lies not only in the development of a European master plan for transnational networks, but also in sending an unequivocal political signal from the Commission to Member States, to the economy and the banking sector, and to partners across the globe, that the course of increasing the share of renewables in the energy mix of the future that has been embarked upon is irreversible and is a worthwhile area of private investment, too; |
| --- | --- |

16.

underlines the fact that the value lies not only in the development of a European master plan for transnational networks, but also in sending an unequivocal political signal from the Commission to Member States, to the economy and the banking sector, and to partners across the globe, that the course of increasing the share of renewables in the energy mix of the future that has been embarked upon is irreversible and is a worthwhile area of private investment, too;

| 17. | notes that as its legal instrument, the Commission proposes a regulation immediately applicable to all Member States and binding in all parts. The CoR considers this broadly proportionate in the light of the desired acceleration of the authorisation process; |
| --- | --- |

17.

notes that as its legal instrument, the Commission proposes a regulation immediately applicable to all Member States and binding in all parts. The CoR considers this broadly proportionate in the light of the desired acceleration of the authorisation process;

| 18. | points out, however, that the streamlining of the authorisation process for infrastructure projects could constitute a serious encroachment on the planning rights of the Member States and on the rights of affected parties and the public to participate. The constitutionally guaranteed jurisdiction of the states in federal systems over the implementation and formulation of planning and authorisation procedures must also be taken into account in projects of common interest. The Committee does not consider that all of the policies detailed in Chapter III can still be seen as ‘broad lines’ or ‘guidelines’ for trans-European networks within the meaning of Article 171 of the TFEU, and therefore not as a genuinely necessary minimum alignment of national administrative procedures; |
| --- | --- |

18.

points out, however, that the streamlining of the authorisation process for infrastructure projects could constitute a serious encroachment on the planning rights of the Member States and on the rights of affected parties and the public to participate. The constitutionally guaranteed jurisdiction of the states in federal systems over the implementation and formulation of planning and authorisation procedures must also be taken into account in projects of common interest. The Committee does not consider that all of the policies detailed in Chapter III can still be seen as ‘broad lines’ or ‘guidelines’ for trans-European networks within the meaning of Article 171 of the TFEU, and therefore not as a genuinely necessary minimum alignment of national administrative procedures;

| 19. | in this connection, believes it should be examined whether, as a less intrusive tool, less detailed draft guidelines for the reference of national decision makers would not be more suitable. That way, the Commission would allow the Member States as broad a scope as possible for deciding on the concrete integration of existing structures, facilitating and prioritising interconnections when a Member State has the resources to increase renewable electricity production. This concerns planning and authorisation authorities in the Member States – which may be structured along federal lines – as well as the existing regional groups from the third internal market package. In general, assigning tasks to existing, successful institutions should take priority over creating new structures; |
| --- | --- |

19.

in this connection, believes it should be examined whether, as a less intrusive tool, less detailed draft guidelines for the reference of national decision makers would not be more suitable. That way, the Commission would allow the Member States as broad a scope as possible for deciding on the concrete integration of existing structures, facilitating and prioritising interconnections when a Member State has the resources to increase renewable electricity production. This concerns planning and authorisation authorities in the Member States – which may be structured along federal lines – as well as the existing regional groups from the third internal market package. In general, assigning tasks to existing, successful institutions should take priority over creating new structures;

| 20. | is critical of the overly prescriptive time limits in the administrative procedure. Particularly when it comes to projects of common interest, quality must take priority over speed. Alongside security of supply, the quality of projects of common interest will play a not insignificant role in determining final consumer prices. Not just the interests of investors, but also the costs for local SMEs and citizens are also an important location factor; |
| --- | --- |

20.

is critical of the overly prescriptive time limits in the administrative procedure. Particularly when it comes to projects of common interest, quality must take priority over speed. Alongside security of supply, the quality of projects of common interest will play a not insignificant role in determining final consumer prices. Not just the interests of investors, but also the costs for local SMEs and citizens are also an important location factor;

| 21. | recommends that problems arising during the planning and implementation of projects of common interest should be dealt with from the bottom up, i.e. in accordance with the subsidiarity principle and that all possible alternatives be examined thoroughly. Only when the local, regional, national or multinational authorities cannot reach a consensus in time should the European project coordinator step in. There have already been cases in the past where the intervention of a European moderator was helpful. The existence of a European coordinator helping to resolve difficulties on a case-by-case basis does not appear per se to breach the subsidiarity principle. Appeal for assistance by, or, where appropriate, extension of the mandate of the coordinator should take place on the basis of a joint decision by the Council and the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

21.

recommends that problems arising during the planning and implementation of projects of common interest should be dealt with from the bottom up, i.e. in accordance with the subsidiarity principle and that all possible alternatives be examined thoroughly. Only when the local, regional, national or multinational authorities cannot reach a consensus in time should the European project coordinator step in. There have already been cases in the past where the intervention of a European moderator was helpful. The existence of a European coordinator helping to resolve difficulties on a case-by-case basis does not appear per se to breach the subsidiarity principle. Appeal for assistance by, or, where appropriate, extension of the mandate of the coordinator should take place on the basis of a joint decision by the Council and the European Parliament;

| 22. | welcomes the establishment of a national authorisation authority as a ‘one stop shop’. The decision on whether to apply integrated or coordinated regulation in the authorisation procedure should be left to the discretion of national authorities; |
| --- | --- |

22.

welcomes the establishment of a national authorisation authority as a ‘one stop shop’. The decision on whether to apply integrated or coordinated regulation in the authorisation procedure should be left to the discretion of national authorities;

| 23. | supports the proposed regulation on transnational cost sharing with ACER's involvement. This also applies to the obligation of national regulatory authorities to put in place incentives for investment through compensation for projects of common interest. These incentives should be proportionate to the risk; |
| --- | --- |

23.

supports the proposed regulation on transnational cost sharing with ACER's involvement. This also applies to the obligation of national regulatory authorities to put in place incentives for investment through compensation for projects of common interest. These incentives should be proportionate to the risk;

| 24. | believes it is essential that the list of projects of common interest be regularly reviewed and adapted to changing requirements; |
| --- | --- |

24.

believes it is essential that the list of projects of common interest be regularly reviewed and adapted to changing requirements;

C.   
  Acceptance

| 25. | expressly stipulates that the creation of the technical prerequisites for achieving our ambitious energy and climate targets can only succeed with the consent of the people, and never without it. For this reason, informing and involving citizens, communities and municipal authorities in a timely manner ought to be expressly welcomed; |
| --- | --- |

25.

expressly stipulates that the creation of the technical prerequisites for achieving our ambitious energy and climate targets can only succeed with the consent of the people, and never without it. For this reason, informing and involving citizens, communities and municipal authorities in a timely manner ought to be expressly welcomed;

| 26. | underlines the fact that this turn towards low-carbon electricity production necessitates a reworking of network architecture. Whereas connecting new small-scale producers to the low and medium-voltage networks and intelligently managing them can largely take place without radical changes to the landscape, construction of new lines will be an unavoidable part of a new European high-voltage highway. Priority should be given to lines making it possible to increase interconnections to States that can guarantee higher renewable electricity production. Given that the costs of building this system will ultimately be borne by electricity consumers, it is essential that its technical design be as intelligent and efficient as possible. This includes minimising its impact on the landscape. These implications must be explained to people as early on and as consistently as possible; |
| --- | --- |

26.

underlines the fact that this turn towards low-carbon electricity production necessitates a reworking of network architecture. Whereas connecting new small-scale producers to the low and medium-voltage networks and intelligently managing them can largely take place without radical changes to the landscape, construction of new lines will be an unavoidable part of a new European high-voltage highway. Priority should be given to lines making it possible to increase interconnections to States that can guarantee higher renewable electricity production. Given that the costs of building this system will ultimately be borne by electricity consumers, it is essential that its technical design be as intelligent and efficient as possible. This includes minimising its impact on the landscape. These implications must be explained to people as early on and as consistently as possible;

| 27. | calls on national governments to create incentives aimed at fairly compensating citizens, municipalities and local authorities for any remaining damage. The experience of municipalities that were adversely affected by new infrastructure projects in the past shows that transparency and the local presence of a permanent point of contact for the project manager are important prerequisites for progress in planning and construction that is in keeping with timetables; |
| --- | --- |

27.

calls on national governments to create incentives aimed at fairly compensating citizens, municipalities and local authorities for any remaining damage. The experience of municipalities that were adversely affected by new infrastructure projects in the past shows that transparency and the local presence of a permanent point of contact for the project manager are important prerequisites for progress in planning and construction that is in keeping with timetables;

| 28. | stresses that the manual to be compiled will be an important tool for informing citizens about the advantages of infrastructure development and intelligent networks in terms of security of supply, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and energy efficiency. This information must not fail to discuss the downsides as well. Only comprehensive and transparent information will help people understand the scale of the challenge and more readily accept any negative effects. The flow of information to affected citizens must be tailored and pertinent to the situation at hand; |
| --- | --- |

28.

stresses that the manual to be compiled will be an important tool for informing citizens about the advantages of infrastructure development and intelligent networks in terms of security of supply, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and energy efficiency. This information must not fail to discuss the downsides as well. Only comprehensive and transparent information will help people understand the scale of the challenge and more readily accept any negative effects. The flow of information to affected citizens must be tailored and pertinent to the situation at hand;

| 29. | urges that, in addition to material compensation for citizens, municipalities and local authorities heavily affected through implementation of the projects, the precautionary measures taken and a socioeconomic and ecological impact assessment should be presented to the public. This ‘transparency offensive’ and a fair system of compensation are essential prerequisites for public acceptance of the accelerated development of the energy networks of the future; |
| --- | --- |

29.

urges that, in addition to material compensation for citizens, municipalities and local authorities heavily affected through implementation of the projects, the precautionary measures taken and a socioeconomic and ecological impact assessment should be presented to the public. This ‘transparency offensive’ and a fair system of compensation are essential prerequisites for public acceptance of the accelerated development of the energy networks of the future;

D.   
  Financing

| 30. | acknowledges that that the existing TEN-E financial instruments have, according to the Commission, not been sufficiently successful. They should be superseded by the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). Of the EUR 50 billion allocated in the Regulation on Guidelines for Trans-European Energy Infrastructure for the multi-annual financial framework, EUR 9,1 billion is earmarked for energy projects within a seven-year period. This allows funds to be made available for studies and financial instruments in support of electricity, gas and carbon dioxide projects, and non-repayable subsidies provided for electricity and gas projects that have a positive impact on security of supply, solidarity and innovation, whose business plans indicate a lack of commercial viability, and for which a decision on the transnational division of costs has not yet been made. In addition, intelligent networks and measurement stations as well as carbon dioxide projects that cannot be shown to be commercially viable are also eligible for non-repayable subsidies; |
| --- | --- |

30.

acknowledges that that the existing TEN-E financial instruments have, according to the Commission, not been sufficiently successful. They should be superseded by the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). Of the EUR 50 billion allocated in the Regulation on Guidelines for Trans-European Energy Infrastructure for the multi-annual financial framework, EUR 9,1 billion is earmarked for energy projects within a seven-year period. This allows funds to be made available for studies and financial instruments in support of electricity, gas and carbon dioxide projects, and non-repayable subsidies provided for electricity and gas projects that have a positive impact on security of supply, solidarity and innovation, whose business plans indicate a lack of commercial viability, and for which a decision on the transnational division of costs has not yet been made. In addition, intelligent networks and measurement stations as well as carbon dioxide projects that cannot be shown to be commercially viable are also eligible for non-repayable subsidies;

| 31. | welcomes the fact that the ‘Connecting Europe’ facility places greater emphasis on those infrastructure projects that are important in energy terms but are commercially less attractive. The successful implementation of such projects would make a significant contribution to the completion of the EU single market and to security of supply; |
| --- | --- |

31.

welcomes the fact that the ‘Connecting Europe’ facility places greater emphasis on those infrastructure projects that are important in energy terms but are commercially less attractive. The successful implementation of such projects would make a significant contribution to the completion of the EU single market and to security of supply;

| 32. | feels that the European Commission sends entirely the wrong energy policy message given that most of the 12 priority infrastructure initiatives linked to the Connecting Europe Facility involve gas and oil pipelines requiring investments with long-term returns, since no convincing explanation has yet been given as to how the priorities set in favour of fossil fuels can be reconciled with the EU 2020 goals and the more far-reaching climate protection goals for 2030 and 2050; |
| --- | --- |

32.

feels that the European Commission sends entirely the wrong energy policy message given that most of the 12 priority infrastructure initiatives linked to the Connecting Europe Facility involve gas and oil pipelines requiring investments with long-term returns, since no convincing explanation has yet been given as to how the priorities set in favour of fossil fuels can be reconciled with the EU 2020 goals and the more far-reaching climate protection goals for 2030 and 2050;

| 33. | stresses that, in order to achieve the Europe 2020 goals, as well as stepping up development of the major transmission networks, there should be further development of smart networks at local and regional level, as already called for in earlier CoR opinions (CdR 160/2008 fin, CdR 8/2009 fin, CdR 244/2010 fin, CdR 312/2010 fin, CdR 7/2011 fin and CdR 104/2011 fin). End-user prices must, in connection with computer-based load management, be connected to production and demand so as to act as an incentive for energy efficiency and more effectively align decentralised energy production with decentralised energy consumption. If energy taxation is among the instruments that Member States can use to combat climate change, subject to the conditions set out in Council Directive 2003/96/EC on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the CoR believes that the possibility of applying different tax levels should not be restricted to regions but should be extended to local authorities as well, who are also recognised in their own right as sustainable development stakeholders in the EU. These authorities – especially in Member States where they contribute to developing smart grids to improve security of supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency – should be able to set general taxation rates for energy consumption that differ from the corresponding national rates, provided that equal treatment for competing energy sources is maintained and that these differences in levels of taxation do not hinder the proper functioning of the internal market or the free movement of energy products between Member States; |
| --- | --- |

33.

stresses that, in order to achieve the Europe 2020 goals, as well as stepping up development of the major transmission networks, there should be further development of smart networks at local and regional level, as already called for in earlier CoR opinions (CdR 160/2008 fin, CdR 8/2009 fin, CdR 244/2010 fin, CdR 312/2010 fin, CdR 7/2011 fin and CdR 104/2011 fin). End-user prices must, in connection with computer-based load management, be connected to production and demand so as to act as an incentive for energy efficiency and more effectively align decentralised energy production with decentralised energy consumption. If energy taxation is among the instruments that Member States can use to combat climate change, subject to the conditions set out in Council Directive 2003/96/EC on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the CoR believes that the possibility of applying different tax levels should not be restricted to regions but should be extended to local authorities as well, who are also recognised in their own right as sustainable development stakeholders in the EU. These authorities – especially in Member States where they contribute to developing smart grids to improve security of supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency – should be able to set general taxation rates for energy consumption that differ from the corresponding national rates, provided that equal treatment for competing energy sources is maintained and that these differences in levels of taxation do not hinder the proper functioning of the internal market or the free movement of energy products between Member States;

| 34. | with a view to the required market integration of renewable energies, is deeply concerned that pumped storage units and other technologies are specifically excluded from CEF financing. These units have a key role to play in making up for fluctuating wind and solar energy sources, in that they make it possible to store renewable energy; |
| --- | --- |

34.

with a view to the required market integration of renewable energies, is deeply concerned that pumped storage units and other technologies are specifically excluded from CEF financing. These units have a key role to play in making up for fluctuating wind and solar energy sources, in that they make it possible to store renewable energy;

| 35. | finds it regrettable that the financial instruments to be made available from 2014 onwards have not yet been outlined in any detail by the Commission. The choice of instrument should take their additional benefits into account. They should serve to complement the non-repayable subsidies that have hitherto been customary, and provide a consistent and uniform financing framework for rail, energy and telecommunication networks that builds on experience with the Risk Sharing Finance Facility, the Loan Guarantee Instrument, and the Marguerite fund; |
| --- | --- |

35.

finds it regrettable that the financial instruments to be made available from 2014 onwards have not yet been outlined in any detail by the Commission. The choice of instrument should take their additional benefits into account. They should serve to complement the non-repayable subsidies that have hitherto been customary, and provide a consistent and uniform financing framework for rail, energy and telecommunication networks that builds on experience with the Risk Sharing Finance Facility, the Loan Guarantee Instrument, and the Marguerite fund;

| 36. | recognises that, for financing purposes, plans include both equity and risk capital instruments and debt instruments. These include guarantees for intermediaries who make funds available for recipients with financing difficulties, and risk sharing with financial institutions in order to boost the volume of funds that can be drawn upon. Project bonds are also included; |
| --- | --- |

36.

recognises that, for financing purposes, plans include both equity and risk capital instruments and debt instruments. These include guarantees for intermediaries who make funds available for recipients with financing difficulties, and risk sharing with financial institutions in order to boost the volume of funds that can be drawn upon. Project bonds are also included;

| 37. | accepts the Commission's impact assessment that the proposed financial instruments do not entail a distortion of the financial market, since they are financially viable, but in individual cases unable to obtain sufficient financing on the open market; |
| --- | --- |

37.

accepts the Commission's impact assessment that the proposed financial instruments do not entail a distortion of the financial market, since they are financially viable, but in individual cases unable to obtain sufficient financing on the open market;

| 38. | notes that this is, to a certain degree, in contradiction with Article 15 of the regulation, which says that financing problems do not constitute an eligibility criterion for financial instruments; |
| --- | --- |

38.

notes that this is, to a certain degree, in contradiction with Article 15 of the regulation, which says that financing problems do not constitute an eligibility criterion for financial instruments;

| 39. | welcomes in principle the fact that as part of the CEF, up to 20 % of the available budget for risk sharing and equity instruments should be allocated over the course of the planning period. Providing it is implemented carefully, this increases financing opportunities and, unlike non-repayable subsidies, also promotes the autonomy of businesses. However, in both the cost and use analysis and in the assessment of the commercial viability of projects of common interest, the application of strict criteria needs to be guaranteed; |
| --- | --- |

39.

welcomes in principle the fact that as part of the CEF, up to 20 % of the available budget for risk sharing and equity instruments should be allocated over the course of the planning period. Providing it is implemented carefully, this increases financing opportunities and, unlike non-repayable subsidies, also promotes the autonomy of businesses. However, in both the cost and use analysis and in the assessment of the commercial viability of projects of common interest, the application of strict criteria needs to be guaranteed;

| 40. | questions the eligibility of the proposed financial instruments for energy and network development projects; |
| --- | --- |

40.

questions the eligibility of the proposed financial instruments for energy and network development projects;

| 41. | highlights the need to adapt the Connecting Europe Facility's eligibility criteria so as to ensure that the outermost regions are able to access funding for projects aimed at increasing their energy self-sufficiency; |
| --- | --- |

41.

highlights the need to adapt the Connecting Europe Facility's eligibility criteria so as to ensure that the outermost regions are able to access funding for projects aimed at increasing their energy self-sufficiency;

E.   
  Project bonds

| 42. | notes that a pilot phase is planned for the Project Bond Initiative in 2012 and 2013 under the supervision of the EIB. Projects will be eligible whose planning is already well advanced within the context of the TEN-E guidelines. In its impact assessment, the Commission expects that only one energy project will qualify in the pilot phase; |
| --- | --- |

42.

notes that a pilot phase is planned for the Project Bond Initiative in 2012 and 2013 under the supervision of the EIB. Projects will be eligible whose planning is already well advanced within the context of the TEN-E guidelines. In its impact assessment, the Commission expects that only one energy project will qualify in the pilot phase;

| 43. | agrees with the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) that there will be limited scope for drawing on project bonds for investment in existing networks, since this delimitation seems problematic. They could be a useful instrument for offshore connections and transnational linkages; |
| --- | --- |

43.

agrees with the Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) that there will be limited scope for drawing on project bonds for investment in existing networks, since this delimitation seems problematic. They could be a useful instrument for offshore connections and transnational linkages;

| 44. | notes that, given that this sort of project financing by network operators is still unusual, it could take some time before the new asset class is accepted by investors. By choosing projects based on reliable estimates, the Commission and the EIB should aim to build trust on the part of potential investors. The goal should be an investment-grade rating so that the bonds are also interesting for large, institutional investors; |
| --- | --- |

44.

notes that, given that this sort of project financing by network operators is still unusual, it could take some time before the new asset class is accepted by investors. By choosing projects based on reliable estimates, the Commission and the EIB should aim to build trust on the part of potential investors. The goal should be an investment-grade rating so that the bonds are also interesting for large, institutional investors;

| 45. | on the positive side notes that, in terms of the allocation of budget funds, financial instruments will now complement non-repayable subsidies. It must however be ensured that financing is only allocated to projects that respond to an actual need and that are demonstrably not commercially viable. Under no circumstances should otherwise viable projects be oversubsidised, thereby crowding out private financing. In particular only projects based on reliably calculated estimates should receive second-tier debt. Under no circumstances should an artificial market be created that is only sustained through cofinancing by the EU and that must be constantly replenished with additional funds in order to avoid insolvency. There must be regular reviews, especially during the pilot phase, of whether alternative support methods would not be more economical in overall terms. Consortium financing could be considered as an alternative to the proposed bonds; |
| --- | --- |

45.

on the positive side notes that, in terms of the allocation of budget funds, financial instruments will now complement non-repayable subsidies. It must however be ensured that financing is only allocated to projects that respond to an actual need and that are demonstrably not commercially viable. Under no circumstances should otherwise viable projects be oversubsidised, thereby crowding out private financing. In particular only projects based on reliably calculated estimates should receive second-tier debt. Under no circumstances should an artificial market be created that is only sustained through cofinancing by the EU and that must be constantly replenished with additional funds in order to avoid insolvency. There must be regular reviews, especially during the pilot phase, of whether alternative support methods would not be more economical in overall terms. Consortium financing could be considered as an alternative to the proposed bonds;

| 46. | stresses that financing of the extension of energy infrastructure, recognised as urgently necessary, must primarily be a task of businesses. The task of the EU and the Member States is to provide support for infrastructure initiatives, and to create the necessary framework for market actors. In order to counter existing doubts about the scope of overall investment, the Commission should endeavour to make its estimates more specific; at all events, appropriate network tariffs should ensure that the capital invested yields a return that is in line with market requirements; |
| --- | --- |

46.

stresses that financing of the extension of energy infrastructure, recognised as urgently necessary, must primarily be a task of businesses. The task of the EU and the Member States is to provide support for infrastructure initiatives, and to create the necessary framework for market actors. In order to counter existing doubts about the scope of overall investment, the Commission should endeavour to make its estimates more specific; at all events, appropriate network tariffs should ensure that the capital invested yields a return that is in line with market requirements;

F.   
  Overlap with other European regulations

| 47. | supports the Commission's plans to complete initiatives of shared interest within a shorter timeframe using a streamlined authorisation process coordinated by just one national authority, provided such processes allow sufficient room for national planning procedures. To this end, projects of major importance are to be given a priority status. In essence, the proposed regulation deals with questions of process and organisation; |
| --- | --- |

47.

supports the Commission's plans to complete initiatives of shared interest within a shorter timeframe using a streamlined authorisation process coordinated by just one national authority, provided such processes allow sufficient room for national planning procedures. To this end, projects of major importance are to be given a priority status. In essence, the proposed regulation deals with questions of process and organisation;

| 48. | notes that it would be logical to adapt the material standards that apply to projects of common interest to this priority status. In its current form, the proposed regulation offers little real alleviation. In view of the requirements of the EU's Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive, the projects should be in the overriding public interest. However, this must not affect the material preconditions of the aforementioned directives. In this respect, the proposed regulation is ambivalent. The requirement for a Commission opinion under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) is unaffected, even though the Commission must prepare the list of projects of common interest. This seems to unnecessarily duplicate revision; |
| --- | --- |

48.

notes that it would be logical to adapt the material standards that apply to projects of common interest to this priority status. In its current form, the proposed regulation offers little real alleviation. In view of the requirements of the EU's Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive, the projects should be in the overriding public interest. However, this must not affect the material preconditions of the aforementioned directives. In this respect, the proposed regulation is ambivalent. The requirement for a Commission opinion under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) is unaffected, even though the Commission must prepare the list of projects of common interest. This seems to unnecessarily duplicate revision;

| 49. | notes that, given that deadlines are set for completing the authorisation process, responsibility for streamlining the process is assigned first and foremost to the national or regional authorising authorities, which should take due account of the priority status of the project in question whereas the material standards set by the EU are broadly retained. The European Commission should work closely with the authorising authorities to draw up practical proposals for implementing these guidelines that take into account the practical requirements of efficient and transparent procedures. Therefore, the draft purports to outline a streamlined process without actually offering any genuine assistance. |
| --- | --- |

49.

notes that, given that deadlines are set for completing the authorisation process, responsibility for streamlining the process is assigned first and foremost to the national or regional authorising authorities, which should take due account of the priority status of the project in question whereas the material standards set by the EU are broadly retained. The European Commission should work closely with the authorising authorities to draw up practical proposals for implementing these guidelines that take into account the practical requirements of efficient and transparent procedures. Therefore, the draft purports to outline a streamlined process without actually offering any genuine assistance.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/143 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/143

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Horizon 2020 (the framework programme for research and innovation)’

2012/C 277/14

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

has the following key messages:

| — | The proposed Council Regulation and the implementation plans of Horizon 2020 need to have a stronger focus and impact on real-life practices, i.e. local and regional level needs to be challenged for active participation to reach the Europe 2020 strategy targets; |
| --- | --- |

—

The proposed Council Regulation and the implementation plans of Horizon 2020 need to have a stronger focus and impact on real-life practices, i.e. local and regional level needs to be challenged for active participation to reach the Europe 2020 strategy targets;

| — | The Horizon 2020 three-pillar system brings extensive added value to European Research; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Horizon 2020 three-pillar system brings extensive added value to European Research;

| — | Horizon 2020 should fund the research and development of concepts, methods and other forms of intellectual capital needed for the cooperation of regions and cities, universities and business on innovation and valorisation of knowledge; |
| --- | --- |

—

Horizon 2020 should fund the research and development of concepts, methods and other forms of intellectual capital needed for the cooperation of regions and cities, universities and business on innovation and valorisation of knowledge;

| — | Regions and cities should include Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) as an essential part of their core policy agenda. Horizon 2020 and Cohesion funding should be used to create the concepts, tools and other pre-conditions through which local and regional authorities can actively promote innovation, take risks and invest in the practical application of RDI, so as to provide a tailored regional dimension; |
| --- | --- |

—

Regions and cities should include Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) as an essential part of their core policy agenda. Horizon 2020 and Cohesion funding should be used to create the concepts, tools and other pre-conditions through which local and regional authorities can actively promote innovation, take risks and invest in the practical application of RDI, so as to provide a tailored regional dimension;

| — | The CoR proposes a strategic objective for Horizon 2020 to create the European open innovation culture via dedicated programmes and other instruments. Innovation ecosystems, key enabling technologies, public procurement and research infrastructures require extensive developments; |
| --- | --- |

—

The CoR proposes a strategic objective for Horizon 2020 to create the European open innovation culture via dedicated programmes and other instruments. Innovation ecosystems, key enabling technologies, public procurement and research infrastructures require extensive developments;

| — | Renewing the framework programme means simplification of the programme practices and increasing the impact of EU-funded RDI projects; |
| --- | --- |

—

Renewing the framework programme means simplification of the programme practices and increasing the impact of EU-funded RDI projects;

| — | Also a change of mindset is required in order to reach the set goals. CoR calls for pioneering regions to form European consortiums integrating different capabilities to create ground-breaking societal innovations for Europe-wide use; European Institute of Innovation and Technology EIT can add special value also to the regional level. |
| --- | --- |

—

Also a change of mindset is required in order to reach the set goals. CoR calls for pioneering regions to form European consortiums integrating different capabilities to create ground-breaking societal innovations for Europe-wide use; European Institute of Innovation and Technology EIT can add special value also to the regional level.

| Rapporteur | Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP), Member of Espoo City Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
  COM(2011) 809 final |

Rapporteur

Markku MARKKULA (FI/EPP), Member of Espoo City Council

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)

COM(2011) 809 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Key message 1:

The proposed Council Regulation and the implementation plans of Horizon 2020 need to have a stronger focus and impact on real-life practices, i.e. local and regional level needs to be challenged for active participation to reach the Europe 2020 strategy targets.

| 1. | The Commission proposals form an excellent starting point in defining the EU research, development and innovation (RDI) activities for the next programme period 2014-2020. All regions and actors within the region can and should be effective in using knowledge. Thus it is of utmost importance to disseminate and further develop the outcomes of RDI throughout Europe. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission proposals form an excellent starting point in defining the EU research, development and innovation (RDI) activities for the next programme period 2014-2020. All regions and actors within the region can and should be effective in using knowledge. Thus it is of utmost importance to disseminate and further develop the outcomes of RDI throughout Europe.

| 2. | In order to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, it is important that EU cohesion policy contributes to enhancing the skills base and innovation capacity at local level, as well as to developing instruments and cooperation that promote intra-European cooperation between regions. Such instruments and cooperation are needed to implement the results of Horizon 2020 on regional and local level. All regional research funded by Horizon 2020 should include a ‘global excellence’ dimension, facilitated by the principles of smart specialisation. Furthermore, a closer linkage of Horizon 2020 and the structural funds should be also properly reflected in the operational programmes and in the strategies for research, innovation and smart specialisation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In order to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, it is important that EU cohesion policy contributes to enhancing the skills base and innovation capacity at local level, as well as to developing instruments and cooperation that promote intra-European cooperation between regions. Such instruments and cooperation are needed to implement the results of Horizon 2020 on regional and local level. All regional research funded by Horizon 2020 should include a ‘global excellence’ dimension, facilitated by the principles of smart specialisation. Furthermore, a closer linkage of Horizon 2020 and the structural funds should be also properly reflected in the operational programmes and in the strategies for research, innovation and smart specialisation.

| 3. | The Commission's proposals comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Horizon 2020's measures are meant to be targeted so as to achieve as much added value and impact as possible when implemented at EU level. Activities can reinforce general principles of research and innovation, support the Member States' research functions and avoid overlapping. It is especially important that Horizon 2020 can help to achieve a critical mass in key sectors and to take on high risk and long-term R&D, because it allows risk to be shared and generates a breadth of scope and economies of scale that could not otherwise be achieved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission's proposals comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Horizon 2020's measures are meant to be targeted so as to achieve as much added value and impact as possible when implemented at EU level. Activities can reinforce general principles of research and innovation, support the Member States' research functions and avoid overlapping. It is especially important that Horizon 2020 can help to achieve a critical mass in key sectors and to take on high risk and long-term R&D, because it allows risk to be shared and generates a breadth of scope and economies of scale that could not otherwise be achieved.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 4. | emphasises the importance of Horizon 2020. The planned funding level EUR 80 billion is well argued for and the bare minimum needed with respect to its role in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy and other Union policies, as well as in the realisation and functioning of the European Research Area. However, stressing that Europe needs to recover from the financial crisis and create a solid basis for selected priorities in its global role, Horizon 2020 needs to include instruments which are focused on changes in real-life practices and secure faster societal outcomes in the form of new jobs, smart growth and increasing welfare both on the short and long terms; |
| --- | --- |

4.

emphasises the importance of Horizon 2020. The planned funding level EUR 80 billion is well argued for and the bare minimum needed with respect to its role in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy and other Union policies, as well as in the realisation and functioning of the European Research Area. However, stressing that Europe needs to recover from the financial crisis and create a solid basis for selected priorities in its global role, Horizon 2020 needs to include instruments which are focused on changes in real-life practices and secure faster societal outcomes in the form of new jobs, smart growth and increasing welfare both on the short and long terms;

| 5. | welcomes the Horizon 2020 target to obtain more innovation out of research, taking account of the innovation potential. It is therefore essential that – already before the new programme period starts – regional policy-makers and locally-based universities and research institutes begin to actively develop joint regional innovation strategies and implementation programmes that are strategically based on smart specialisation and jointly funded from different sources, including municipal budgets, business contributions and a number of EU financial instruments. It is important in this connection for the European research and innovation agenda and national and regional innovation strategies to be coordinated; |
| --- | --- |

5.

welcomes the Horizon 2020 target to obtain more innovation out of research, taking account of the innovation potential. It is therefore essential that – already before the new programme period starts – regional policy-makers and locally-based universities and research institutes begin to actively develop joint regional innovation strategies and implementation programmes that are strategically based on smart specialisation and jointly funded from different sources, including municipal budgets, business contributions and a number of EU financial instruments. It is important in this connection for the European research and innovation agenda and national and regional innovation strategies to be coordinated;

| 6. | calls the Horizon 2020 plans (in terms of content, targeting of funds and instruments) to be assessed for their impact, especially their stimulating effect, as part of all RDI activities taking place across Europe. Horizon 2020 is a massive programme in financial terms (EUR 80 billion for the period 2014-2020). The budget for Marie Curie actions, however, will fall from nearly EUR 1 billion in 2013 to just EUR 0,7 billion in 2014. In view of the services provided by this programme, the financial contribution to these actions should be more in line with that of the ERC. Moreover, keeping in mind that the Horizon 2020 programme makes up only a few per cent of all European RDI activity, decision-making should emphasise the European RDI system as a whole, and make strict priorities in using the Horizon 2020 funds; |
| --- | --- |

6.

calls the Horizon 2020 plans (in terms of content, targeting of funds and instruments) to be assessed for their impact, especially their stimulating effect, as part of all RDI activities taking place across Europe. Horizon 2020 is a massive programme in financial terms (EUR 80 billion for the period 2014-2020). The budget for Marie Curie actions, however, will fall from nearly EUR 1 billion in 2013 to just EUR 0,7 billion in 2014. In view of the services provided by this programme, the financial contribution to these actions should be more in line with that of the ERC. Moreover, keeping in mind that the Horizon 2020 programme makes up only a few per cent of all European RDI activity, decision-making should emphasise the European RDI system as a whole, and make strict priorities in using the Horizon 2020 funds;

| 7. | reiterates (1) that bold steps must be taken on a practical level, to assign all levels of government in the Member States – local and regional, as well as central – greater responsibility and to involve all the other stakeholders. The major role for regional and local authorities in defining and implementing the Europe 2020 strategy should be acknowledged in the National Reform Programmes and a shared ownership of all the key actors focusing through Territorial Pacts on the regional RDI activities; |
| --- | --- |

7.

reiterates (1) that bold steps must be taken on a practical level, to assign all levels of government in the Member States – local and regional, as well as central – greater responsibility and to involve all the other stakeholders. The major role for regional and local authorities in defining and implementing the Europe 2020 strategy should be acknowledged in the National Reform Programmes and a shared ownership of all the key actors focusing through Territorial Pacts on the regional RDI activities;

| 8. | calls for cities and regions to take a crucial role in forming new types of joint venture arrangements of public-private-people-partnerships in emphasising a stronger role of users, open innovation and the exploitation of excellent knowledge to boost the RDI needed for creating innovative solutions to societal challenges. When setting the target for Europe to become a global leader in tackling the grand societal challenges, as already stated in Horizon 2020, the RDI activities need to be multidisciplinary, multisectoral, multidimensional and multicultural by nature, thus requiring strong real-life participation. The laboratories are no longer traditional university facilities, but regional innovation ecosystems as test-beds for rapid prototyping of many types of user-driven innovations: new products, processes, structures and systems of transformative and scalable nature. These cannot be created and maintained without active participation by local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

8.

calls for cities and regions to take a crucial role in forming new types of joint venture arrangements of public-private-people-partnerships in emphasising a stronger role of users, open innovation and the exploitation of excellent knowledge to boost the RDI needed for creating innovative solutions to societal challenges. When setting the target for Europe to become a global leader in tackling the grand societal challenges, as already stated in Horizon 2020, the RDI activities need to be multidisciplinary, multisectoral, multidimensional and multicultural by nature, thus requiring strong real-life participation. The laboratories are no longer traditional university facilities, but regional innovation ecosystems as test-beds for rapid prototyping of many types of user-driven innovations: new products, processes, structures and systems of transformative and scalable nature. These cannot be created and maintained without active participation by local and regional authorities;

| 9. | stresses the importance of having a regional component in Horizon 2020 in order to achieve the aimed-for synergy between regional policy and research policy, and therefore calls for the retention of the instruments and programmes in Horizon 2020, such as the Regions of Knowledge (RoK) and Living Labs. These programmes have a strong regional dimension, regional participation and regional impact, strengthen regional innovation potential and go beyond simply ‘knowledge exchange’; |
| --- | --- |

9.

stresses the importance of having a regional component in Horizon 2020 in order to achieve the aimed-for synergy between regional policy and research policy, and therefore calls for the retention of the instruments and programmes in Horizon 2020, such as the Regions of Knowledge (RoK) and Living Labs. These programmes have a strong regional dimension, regional participation and regional impact, strengthen regional innovation potential and go beyond simply ‘knowledge exchange’;

| 10. | urges that the RoK programme must not be shut down – not even on the grounds of similar activities being organised and funded to a significant extent through cohesion policy funds. Contrastively, the RoK programme should be deployed as an instrument of developing regional excellence and its volume should be multiplied. RoK can be of crucial importance in challenging and supporting regions towards Smart Specialisation and becoming a stairway to increased European collaboration and bench-learning. Bench-learning is a process focusing on co-creating systemic changes by bench-marking and collaborative learning; |
| --- | --- |

10.

urges that the RoK programme must not be shut down – not even on the grounds of similar activities being organised and funded to a significant extent through cohesion policy funds. Contrastively, the RoK programme should be deployed as an instrument of developing regional excellence and its volume should be multiplied. RoK can be of crucial importance in challenging and supporting regions towards Smart Specialisation and becoming a stairway to increased European collaboration and bench-learning. Bench-learning is a process focusing on co-creating systemic changes by bench-marking and collaborative learning;

| 11. | proposes that RoK should assume a special role in funding research on how to integrate regional activities into different flagship initiatives for fruitful European collaboration. Thus one of the aims of RoK should be to boost the competitiveness of research-driven regional ecosystems in the domains of digital agenda and resource-efficient technologies Europe-wide and globally, thereby unleashing new business opportunities for participating SMEs, which play a crucial role in marketing and implementing innovative developments; |
| --- | --- |

11.

proposes that RoK should assume a special role in funding research on how to integrate regional activities into different flagship initiatives for fruitful European collaboration. Thus one of the aims of RoK should be to boost the competitiveness of research-driven regional ecosystems in the domains of digital agenda and resource-efficient technologies Europe-wide and globally, thereby unleashing new business opportunities for participating SMEs, which play a crucial role in marketing and implementing innovative developments;

| 12. | Expresses its concern that neither the European Union's Multiannual Financial Framework, proposed for the 2014-2020 period, nor Horizon 2020 did mention the future of the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE), which in the current programming period was essential for innovation in terms of local governance, financial engineering, attracting local players and citizens, long-term vision and networking, and allowed the launching of initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors. Calls therefore for a separate budget heading dedicated to non-technological solutions in the Horizon 2020 programme, within the spirit and furtherance of the IEE programme. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Expresses its concern that neither the European Union's Multiannual Financial Framework, proposed for the 2014-2020 period, nor Horizon 2020 did mention the future of the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE), which in the current programming period was essential for innovation in terms of local governance, financial engineering, attracting local players and citizens, long-term vision and networking, and allowed the launching of initiatives such as the Covenant of Mayors. Calls therefore for a separate budget heading dedicated to non-technological solutions in the Horizon 2020 programme, within the spirit and furtherance of the IEE programme.

Key message 2:

The Horizon 2020 three-pillar system brings extensive added value to European Research

| 13. | In order to increase the regional impact of European RDI activities, several issues need to be addressed:






  a) | raising public awareness of innovation and the impact and scalability of RDI; |
| --- | --- | --- |

13.

In order to increase the regional impact of European RDI activities, several issues need to be addressed:

a)

raising public awareness of innovation and the impact and scalability of RDI;

| b) | the development of value metrics to help in increasing regional collaboration to tackle grand societal challenges and in creating and running joint platforms for open innovation and public-private-people partnerships; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the development of value metrics to help in increasing regional collaboration to tackle grand societal challenges and in creating and running joint platforms for open innovation and public-private-people partnerships;

| c) | encouraging the dialogue between science and society, and through that deepening the understanding of the systemic nature of innovation and foresight. |
| --- | --- |

c)

encouraging the dialogue between science and society, and through that deepening the understanding of the systemic nature of innovation and foresight.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 14. | stresses that the key issues with respect to RDI in regions throughout Europe are:






  a) | defining the role of RDI in renewing the traditional public-sector processes, including decision making; |
| --- | --- | --- |

14.

stresses that the key issues with respect to RDI in regions throughout Europe are:

a)

defining the role of RDI in renewing the traditional public-sector processes, including decision making;

| b) | increasing the relevance and usability of the outcomes of EU flagship initiatives and based on that, speeding up the implementation of these activities; |
| --- | --- |

b)

increasing the relevance and usability of the outcomes of EU flagship initiatives and based on that, speeding up the implementation of these activities;

| c) | learning to exploit and market existing research and innovation knowledge through public-private partnerships and by sharing best practices and other relevant knowledge. |
| --- | --- |

c)

learning to exploit and market existing research and innovation knowledge through public-private partnerships and by sharing best practices and other relevant knowledge.

| 15. | stresses that the three-pillar structure of Horizon 2020 creates opportunities to achieve the EU 2020 strategic targets. Keeping in mind that Horizon 2020 focuses on the EU-level RDI which should catalyze RDI in the Member States and regions, the following recommendations should be taken into account in redefining the Horizon 2020 regulations and practices:






  a) | In terms of evaluation and funding criteria, the emphasis is on global excellence; all activities draw from scientific expertise. It should be highlighted, however, that each pillar needs to have its own criteria of excellence: in the first, it should be scientific excellence; in the second, the excellence of industrial innovations and business renewal; and in the third it should be the excellence and impact of societal innovations. |
| --- | --- | --- |

15.

stresses that the three-pillar structure of Horizon 2020 creates opportunities to achieve the EU 2020 strategic targets. Keeping in mind that Horizon 2020 focuses on the EU-level RDI which should catalyze RDI in the Member States and regions, the following recommendations should be taken into account in redefining the Horizon 2020 regulations and practices:

a)

In terms of evaluation and funding criteria, the emphasis is on global excellence; all activities draw from scientific expertise. It should be highlighted, however, that each pillar needs to have its own criteria of excellence: in the first, it should be scientific excellence; in the second, the excellence of industrial innovations and business renewal; and in the third it should be the excellence and impact of societal innovations.

| b) | In the Excellence Science priority pillar, increasing emphasis should be placed on the significance of the multidisciplinary nature of Future and Emerging Technologies. The impact assessment criteria should include, in addition to scientific publications and patents, also other forms of knowledge flows between various actors from knowledge creators through knowledge users to final beneficiaries. |
| --- | --- |

b)

In the Excellence Science priority pillar, increasing emphasis should be placed on the significance of the multidisciplinary nature of Future and Emerging Technologies. The impact assessment criteria should include, in addition to scientific publications and patents, also other forms of knowledge flows between various actors from knowledge creators through knowledge users to final beneficiaries.

| c) | In the Industrial Leadership pillar the emphasis should strongly be on combining several technologies in RDI to increase the growth potential of European companies, particularly SMEs. This could include promoting SMEs' participation in public-private consortia. Tackling industrial complexities also requires increasing RDI agility, thus necessitating increased SME participation. Technologies should be viewed as enablers of fast development, even on the level of radical change, which stresses that the main emphasis should be on integrating digitalisation, human behaviour and market dynamics. |
| --- | --- |

c)

In the Industrial Leadership pillar the emphasis should strongly be on combining several technologies in RDI to increase the growth potential of European companies, particularly SMEs. This could include promoting SMEs' participation in public-private consortia. Tackling industrial complexities also requires increasing RDI agility, thus necessitating increased SME participation. Technologies should be viewed as enablers of fast development, even on the level of radical change, which stresses that the main emphasis should be on integrating digitalisation, human behaviour and market dynamics.

| d) | In the Societal Challenges pillar the emphasis should be on combining the best European expertise to large-scale co-creation projects, allowing Europe to implement large system-level structure-renewing changes over traditional boundaries. Discipline-centred research is not sufficient to create knowledge to solve grand societal challenges. Focus should be directed to multidisciplinary RDI activities that yield concepts and components needed in those system-level structure-renewing changes. At the core of research lie experimentation and piloting. A good example is the extensive Smart City operating field. An essential part of all this is scalability of results in different conditions throughout Europe. |
| --- | --- |

d)

In the Societal Challenges pillar the emphasis should be on combining the best European expertise to large-scale co-creation projects, allowing Europe to implement large system-level structure-renewing changes over traditional boundaries. Discipline-centred research is not sufficient to create knowledge to solve grand societal challenges. Focus should be directed to multidisciplinary RDI activities that yield concepts and components needed in those system-level structure-renewing changes. At the core of research lie experimentation and piloting. A good example is the extensive Smart City operating field. An essential part of all this is scalability of results in different conditions throughout Europe.

| e) | As world-class results are required also in the short term, especially the Societal Challenges pillar should be utilised to renew the currently too inflexible framework policy that is also too isolated from the real world practices. Different programmes use different funding schemes according to their targets. As one solution could be regarded the multi-phase funding policy, where each phase is effectively resourced and results are evaluated based on criteria that emphasise the need for excellent quality. Only successful projects, which meet these excellence requirements, continue to the next levels. The levels could address such project phases as 1) feasibility, 2) experimentation, 3) knowledge co-creation and 4) roll-out and scaling. The first phase focuses on solution creation in wide and open interaction. The second phase would aim at testing the diverse alternatives and conceptualising the system. In the third phase, top researchers would elaborate on the required components. The fourth phase would be comprised of several parallel, applied and simultaneously new-creating experiments increasing the societal impact of the project. |
| --- | --- |

e)

As world-class results are required also in the short term, especially the Societal Challenges pillar should be utilised to renew the currently too inflexible framework policy that is also too isolated from the real world practices. Different programmes use different funding schemes according to their targets. As one solution could be regarded the multi-phase funding policy, where each phase is effectively resourced and results are evaluated based on criteria that emphasise the need for excellent quality. Only successful projects, which meet these excellence requirements, continue to the next levels. The levels could address such project phases as 1) feasibility, 2) experimentation, 3) knowledge co-creation and 4) roll-out and scaling. The first phase focuses on solution creation in wide and open interaction. The second phase would aim at testing the diverse alternatives and conceptualising the system. In the third phase, top researchers would elaborate on the required components. The fourth phase would be comprised of several parallel, applied and simultaneously new-creating experiments increasing the societal impact of the project.

| f) | The multi-phase project practice described above – when it is applied transparently and when disseminating results effectively – would provide also the regions and other cohesion funding receivers an immense amount of useful information about already-existing expertise and potential agents in development activities. |
| --- | --- |

f)

The multi-phase project practice described above – when it is applied transparently and when disseminating results effectively – would provide also the regions and other cohesion funding receivers an immense amount of useful information about already-existing expertise and potential agents in development activities.

Key message 3:

Regions and cities should include RDI as an essential part of their core policy agenda. Horizon 2020 and Cohesion funding should be used to create the concepts, tools and other pre-conditions through which local and regional authorities can actively promote innovation, take risks and invest in the practical application of RDI, so as to provide a tailored regional dimension.

| 16. | Regions need to increase their preparedness to benefit from research. More focus and funding needs to be on this. The developed competences, practices and tools should then be used to leverage the research results to the European-wide use. This can only be accomplished by intensifying synergies in using all funding instruments, that is, Horizon 2020, cohesion policy as well as national, regional and local resources. The joint usage of resources is, however, not sufficient, but in addition, requires changes in the operating culture and administrative practices. Especially, there is a need to increase regional collaboration and joint learning with respect to effective use of RIS3 strategies (national/regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation). |
| --- | --- |

16.

Regions need to increase their preparedness to benefit from research. More focus and funding needs to be on this. The developed competences, practices and tools should then be used to leverage the research results to the European-wide use. This can only be accomplished by intensifying synergies in using all funding instruments, that is, Horizon 2020, cohesion policy as well as national, regional and local resources. The joint usage of resources is, however, not sufficient, but in addition, requires changes in the operating culture and administrative practices. Especially, there is a need to increase regional collaboration and joint learning with respect to effective use of RIS3 strategies (national/regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation).

| 17. | However, complementarity of Horizon 2020 with other EU funding programmes, including the Structural Funds, must ensure that even those regions and cities that are not eligible for funding from such funds, are supported in the development of the so-called ‘Triple Helix’ constellation (involving local and regional authorities, knowledge institutes and industry) on innovation and valorisation of knowledge. To this effect, and given the relevance of Horizon 2020 for the EU as a whole, the programme's budget should foresee specific funds to be allocated for the research and development of such collaborative relationships. |
| --- | --- |

17.

However, complementarity of Horizon 2020 with other EU funding programmes, including the Structural Funds, must ensure that even those regions and cities that are not eligible for funding from such funds, are supported in the development of the so-called ‘Triple Helix’ constellation (involving local and regional authorities, knowledge institutes and industry) on innovation and valorisation of knowledge. To this effect, and given the relevance of Horizon 2020 for the EU as a whole, the programme's budget should foresee specific funds to be allocated for the research and development of such collaborative relationships.

| 18. | Also a change of mindset is required in order to reach the set goals. The CoR calls for pioneering regions to form European consortiums integrating different capabilities to create ground-breaking societal innovations for Europe-wide use. It also calls for increased performance capabilities of regions and cities to use the Horizon 2020 Programme and other similar initiatives. The focus should be, in particular, on making full use of digitalisation and new key enabling technologies to modernise regional innovation policy. Furthermore, the CoR encourages the regions to move towards open innovation, within a human-centred vision of partnerships between public and private sector actors, with universities and other knowledge institutions playing a crucial role. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Also a change of mindset is required in order to reach the set goals. The CoR calls for pioneering regions to form European consortiums integrating different capabilities to create ground-breaking societal innovations for Europe-wide use. It also calls for increased performance capabilities of regions and cities to use the Horizon 2020 Programme and other similar initiatives. The focus should be, in particular, on making full use of digitalisation and new key enabling technologies to modernise regional innovation policy. Furthermore, the CoR encourages the regions to move towards open innovation, within a human-centred vision of partnerships between public and private sector actors, with universities and other knowledge institutions playing a crucial role.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 19. | stresses the complementary role of Horizon 2020 with respect to the RDI in Member States. Implementing Horizon 2020 should, in particular, lead to programmes and other financing instruments that catalyze European innovation policies, encourage pioneering and increase corporate and especially SME participation. This calls for encouraging the risk-taking that is often associated to major innovations; it also calls for increased funding for SMEs especially in rapid prototyping, marketing and implementing innovative developments; |
| --- | --- |

19.

stresses the complementary role of Horizon 2020 with respect to the RDI in Member States. Implementing Horizon 2020 should, in particular, lead to programmes and other financing instruments that catalyze European innovation policies, encourage pioneering and increase corporate and especially SME participation. This calls for encouraging the risk-taking that is often associated to major innovations; it also calls for increased funding for SMEs especially in rapid prototyping, marketing and implementing innovative developments;

| 20. | calls for the changes in role of Joint Research Centre to assist the regional and local decision making with the latest RDI outcomes. This focusing should be accomplished in close coordination with the new developments of the Smart Specialisation Platform. Instead of reports and other publications, the outcomes should revolve much more around funding of experimentations and rapid prototyping, applying research knowledge to practical change processes in all parts of Europe, thus increasing the renewal capital on regional and local levels; |
| --- | --- |

20.

calls for the changes in role of Joint Research Centre to assist the regional and local decision making with the latest RDI outcomes. This focusing should be accomplished in close coordination with the new developments of the Smart Specialisation Platform. Instead of reports and other publications, the outcomes should revolve much more around funding of experimentations and rapid prototyping, applying research knowledge to practical change processes in all parts of Europe, thus increasing the renewal capital on regional and local levels;

| 21. | pays special attention to ways of ensuring that new effective instruments with a strong regional dimension will be developed and taken up. The policy guidelines do exist in Horizon 2020. The specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 explicitly mentions items of regional relevance and coordination with cohesion funding sources. The societal challenges priority includes an item on closing the research and innovation divide in Europe, e.g. by teaming excellent research institutes and less-developed regions up, by recognising excellence in less-developed regions, and by facilitating policy learning at the regional level; |
| --- | --- |

21.

pays special attention to ways of ensuring that new effective instruments with a strong regional dimension will be developed and taken up. The policy guidelines do exist in Horizon 2020. The specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 explicitly mentions items of regional relevance and coordination with cohesion funding sources. The societal challenges priority includes an item on closing the research and innovation divide in Europe, e.g. by teaming excellent research institutes and less-developed regions up, by recognising excellence in less-developed regions, and by facilitating policy learning at the regional level;

| 22. | sends its strong message to local and regional authorities to encourage their active role within Horizon 2020. To get the most out of Horizon 2020, local and regional authorities face the challenge of developing cross-territorial and pan-European cooperation. To this effect, they must also exploit the potential of the European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (2). In particular, they need to be able to develop joint platforms (such as innovation forums and test-beds for cooperation by integrating real and virtual worlds) to foster open innovation and regional innovation ecosystems. Active European cooperation would result in economies of scale and the creation of wider markets for local businesses and other local developments. Smart specialisation – as the key guiding principle both of Horizon 2020 and of cohesion policy – is opening up new avenues to all this; |
| --- | --- |

22.

sends its strong message to local and regional authorities to encourage their active role within Horizon 2020. To get the most out of Horizon 2020, local and regional authorities face the challenge of developing cross-territorial and pan-European cooperation. To this effect, they must also exploit the potential of the European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (2). In particular, they need to be able to develop joint platforms (such as innovation forums and test-beds for cooperation by integrating real and virtual worlds) to foster open innovation and regional innovation ecosystems. Active European cooperation would result in economies of scale and the creation of wider markets for local businesses and other local developments. Smart specialisation – as the key guiding principle both of Horizon 2020 and of cohesion policy – is opening up new avenues to all this;

| 23. | highlights that the implementation of Horizon 2020 should accentuate the systemic nature of the RDI chain and its final stages, in other words, the commercialisation of research results into the markets. An increase in Open Innovation activities necessitates more research activities related to innovativeness and innovation ecosystems. Therefore, the focus of multidisciplinary RDI should be especially on enablers of innovative change, including foresight, human capital, renewal competences and metrics for evaluating innovation; |
| --- | --- |

23.

highlights that the implementation of Horizon 2020 should accentuate the systemic nature of the RDI chain and its final stages, in other words, the commercialisation of research results into the markets. An increase in Open Innovation activities necessitates more research activities related to innovativeness and innovation ecosystems. Therefore, the focus of multidisciplinary RDI should be especially on enablers of innovative change, including foresight, human capital, renewal competences and metrics for evaluating innovation;

| 24. | proposes a strategic objective for Horizon 2020 to create the European open innovation culture via dedicated programmes and other instruments, e.g., for the involvement of end-users, citizens and civil society organisations developing ICT-based methods and tools for open innovation. The objective should include activities to create scalable experience in open innovation management, methods, tools and application environments. The experimental approach is needed especially in areas where innovations associated to digitalisation can have an enormous impact as e.g. smart cities and smart mobility. |
| --- | --- |

24.

proposes a strategic objective for Horizon 2020 to create the European open innovation culture via dedicated programmes and other instruments, e.g., for the involvement of end-users, citizens and civil society organisations developing ICT-based methods and tools for open innovation. The objective should include activities to create scalable experience in open innovation management, methods, tools and application environments. The experimental approach is needed especially in areas where innovations associated to digitalisation can have an enormous impact as e.g. smart cities and smart mobility.

Key message 4:

Renewing the framework programme means simplification of the programme practices and increasing the impact of EU-funded RDI projects

| 25. | Streamlining of administrative practices is one of the heaviest expectations placed on Horizon 2020. The aim should be on research topics and flexible, transparent funding systems that are attractive to the extent that they make it worthwhile for universities, research institutes and enterprises to seek extensive European collaboration and to allocate considerable amounts of their own funding to these endeavours. As adequate control measures, monitoring the spending of the funding could be regarded to be enough when based on each operator’s legally valid book-keeping and routine auditing. This would considerably reduce the amount of audits conducted by the EU and its member states’ administration officials, to a level even lower than planned. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Streamlining of administrative practices is one of the heaviest expectations placed on Horizon 2020. The aim should be on research topics and flexible, transparent funding systems that are attractive to the extent that they make it worthwhile for universities, research institutes and enterprises to seek extensive European collaboration and to allocate considerable amounts of their own funding to these endeavours. As adequate control measures, monitoring the spending of the funding could be regarded to be enough when based on each operator’s legally valid book-keeping and routine auditing. This would considerably reduce the amount of audits conducted by the EU and its member states’ administration officials, to a level even lower than planned.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 26. | calls for simplification of administration and stresses that administrative practices should always support and serve the actual content targets of projects. Creating a one-stop shop at the European Commission could avoid a fragmentation in the coordination of innovative projects. This is particularly important for multidisciplinary projects and those financed from several European funds; |
| --- | --- |

26.

calls for simplification of administration and stresses that administrative practices should always support and serve the actual content targets of projects. Creating a one-stop shop at the European Commission could avoid a fragmentation in the coordination of innovative projects. This is particularly important for multidisciplinary projects and those financed from several European funds;

| 27. | feels that it is imperative that Article 24 of the draft regulation on the rules of participation (COM(2011) 810 final), which deals with indirect costs, be amended. Under the model currently proposed (a ‘flat rate’ model), indirect costs are determined by applying a flat rate of 20 % of the total direct eligible costs. This would create often unreasonable difficulties in meeting actual indirect costs. Either the rate should be lifted substantially or it should be made possible to accept actual costs with respect to indirect costs, too; |
| --- | --- |

27.

feels that it is imperative that Article 24 of the draft regulation on the rules of participation (COM(2011) 810 final), which deals with indirect costs, be amended. Under the model currently proposed (a ‘flat rate’ model), indirect costs are determined by applying a flat rate of 20 % of the total direct eligible costs. This would create often unreasonable difficulties in meeting actual indirect costs. Either the rate should be lifted substantially or it should be made possible to accept actual costs with respect to indirect costs, too;

| 28. | welcomes the alignment of Horizon 2020 and cohesion policy, and linking of the EU's various programmes and financial instruments. However, the Horizon 2020 plans should be further defined to secure the necessary changes. This means that each programme should adopt criteria catering for the goals of the programme in question, but they all follow the common principle that the project should include effective measures to transfer its research outcomes to the use of the project outsiders. In order to increase impacts, the use of funding should be made more flexible during the project. The outcome is what matters, not the administration; |
| --- | --- |

28.

welcomes the alignment of Horizon 2020 and cohesion policy, and linking of the EU's various programmes and financial instruments. However, the Horizon 2020 plans should be further defined to secure the necessary changes. This means that each programme should adopt criteria catering for the goals of the programme in question, but they all follow the common principle that the project should include effective measures to transfer its research outcomes to the use of the project outsiders. In order to increase impacts, the use of funding should be made more flexible during the project. The outcome is what matters, not the administration;

| 29. | reiterates support to the approach suggested by the European Parliament for a ‘science and technology’ or ‘science and innovation’ based approach, rooted in sound scientific/technical quality criteria; relying on realistic management practices; acknowledging the commonalities and differences between science, technology development and market diffusion (3); |
| --- | --- |

29.

reiterates support to the approach suggested by the European Parliament for a ‘science and technology’ or ‘science and innovation’ based approach, rooted in sound scientific/technical quality criteria; relying on realistic management practices; acknowledging the commonalities and differences between science, technology development and market diffusion (3);

| 30. | stresses the importance of close collaboration among the activities financed by Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Policy Funds. In the new programme period the cohesion funding should be used for the purpose which CoR pointed out in its opinion on Simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes. CoR called for the creation of new mechanisms through which funding can be granted to local and regional authorities so that they can purchase the outcomes of successful research projects in order to meet the competence requirements of innovative regional development (4); |
| --- | --- |

30.

stresses the importance of close collaboration among the activities financed by Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Policy Funds. In the new programme period the cohesion funding should be used for the purpose which CoR pointed out in its opinion on Simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes. CoR called for the creation of new mechanisms through which funding can be granted to local and regional authorities so that they can purchase the outcomes of successful research projects in order to meet the competence requirements of innovative regional development (4);

| 31. | proposes the following measures to be applied to a large share of the Horizon 2020 programmes, with each programme emphasising themes most pertinent to its goals:






  a) | One of the major weaknesses in the present system stems from existing knowledge not being benefited from sufficiently. At project start, sufficient time and other resources should be reserved to collect and analyze already-existing, topic-related knowledge. The results from this project phase should be openly published also to parties outside the project in order to improve information dissemination and usability everywhere. |
| --- | --- | --- |

31.

proposes the following measures to be applied to a large share of the Horizon 2020 programmes, with each programme emphasising themes most pertinent to its goals:

a)

One of the major weaknesses in the present system stems from existing knowledge not being benefited from sufficiently. At project start, sufficient time and other resources should be reserved to collect and analyze already-existing, topic-related knowledge. The results from this project phase should be openly published also to parties outside the project in order to improve information dissemination and usability everywhere.

| b) | The weight of reaching the result targets should be accentuated more than stated before. In practice this means, e.g., that programme descriptions and project applications highlight the societal impact of RDI activities on both the short and the long run. More resources should be invested in increasing the impact, and also piloting and outcome dissemination activities should be increased and spread over the entire project lifecycle. Resources should be allocated to include new partners during the project phases, by involving, in particular, knowledge co-creators and results implementers from different regions and fields. |
| --- | --- |

b)

The weight of reaching the result targets should be accentuated more than stated before. In practice this means, e.g., that programme descriptions and project applications highlight the societal impact of RDI activities on both the short and the long run. More resources should be invested in increasing the impact, and also piloting and outcome dissemination activities should be increased and spread over the entire project lifecycle. Resources should be allocated to include new partners during the project phases, by involving, in particular, knowledge co-creators and results implementers from different regions and fields.

| c) | Openness, collaboration and reaction sensitivity in the project culture should be enhanced also so that part of the project budget (typically 10-20 %) is reserved for untargeted measures taken during the project to react to external changes and development in the field, thereby planned during the project. Such funding can also be utilised to introduce new partners into the project, when expertise valuable for the project is recognised in actors not originally involved in the project. |
| --- | --- |

c)

Openness, collaboration and reaction sensitivity in the project culture should be enhanced also so that part of the project budget (typically 10-20 %) is reserved for untargeted measures taken during the project to react to external changes and development in the field, thereby planned during the project. Such funding can also be utilised to introduce new partners into the project, when expertise valuable for the project is recognised in actors not originally involved in the project.

| d) | Within the scope of the Financial Regulations, mechanisms should be developed for allowing small amounts of funding to be earmarked for further developing outstanding outcomes of projects. Such support would be bound to excellence criteria, and work primarily as an incentive for outstanding outcomes to be directed towards the next stage of the innovation cycle (e.g. from research to demonstration, and to commercialisation). |
| --- | --- |

d)

Within the scope of the Financial Regulations, mechanisms should be developed for allowing small amounts of funding to be earmarked for further developing outstanding outcomes of projects. Such support would be bound to excellence criteria, and work primarily as an incentive for outstanding outcomes to be directed towards the next stage of the innovation cycle (e.g. from research to demonstration, and to commercialisation).

| e) | The Knowledge Triangle (synergy between research, education and innovation) should be one of the key principles, not just in EIT, but throughout the entire Horizon 2020. Each project should plan activities to implement the Knowledge Triangle. |
| --- | --- |

e)

The Knowledge Triangle (synergy between research, education and innovation) should be one of the key principles, not just in EIT, but throughout the entire Horizon 2020. Each project should plan activities to implement the Knowledge Triangle.

Key message 5:

Innovation ecosystems, key enabling technologies, public procurement and research infrastructures require extensive developments

| 32. | Horizon 2020 needs to ensure that advanced methods and processes for partnerships between universities and industries are applied in all parts of Europe. The focus needs to be on increasing the potential for outputs which deliver more forms of innovation from research, as well as on profitable businesses, including those operating in the public sector. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Horizon 2020 needs to ensure that advanced methods and processes for partnerships between universities and industries are applied in all parts of Europe. The focus needs to be on increasing the potential for outputs which deliver more forms of innovation from research, as well as on profitable businesses, including those operating in the public sector.

| 33. | Internationally successful products – be they products in the strict sense, or systems, services or broader operational frameworks – are the result of world-class expertise based on value chains and ecosystems. Horizon 2020 needs to be able to create the conditions for functional innovation chains. Only then will it be possible to respond to major societal challenges and the need for industrial regeneration. |
| --- | --- |

33.

Internationally successful products – be they products in the strict sense, or systems, services or broader operational frameworks – are the result of world-class expertise based on value chains and ecosystems. Horizon 2020 needs to be able to create the conditions for functional innovation chains. Only then will it be possible to respond to major societal challenges and the need for industrial regeneration.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 34. | emphasises the role of key enabling technologies (KET) in Horizon 2020. Technologies should not only be developed in separate science and technology programmes; rather, they should be linked as early as the R&D stage to industrial value chains and global innovation value networks, and to activities that develop regional ecosystems and innovation clusters and strengthen expertise. Campus developments at regional level could make a contribution in this respect. This is important because it allows product development activities by small and also larger businesses to extend beyond the difficult early stages; |
| --- | --- |

34.

emphasises the role of key enabling technologies (KET) in Horizon 2020. Technologies should not only be developed in separate science and technology programmes; rather, they should be linked as early as the R&D stage to industrial value chains and global innovation value networks, and to activities that develop regional ecosystems and innovation clusters and strengthen expertise. Campus developments at regional level could make a contribution in this respect. This is important because it allows product development activities by small and also larger businesses to extend beyond the difficult early stages;

| 35. | urges to benefit fully from the public-sector need for new services, products and technologies and use it as a leverage to create more demand for innovation through public procurement. The CoR has recognised (5) the vast purchasing power of public procurement, accounting for 17 % of EU27 GDP, and acknowledged the crucial role of public procurement as an innovation driver and obvious engine for increasing of (social, environmental ...) standards. The potential should be exploited at regional, national, and European governance levels and supported with appropriate capacity building measures; |
| --- | --- |

35.

urges to benefit fully from the public-sector need for new services, products and technologies and use it as a leverage to create more demand for innovation through public procurement. The CoR has recognised (5) the vast purchasing power of public procurement, accounting for 17 % of EU27 GDP, and acknowledged the crucial role of public procurement as an innovation driver and obvious engine for increasing of (social, environmental ...) standards. The potential should be exploited at regional, national, and European governance levels and supported with appropriate capacity building measures;

| 36. | reaffirms its belief that the European Research Area (ERA) could be strengthened if the procurement of research and development services were to be included in public procurement procedures; recalls the CoR opinion on the Green Paper on the procurement market (6) and the CoR opinion on pre-commercial procurement (7), provided this does not result in these services being exposed to competition; |
| --- | --- |

36.

reaffirms its belief that the European Research Area (ERA) could be strengthened if the procurement of research and development services were to be included in public procurement procedures; recalls the CoR opinion on the Green Paper on the procurement market (6) and the CoR opinion on pre-commercial procurement (7), provided this does not result in these services being exposed to competition;

| 37. | acknowledges the key role of cities as contexts for broad, system-changing innovations with great potential impact in responding to difficult environmental, social, and economic challenges of our time. More support for the transformation process through which system-changing innovations in urban contexts can be developed, piloted, and scaled-up is required from policy and knowledge institutions; |
| --- | --- |

37.

acknowledges the key role of cities as contexts for broad, system-changing innovations with great potential impact in responding to difficult environmental, social, and economic challenges of our time. More support for the transformation process through which system-changing innovations in urban contexts can be developed, piloted, and scaled-up is required from policy and knowledge institutions;

| 38. | stresses that it is crucial for local and regional authorities to be fully involved in order to achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, particularly those under ‘Innovation Union’, on the basis of a tailored regional dimension. In this context, it highlights the key role that they play in bringing together businesses, universities, research centres and public institutions (via the triple helix or similar approaches); |
| --- | --- |

38.

stresses that it is crucial for local and regional authorities to be fully involved in order to achieve the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth and jobs, particularly those under ‘Innovation Union’, on the basis of a tailored regional dimension. In this context, it highlights the key role that they play in bringing together businesses, universities, research centres and public institutions (via the triple helix or similar approaches);

| 39. | highlights the importance of investments in Pan-European research infrastructures (RIs). To integrate local and regional actors for the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives, the innovation dimension should be properly represented in all aspects of the ERA Framework, i.e. by developing the ERA towards the European Research and Innovation Area. RIs represent essential resources which complement university and other research facilities and equipment. RIs also attract excellent researchers on a global basis, and should be regarded as joint platforms for researchers from different disciplines and essential hubs of cooperation between academics, professionals from private and public industries, and other societal actors. |
| --- | --- |

39.

highlights the importance of investments in Pan-European research infrastructures (RIs). To integrate local and regional actors for the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives, the innovation dimension should be properly represented in all aspects of the ERA Framework, i.e. by developing the ERA towards the European Research and Innovation Area. RIs represent essential resources which complement university and other research facilities and equipment. RIs also attract excellent researchers on a global basis, and should be regarded as joint platforms for researchers from different disciplines and essential hubs of cooperation between academics, professionals from private and public industries, and other societal actors.

Key message 6:

European Institute of Innovation and Technology EIT can add special value also to the regional level

| 40. | The Commission accentuates (8) that the EIT co-location centres play a major role in strengthening the local-global connectivity of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) as a whole, through close co-operation with regional authorities, in particular those involved in designing and delivering the Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). An excellent example of the concept development is the Climate KIC Regional Innovation and Implementation Communities (RICs). They provide an original pan-European regional innovation model, which uses regions as test beds, linking up the development of managerial capability and regional strengths to global challenges. |
| --- | --- |

40.

The Commission accentuates (8) that the EIT co-location centres play a major role in strengthening the local-global connectivity of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) as a whole, through close co-operation with regional authorities, in particular those involved in designing and delivering the Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3). An excellent example of the concept development is the Climate KIC Regional Innovation and Implementation Communities (RICs). They provide an original pan-European regional innovation model, which uses regions as test beds, linking up the development of managerial capability and regional strengths to global challenges.

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 41. | welcomes the plans to establish new KICs as proposed by the Commission in the thematic areas: in the first wave on innovation for healthy living and active ageing, raw materials, and food for future, and in the second wave on urban mobility, added-value manufacturing and smart secure societies. Of special relevance is the role of KICs in encouraging and supporting open innovation through the means of advanced digitalisation, thus boosting innovation throughout Europe; |
| --- | --- |

41.

welcomes the plans to establish new KICs as proposed by the Commission in the thematic areas: in the first wave on innovation for healthy living and active ageing, raw materials, and food for future, and in the second wave on urban mobility, added-value manufacturing and smart secure societies. Of special relevance is the role of KICs in encouraging and supporting open innovation through the means of advanced digitalisation, thus boosting innovation throughout Europe;

| 42. | urges EIT to continue its mission, critical to actively developing and promoting the dissemination of good practices for the integration of the Knowledge Triangle in order to develop a common innovation and knowledge sharing culture. In the future, the EIT should promote the usability of the KIC experiences across European regions and create a collaboration culture that can act as a role model in Europe and beyond; |
| --- | --- |

42.

urges EIT to continue its mission, critical to actively developing and promoting the dissemination of good practices for the integration of the Knowledge Triangle in order to develop a common innovation and knowledge sharing culture. In the future, the EIT should promote the usability of the KIC experiences across European regions and create a collaboration culture that can act as a role model in Europe and beyond;

| 43. | supports the EIT’s governance structural development plans. Of special relevance is the Commission proposal (9) in the regulation that the EIT should directly engage with national and regional representatives and other stakeholders from across the innovation chain, generating beneficial effects on both sides. In order to render such dialogue and exchange more systematic, an EIT Stakeholder Forum should be organised, bringing together the wider community of stakeholders around crosscutting issues. CoR should have a bridging role between the Forum and the regions; |
| --- | --- |

43.

supports the EIT’s governance structural development plans. Of special relevance is the Commission proposal (9) in the regulation that the EIT should directly engage with national and regional representatives and other stakeholders from across the innovation chain, generating beneficial effects on both sides. In order to render such dialogue and exchange more systematic, an EIT Stakeholder Forum should be organised, bringing together the wider community of stakeholders around crosscutting issues. CoR should have a bridging role between the Forum and the regions;

| 44. | proposes that the EIT KICs should assume the task of organising top-level management training for regional decision makers to learn to take the existing opportunities in utilising RDI as an essential part of the grass-root level decision making and the networked bench-learning between European regions. This is extremely relevant, since the EIT network is the European innovation engine uniting top players in education, research and business. |
| --- | --- |

44.

proposes that the EIT KICs should assume the task of organising top-level management training for regional decision makers to learn to take the existing opportunities in utilising RDI as an essential part of the grass-root level decision making and the networked bench-learning between European regions. This is extremely relevant, since the EIT network is the European innovation engine uniting top players in education, research and business.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Recital (19)

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

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Reason

When setting the target for Europe to become a global leader in tackling the grand societal challenges, as already stated in Horizon 2020, the research, development and innovation activities need to have a strong regional component. The laboratories for innovation are no longer traditional university facilities, but regional innovation ecosystems operating as test-beds for rapid prototyping of many types of user-driven innovations: new products, services, processes, structures and systems which need to be transformative and scalable nature.

For this development there should be a particular regional dimension in the budget of Horizon 2020 to modernising triple helix activities. Special emphasis should be on research and innovation of concepts and methods needed to increase the societal impact of knowledge flows between various actors from knowledge creators through knowledge users to final beneficiaries. Structural Funds can be used to cover part of these costs. The complementarity of Structural Funds with Horizon 2020 covers only part of the development costs and only of those regions and cities eligible for such funding. Therefore, the issue arises for those regions or cities that are not eligible or are eligible for a small part and therefore, they are unable to use these funds for the development of triple helix activities on innovation and valorisation of knowledge.

Amendment 2

Recital (26)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| To achieve maximum impact, Horizon 2020 should develop close synergies with other Union programmes in areas such as education, space, environment, competitiveness and SMEs, the internal security, culture and media and with the Cohesion Policy funds and Rural Development Policy, which can specifically help to strengthen national and regional research and innovation capabilities in the context of smart specialisation strategies. | To achieve maximum impact, Horizon 2020 should develop close synergies with other Union programmes in areas such as education, space, environment, competitiveness and SMEs, the internal security, culture and media and with the Cohesion Policy funds and Rural Development Policy, which can specifically help to strengthen national and regional research and innovation capabilities in the context of smart specialisation strategies. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

To achieve maximum impact, Horizon 2020 should develop close synergies with other Union programmes in areas such as education, space, environment, competitiveness and SMEs, the internal security, culture and media and with the Cohesion Policy funds and Rural Development Policy, which can specifically help to strengthen national and regional research and innovation capabilities in the context of smart specialisation strategies.

To achieve maximum impact, Horizon 2020 should develop close synergies with other Union programmes in areas such as education, space, environment, competitiveness and SMEs, the internal security, culture and media and with the Cohesion Policy funds and Rural Development Policy, which can specifically help to strengthen national and regional research and innovation capabilities in the context of smart specialisation strategies.

Amendment 3

Article 4

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Horizon 2020 shall play a central role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by providing a common strategic framework for the Union's research and innovation funding, thus acting as a vehicle for leveraging private investment, creating new job opportunities and ensuring Europe's long-term sustainable growth and competitiveness. | Horizon 2020 shall play a central role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by providing a common strategic framework for the Union's research and innovation funding, thus acting as a vehicle for leveraging private investment, creating new job opportunities, and ensuring Europe's long-term sustainable growth and competitiveness. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Horizon 2020 shall play a central role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by providing a common strategic framework for the Union's research and innovation funding, thus acting as a vehicle for leveraging private investment, creating new job opportunities and ensuring Europe's long-term sustainable growth and competitiveness.

Horizon 2020 shall play a central role in the delivery of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth by providing a common strategic framework for the Union's research and innovation funding, thus acting as a vehicle for leveraging private investment, creating new job opportunities, and ensuring Europe's long-term sustainable growth and competitiveness.

Reason

Not only the Structural Funds but also Horizon 2020 should provide funding for the development of triple helix activities related to innovation and valorisation of knowledge. Modernising triple helix is of crucial importance in challenging and supporting regions towards Smart Specialisation and in creating a stairway to European excellence through increased collaboration and bench-learning. For this, Horizon 2020 needs to include funding for pioneering universities and regions to closing the research and innovation divide in Europe, by teaming excellent research institutes and less-developed regions up, by recognising excellence in less-developed regions, and by facilitating innovation policy learning at the regional level.

Amendment 4

Article 5.1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 5


  General objective, priorities and specific objectives


  1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to building an economy based on knowledge and innovation across the whole Union by leveraging sufficient additional research, development and innovation funding. Thereby, it shall support the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and other Union policies, as well as the achievement and functioning of the European Research Area (ERA). The relevant performance indicators are set out in the introduction of Annex I. | Article 5


  General objective, priorities and specific objectives


  1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to building an economy based on knowledge and innovation across the whole Union by leveraging sufficient additional research, development and innovation funding. Thereby, it shall support the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and other Union policies, as well as the achievement and functioning of the European Research Area (ERA). The relevant performance indicators are set out in the introduction of Annex I. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 5

General objective, priorities and specific objectives

1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to building an economy based on knowledge and innovation across the whole Union by leveraging sufficient additional research, development and innovation funding. Thereby, it shall support the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and other Union policies, as well as the achievement and functioning of the European Research Area (ERA). The relevant performance indicators are set out in the introduction of Annex I.

Article 5

General objective, priorities and specific objectives

1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to building an economy based on knowledge and innovation across the whole Union by leveraging sufficient additional research, development and innovation funding. Thereby, it shall support the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and other Union policies, as well as the achievement and functioning of the European Research Area (ERA). The relevant performance indicators are set out in the introduction of Annex I.

Reason

The entire Horizon 2020 programme underlines the importance of innovation. Research alone is not enough; rather, research should lead to innovations as well as economic growth and wellbeing. As proposed in point 39 of the opinion, a more suitable name for the ERA would be the European Research and Innovation Area (ERIA). This amendment should be made to all relevant parts of the draft regulation.

Amendment 5

Article 5.3

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 5


  General objective, priorities and specific objectives


  3.   The Joint Research Centre shall contribute to the general objective and priorities set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 by providing scientific and technical support to Union policies. The broad lines of the activities are set out in Part IV of Annex I. | Article 5


  General objective, priorities and specific objectives


  3.   The Joint Research Centre shall contribute to the general objective and priorities set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 by providing scientific and technical support to Union policies. The broad lines of the activities are set out in Part IV of Annex I. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 5

General objective, priorities and specific objectives

3.   The Joint Research Centre shall contribute to the general objective and priorities set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 by providing scientific and technical support to Union policies. The broad lines of the activities are set out in Part IV of Annex I.

Article 5

General objective, priorities and specific objectives

3.   The Joint Research Centre shall contribute to the general objective and priorities set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 by providing scientific and technical support to Union policies. The broad lines of the activities are set out in Part IV of Annex I.

Reason

As stated in the point 20 of the opinion, Joint Research Centre should also assist the regional and local decision making with the latest RDI outcomes. This focusing should be accomplished in close coordination with the new developments of the Smart Specialisation Platform. Instead of reports and other publications, the outcomes should revolve much more around funding of experimentations and rapid prototyping, applying research knowledge to practical change processes in all parts of Europe, thus increasing the renewal capital on regional and local levels;

Amendment 6

Article 7.1 (b) (ii)

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (b) (ii) | have a good track record of participation in Union research and innovation programmes; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(b) (ii)

have a good track record of participation in Union research and innovation programmes;

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

Reason

This automatically eliminates newcomers.

Amendment 7

Article 12.1 and 12.2

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 12


  External advice and societal engagement | Article 12


  External advice and societal engagement |
| 1.   For the implementation of Horizon 2020, account shall be taken of advice and inputs provided by: advisory groups of independent, high level experts set up by the Commission; dialogue structures created under international science and technology agreements; forward looking activities; targeted public consultations; and transparent and interactive processes that ensure responsible research and innovation is supported. | 1.   For the implementation of Horizon 2020, account shall be taken of advice and inputs provided by: advisory groups of independent, high level experts set up by the Commission; dialogue structures created under international science and technology agreements; forward looking activities; targeted public consultations; and transparent and interactive processes that ensure responsible research and innovation is supported. |
| 2.   Full account shall also be taken of relevant aspects of the research and innovation agendas established by European Technology Platforms, Joint Programming Initiatives and European Innovation Partnerships. | 2.   Full account shall also be taken of relevant aspects of the research and innovation agendas established by European Technology Platforms, Joint Programming Initiatives and European Innovation Partnerships. |
| | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 12

External advice and societal engagement

Article 12

External advice and societal engagement

1.   For the implementation of Horizon 2020, account shall be taken of advice and inputs provided by: advisory groups of independent, high level experts set up by the Commission; dialogue structures created under international science and technology agreements; forward looking activities; targeted public consultations; and transparent and interactive processes that ensure responsible research and innovation is supported.

1.   For the implementation of Horizon 2020, account shall be taken of advice and inputs provided by: advisory groups of independent, high level experts set up by the Commission; dialogue structures created under international science and technology agreements; forward looking activities; targeted public consultations; and transparent and interactive processes that ensure responsible research and innovation is supported.

2.   Full account shall also be taken of relevant aspects of the research and innovation agendas established by European Technology Platforms, Joint Programming Initiatives and European Innovation Partnerships.

2.   Full account shall also be taken of relevant aspects of the research and innovation agendas established by European Technology Platforms, Joint Programming Initiatives and European Innovation Partnerships.

Reason

This amendment is based on the points 8-11 in the opinion.

Amendment 8

Article 13.1

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 13


  Cross-cutting actions


  1.   Linkages and interfaces shall be implemented across and within the priorities of Horizon 2020. Particular attention shall be paid in this respect to the development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies, to bridging from discovery to market application, to cross-disciplinary research and innovation, to social and economic sciences and humanities, to fostering the functioning and achievement of the ERA, to cooperation with third countries, to responsible research and innovation including gender, and to enhancing the attractiveness of the research profession and to facilitating cross-border and cross-sector mobility of researchers. | Article 13


  Cross-cutting actions


  1.   Linkages and interfaces shall be implemented across and within the priorities of Horizon 2020. Particular attention shall be paid in this respect to the development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies, to bridging from discovery to market application, to cross-disciplinary research and innovation, to social and economic sciences and humanities, to fostering the functioning and achievement of the ERA, to cooperation with third countries, to responsible research and innovation including gender, and to enhancing the attractiveness of the research profession and to facilitating cross-border and cross-sector mobility of researchers. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 13

Cross-cutting actions

1.   Linkages and interfaces shall be implemented across and within the priorities of Horizon 2020. Particular attention shall be paid in this respect to the development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies, to bridging from discovery to market application, to cross-disciplinary research and innovation, to social and economic sciences and humanities, to fostering the functioning and achievement of the ERA, to cooperation with third countries, to responsible research and innovation including gender, and to enhancing the attractiveness of the research profession and to facilitating cross-border and cross-sector mobility of researchers.

Article 13

Cross-cutting actions

1.   Linkages and interfaces shall be implemented across and within the priorities of Horizon 2020. Particular attention shall be paid in this respect to the development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies, to bridging from discovery to market application, to cross-disciplinary research and innovation, to social and economic sciences and humanities, to fostering the functioning and achievement of the ERA, to cooperation with third countries, to responsible research and innovation including gender, and to enhancing the attractiveness of the research profession and to facilitating cross-border and cross-sector mobility of researchers.

Reason

As stated in the point 34 of the opinion, the role of key enabling technologies needs to be seen on a much broader scale than technological development, i.e. technologies should be linked as early as the R&D stage to industrial value chains and global innovation value networks, and to activities that develop regional ecosystems and innovation clusters and strengthen expertise. This focus can better be defined as ‘key enabling competences and industrial technologies’.

Amendment 9

Article 20

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| Article 20


  Public-public partnerships | Article 20


  Public-public partnerships |
| 1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to the strengthening of public-public partnerships where actions at regional, national or international level are jointly implemented within the Union.
  Particular attention shall be paid to joint programming initiatives between Member States. | 1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to the strengthening of public-public partnerships where actions at regional, national or international level are jointly implemented within the Union.
  Particular attention shall be paid to joint programming initiatives between Member States. |
| 2.   Public-public partnerships may be supported either within, or across, the priorities set out in Article 5(2), in particular through: | 2.   Public-public partnerships may be supported either within, or across, the priorities set out in Article 5(2), in particular through: |
| (a) | an ERA-NET instrument using grants to support public-public partnerships in their preparation, establishment of networking structures, design, implementation and coordination of joint activities as well as topping up of individual joint calls and of actions of a transnational nature; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

Article 20

Public-public partnerships

Article 20

Public-public partnerships

1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to the strengthening of public-public partnerships where actions at regional, national or international level are jointly implemented within the Union.

Particular attention shall be paid to joint programming initiatives between Member States.

1.   Horizon 2020 shall contribute to the strengthening of public-public partnerships where actions at regional, national or international level are jointly implemented within the Union.

Particular attention shall be paid to joint programming initiatives between Member States.

2.   Public-public partnerships may be supported either within, or across, the priorities set out in Article 5(2), in particular through:

2.   Public-public partnerships may be supported either within, or across, the priorities set out in Article 5(2), in particular through:

(a)

an ERA-NET instrument using grants to support public-public partnerships in their preparation, establishment of networking structures, design, implementation and coordination of joint activities as well as topping up of individual joint calls and of actions of a transnational nature;

| (a) | an ERA-NET instrument using grants to support public-public partnerships in their preparation, establishment of networking structures, design, implementation and coordination of joint activities as well as topping up of individual joint calls and of actions of a transnational nature; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

an ERA-NET instrument using grants to support public-public partnerships in their preparation, establishment of networking structures, design, implementation and coordination of joint activities as well as topping up of individual joint calls and of actions of a transnational nature;

| (b) | Union participation in programmes undertaken by several Member States in accordance with Article 185 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Union participation in programmes undertaken by several Member States in accordance with Article 185 TFEU.

| (b) | Union participation in programmes undertaken by several Member States in accordance with Article 185 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Union participation in programmes undertaken by several Member States in accordance with Article 185 TFEU.

For the purposes of point (a), top-up funding shall be conditional on a significant level of prior financial commitments of the participating entities to the joint calls and actions. The ERA-NET instrument may include an objective to harmonise rules and implementation modalities of the joint calls and actions. It may also be used in order to prepare for an initiative pursuant to Article 185 TFEU.

For the purposes of point (a), top-up funding shall be conditional on a significant level of prior financial commitments of the participating entities to the joint calls and actions. The ERA-NET instrument may include an objective to harmonise rules and implementation modalities of the joint calls and actions. It may also be used in order to prepare for an initiative pursuant to Article 185 TFEU.

For the purposes of point (b) such initiatives shall only be proposed in cases where there is a need for a dedicated implementation structure and where there is a high level of commitment of the participating countries to integration at scientific, management and financial levels. In addition, proposals for initiatives referred to in point (b) shall be identified on the basis of all of the following criteria:

For the purposes of point (b) such initiatives shall only be proposed in cases where there is a need for a dedicated implementation structure and where there is a high level of commitment of the participating countries to integration at scientific, management and financial levels. In addition, proposals for initiatives referred to in point (b) shall be identified on the basis of all of the following criteria:

| (a) | a clear definition of the objective to be pursued and its relevance to the objectives of Horizon 2020 and broader Union policy objectives; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a clear definition of the objective to be pursued and its relevance to the objectives of Horizon 2020 and broader Union policy objectives;

| (a) | a clear definition of the objective to be pursued and its relevance to the objectives of Horizon 2020 and broader Union policy objectives; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

a clear definition of the objective to be pursued and its relevance to the objectives of Horizon 2020 and broader Union policy objectives;

| (b) | clear financial commitments of the participating countries, including prior commitments to pool national and/or regional investments for transnational research and innovation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

clear financial commitments of the participating countries, including prior commitments to pool national and/or regional investments for transnational research and innovation;

| (b) | clear financial commitments of the participating countries, including prior commitments to pool national and/or regional investments for transnational research and innovation; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

clear financial commitments of the participating countries, including prior commitments to pool national and/or regional investments for transnational research and innovation;

| (c) | the added value of action at Union level; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the added value of action at Union level;

| (c) | the added value of action at Union level; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the added value of action at Union level;

| (d) | the critical mass, with regard to the size and the number of programmes involved, the similarity of activities and the share of relevant research they cover; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the critical mass, with regard to the size and the number of programmes involved, the similarity of activities and the share of relevant research they cover;

| (d) | the critical mass, with regard to the size and the number of programmes involved, the similarity of activities and the share of relevant research they cover; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the critical mass, with regard to the size and the number of programmes involved, the similarity of activities and the share of relevant research they cover;

| (e) | the efficiency of Article 185 TFEU as the most appropriate means for achieving the objectives. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the efficiency of Article 185 TFEU as the most appropriate means for achieving the objectives.

| (e) | the efficiency of Article 185 TFEU as the most appropriate means for achieving the objectives. |
| --- | --- |

(e)

the efficiency of Article 185 TFEU as the most appropriate means for achieving the objectives.

Reason

The active role of regions is crucial in order to achieve the targets of Horizon 2020. More flexibility and an increased of role regions in forming JPIs are needed.

Another target of the present amendment is that the same logic which applies to Member States should also apply to EU participation in programmes undertaken by Regional authorities. This would be in accordance with the spirit of Article 185 TFEU.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  CdR 72/2011 fin.

1

(2)  CoR 230/2010 final.

2

(3)  CdR 67/2011 fin

3

(4)  CdR 230/2010 fin.

4

(5)  CdR 373/2010 fin.

5

(6)  CdR 70/2011 fin.

6

(7)  CdR 58/2008 fin.

7

(8)  COM(2011) 822 final.

8

(9)  COM(2011) 817 final.

9

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/156

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Creative Europe’

2012/C 277/15

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes ‘Creative Europe’, the new framework programme for the cultural and creative sectors under the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework (1), bringing together the current Culture, MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus programmes under a common framework and creating an entirely new Facility to improve access to finance; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes ‘Creative Europe’, the new framework programme for the cultural and creative sectors under the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework (1), bringing together the current Culture, MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus programmes under a common framework and creating an entirely new Facility to improve access to finance;

| — | strongly emphasises that culture has an intrinsic value that is independent of the economic aspects of cultural goods and services and the programme’s design must take account of this dual nature by not focussing exclusively on economic usefulness of culture; |
| --- | --- |

—

strongly emphasises that culture has an intrinsic value that is independent of the economic aspects of cultural goods and services and the programme’s design must take account of this dual nature by not focussing exclusively on economic usefulness of culture;

| — | is pleased that during the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework, the Commission proposes a significant increase in the budget devoted to the cultural and creative sectors, a total of EUR 1,801 billion, a 37 % increase on current spending levels; |
| --- | --- |

—

is pleased that during the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework, the Commission proposes a significant increase in the budget devoted to the cultural and creative sectors, a total of EUR 1,801 billion, a 37 % increase on current spending levels;

| — | believes that free and independent culture is of fundamental importance in the development of society. It safeguards diversity and freedom of opinion, provides opportunities for participation and provides arenas for critical and independent discussions, which are indispensible for a lively democracy. |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that free and independent culture is of fundamental importance in the development of society. It safeguards diversity and freedom of opinion, provides opportunities for participation and provides arenas for critical and independent discussions, which are indispensible for a lively democracy.

| Rapporteur | Gábor BIHARY (HU/PES), Member of Budapest General Assembly |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Creative Europe Programme
  COM(2011) 785 final |

Rapporteur

Gábor BIHARY (HU/PES), Member of Budapest General Assembly

Reference document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Creative Europe Programme

COM(2011) 785 final

I.   THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes ‘Creative Europe’, the new framework programme for the cultural and creative sectors under the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework (2), bringing together the current Culture, MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus programmes under a common framework and creating an entirely new Facility to improve access to finance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes ‘Creative Europe’, the new framework programme for the cultural and creative sectors under the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework (2), bringing together the current Culture, MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus programmes under a common framework and creating an entirely new Facility to improve access to finance;

| 2. | strongly emphasises that culture has an intrinsic value that is independent of the economic aspects of cultural goods and services and the programme’s design must take account of this dual nature by not focussing exclusively on economic usefulness of culture; |
| --- | --- |

2.

strongly emphasises that culture has an intrinsic value that is independent of the economic aspects of cultural goods and services and the programme’s design must take account of this dual nature by not focussing exclusively on economic usefulness of culture;

| 3. | acknowledges that by bringing culture and media together, the programme can facilitate the distribution of cultural products, create a single online market for audiovisual works and help unlock the job creation potential of the cultural and creative sectors; |
| --- | --- |

3.

acknowledges that by bringing culture and media together, the programme can facilitate the distribution of cultural products, create a single online market for audiovisual works and help unlock the job creation potential of the cultural and creative sectors;

| 4. | approves the efforts to achieve simplification in the framework programme and to develop it as an easily accessible gateway for European cultural and creative professionals, offering scope for activities within and outside the EU; |
| --- | --- |

4.

approves the efforts to achieve simplification in the framework programme and to develop it as an easily accessible gateway for European cultural and creative professionals, offering scope for activities within and outside the EU;

| 5. | agrees with the statements in the impact assessments for the current programmes that there are four common problems which will need to be addressed at EU level in order to reach the desired impacts within a single framework programme:






  a) | the fragmented market context stemming from Europe’s cultural and linguistic diversity, which at present leads to sub-optimal transnational circulation of works and mobility of artists and professionals, as well as geographical imbalances. It also limits consumer choice and access to European cultural works; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

agrees with the statements in the impact assessments for the current programmes that there are four common problems which will need to be addressed at EU level in order to reach the desired impacts within a single framework programme:

a)

the fragmented market context stemming from Europe’s cultural and linguistic diversity, which at present leads to sub-optimal transnational circulation of works and mobility of artists and professionals, as well as geographical imbalances. It also limits consumer choice and access to European cultural works;

| b) | the need for the sectors to adapt to the impact of globalisation and the digital shift, resulting in a concentration of supply among a limited number of major players, posing a threat to cultural and linguistic diversity; the sector would therefore benefit from transnational and transregional approaches and solutions; |
| --- | --- |

b)

the need for the sectors to adapt to the impact of globalisation and the digital shift, resulting in a concentration of supply among a limited number of major players, posing a threat to cultural and linguistic diversity; the sector would therefore benefit from transnational and transregional approaches and solutions;

| c) | the shortage of comparable data on the cultural sector at European and national levels. This has consequences for European policy coordination, which can be a useful driver for national policy developments and systemic change at low cost for the EU budget and in full respect of the principle of subsidiarity; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the shortage of comparable data on the cultural sector at European and national levels. This has consequences for European policy coordination, which can be a useful driver for national policy developments and systemic change at low cost for the EU budget and in full respect of the principle of subsidiarity;

| d) | the difficulties faced by cultural and creative SMEs in accessing finance; |
| --- | --- |

d)

the difficulties faced by cultural and creative SMEs in accessing finance;

| 6. | is pleased that by specifically targeting the needs of the cultural and creative sectors aiming to operate beyond national borders, and with a strong link to the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity, the programme will complement other European Union (EU) programmes such as Structural Fund support for investment in the cultural and creative sectors, heritage restoration, cultural infrastructure and services, digitisation funds for cultural heritage and the enlargement and external relations instruments; |
| --- | --- |

6.

is pleased that by specifically targeting the needs of the cultural and creative sectors aiming to operate beyond national borders, and with a strong link to the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity, the programme will complement other European Union (EU) programmes such as Structural Fund support for investment in the cultural and creative sectors, heritage restoration, cultural infrastructure and services, digitisation funds for cultural heritage and the enlargement and external relations instruments;

| 7. | is also pleased that, in addition to the above-mentioned aspects, the programme will build on the experience and success of existing brands such as MEDIA, the European Heritage Label, and the European Capitals of Culture; |
| --- | --- |

7.

is also pleased that, in addition to the above-mentioned aspects, the programme will build on the experience and success of existing brands such as MEDIA, the European Heritage Label, and the European Capitals of Culture;

| 8. | is pleased that during the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework, the Commission proposes a significant increase in the budget devoted to the cultural and creative sectors, a total of EUR 1,801 billion, a 37 % increase on current spending levels; |
| --- | --- |

8.

is pleased that during the 2014-2020 Multi-Annual Financial Framework, the Commission proposes a significant increase in the budget devoted to the cultural and creative sectors, a total of EUR 1,801 billion, a 37 % increase on current spending levels;

| 9. | emphasises that this increase is fully in line with the rationale and priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and its flagship initiatives, since investing in the cultural and creative sectors directly contributes to the Strategy’s aim of promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; it also facilitates access to finance for SMEs in the cultural and creative sectors; |
| --- | --- |

9.

emphasises that this increase is fully in line with the rationale and priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and its flagship initiatives, since investing in the cultural and creative sectors directly contributes to the Strategy’s aim of promoting smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; it also facilitates access to finance for SMEs in the cultural and creative sectors;

| 10. | sees however the need for more precise definitions, especially regarding the legal frame and application criteria of the financial facility; |
| --- | --- |

10.

sees however the need for more precise definitions, especially regarding the legal frame and application criteria of the financial facility;

| 11. | points out that creative and cultural industries are often micro-enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses and enterprises of self employed workers which require initiative and organisation at a local level. This feature of localisation is a positive aspect for regions because it boosts local economies (creativity fosters economic competitiveness) but also because it helps retain talent and the corresponding jobs at local level. Attention should therefore be given to the particular situation of cultural workers and entrepreneurs; |
| --- | --- |

11.

points out that creative and cultural industries are often micro-enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses and enterprises of self employed workers which require initiative and organisation at a local level. This feature of localisation is a positive aspect for regions because it boosts local economies (creativity fosters economic competitiveness) but also because it helps retain talent and the corresponding jobs at local level. Attention should therefore be given to the particular situation of cultural workers and entrepreneurs;

| 12. | welcomes the measures proposed to reinforce the cultural sector’s capacity and to promote transnational circulation within and outside Europe, given that cultural diversity may be seen as a source of growth; |
| --- | --- |

12.

welcomes the measures proposed to reinforce the cultural sector’s capacity and to promote transnational circulation within and outside Europe, given that cultural diversity may be seen as a source of growth;

| 13. | agrees that, at a time of financial and economic crisis, culture can play a role in creatively meeting social policy objectives by fostering innovation as a way to achieve social outcomes (3); |
| --- | --- |

13.

agrees that, at a time of financial and economic crisis, culture can play a role in creatively meeting social policy objectives by fostering innovation as a way to achieve social outcomes (3);

| 14. | feels that culture and art, as well as cultural media and the audiovisual sector, can trigger behavioural changes and have the power to create new social relationships motivating people to use their creative abilities, and that at the same time culture and art can safeguard the values of democratic society; |
| --- | --- |

14.

feels that culture and art, as well as cultural media and the audiovisual sector, can trigger behavioural changes and have the power to create new social relationships motivating people to use their creative abilities, and that at the same time culture and art can safeguard the values of democratic society;

| 15. | believes that free and independent culture is of fundamental importance in the development of society. It safeguards diversity and freedom of opinion, provides opportunities for participation and provides arenas for critical and independent discussions, which are indispensible for a lively democracy; |
| --- | --- |

15.

believes that free and independent culture is of fundamental importance in the development of society. It safeguards diversity and freedom of opinion, provides opportunities for participation and provides arenas for critical and independent discussions, which are indispensible for a lively democracy;

| 16. | emphasises that throughout the European Union regional and local authorities assume a high level of responsibility in implementing cultural policies, given that they also play a key role in promoting and emphasising culture, especially in connection with protecting cultural heritage and promoting artistic innovation (4). Local and regional authorities also have a particular responsibility to ensure that children and young people can access and take part in an active cultural life; |
| --- | --- |

16.

emphasises that throughout the European Union regional and local authorities assume a high level of responsibility in implementing cultural policies, given that they also play a key role in promoting and emphasising culture, especially in connection with protecting cultural heritage and promoting artistic innovation (4). Local and regional authorities also have a particular responsibility to ensure that children and young people can access and take part in an active cultural life;

| 17. | notes that the Committee has already emphasised that, through their proximity to citizens, local and regional authorities are strategically better placed to respond to the specific needs and requests of different cultural groups within the European Union, as well as to effectively mobilise local and regional communities in support of a better intercultural dialogue (5); |
| --- | --- |

17.

notes that the Committee has already emphasised that, through their proximity to citizens, local and regional authorities are strategically better placed to respond to the specific needs and requests of different cultural groups within the European Union, as well as to effectively mobilise local and regional communities in support of a better intercultural dialogue (5);

| 18. | points out that local and regional authorities have successfully integrated cultural and creative industries into their development strategies and that this has helped to boost local economies; in particular, it is possible at the level of local and regional authorities to set up networks and databases of young artists, promote the training of young people in artistic and cultural disciplines, help young artists to become professional, stimulate multimedia and multicultural experimentation, make public spaces available for the work of young artists, encourage the artistic and cultural appreciation of the young audience, support young people in forming associations in the artistic and cultural domain, and foster innovation in local traditions and vocations (6); |
| --- | --- |

18.

points out that local and regional authorities have successfully integrated cultural and creative industries into their development strategies and that this has helped to boost local economies; in particular, it is possible at the level of local and regional authorities to set up networks and databases of young artists, promote the training of young people in artistic and cultural disciplines, help young artists to become professional, stimulate multimedia and multicultural experimentation, make public spaces available for the work of young artists, encourage the artistic and cultural appreciation of the young audience, support young people in forming associations in the artistic and cultural domain, and foster innovation in local traditions and vocations (6);

| 19. | emphasises that the audiovisual sector is not just of major importance for development, competitiveness and employment, but is also a crucial sphere that safeguards and promotes local and regional cultural identity and diversity. the nature of the sector also makes it a key factor in the development of European social values and the functioning of democratic societies, since audiovisual works can play an important role in forming a European identity (7); |
| --- | --- |

19.

emphasises that the audiovisual sector is not just of major importance for development, competitiveness and employment, but is also a crucial sphere that safeguards and promotes local and regional cultural identity and diversity. the nature of the sector also makes it a key factor in the development of European social values and the functioning of democratic societies, since audiovisual works can play an important role in forming a European identity (7);

| 20. | emphasises that the transition to digital offers new opportunities to connect different regions in Europe as they exchange audiovisual works and explore new ways of creating links and exchanging content. This transition may provide an opportunity to attract new audiences, take advantage of alternative content, provide new services and raise awareness of content from various regions (8); |
| --- | --- |

20.

emphasises that the transition to digital offers new opportunities to connect different regions in Europe as they exchange audiovisual works and explore new ways of creating links and exchanging content. This transition may provide an opportunity to attract new audiences, take advantage of alternative content, provide new services and raise awareness of content from various regions (8);

| 21. | once again urges the Council and the European Parliament to more strongly emphasise the key role of local and regional authorities in promoting and celebrating the culture of their communities (9) and enhance the participation of regional and local authorities in the Programme; |
| --- | --- |

21.

once again urges the Council and the European Parliament to more strongly emphasise the key role of local and regional authorities in promoting and celebrating the culture of their communities (9) and enhance the participation of regional and local authorities in the Programme;

| 22. | in this context, underlines the need to ensure the right balance between the allocation of resources for major, large-scale projects and the financing of measures and activities focused at local and regional level; |
| --- | --- |

22.

in this context, underlines the need to ensure the right balance between the allocation of resources for major, large-scale projects and the financing of measures and activities focused at local and regional level;

| 23. | strongly urges the Council and the European Parliament to give cultural players more of a say in decision-making rather than overemphasising the financial sector in the implementation of the regulation; |
| --- | --- |

23.

strongly urges the Council and the European Parliament to give cultural players more of a say in decision-making rather than overemphasising the financial sector in the implementation of the regulation;

| 24. | recognises that the actions set out in the proposal, as they stand, do not appear to be at odds with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; stresses, however, that regional and local authorities should be systematically consulted in the conception, implementation and governance of measures designed to ensure financing for cultural and creative industries across Europe; |
| --- | --- |

24.

recognises that the actions set out in the proposal, as they stand, do not appear to be at odds with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; stresses, however, that regional and local authorities should be systematically consulted in the conception, implementation and governance of measures designed to ensure financing for cultural and creative industries across Europe;

| 25. | would like to help ensure maximum awareness of the Creative Europe programme in EU regions, and offers to cooperate on this matter; at the same time, would like to be involved in the process of monitoring the programme; |
| --- | --- |

25.

would like to help ensure maximum awareness of the Creative Europe programme in EU regions, and offers to cooperate on this matter; at the same time, would like to be involved in the process of monitoring the programme;

| 26. | appreciates the importance of dividing the framework programme into three strands (a cross-sectoral strand, a culture strand and a MEDIA strand) and of the indicative allocation of funding for each strand; at the same time, points out that the programme must be implemented in such a way as to ensure flexible transfers of funding between strands based on needs and experiences; |
| --- | --- |

26.

appreciates the importance of dividing the framework programme into three strands (a cross-sectoral strand, a culture strand and a MEDIA strand) and of the indicative allocation of funding for each strand; at the same time, points out that the programme must be implemented in such a way as to ensure flexible transfers of funding between strands based on needs and experiences;

| 27. | emphasises the importance of not marginalising the arts and cultural heritage protection in this new structure; |
| --- | --- |

27.

emphasises the importance of not marginalising the arts and cultural heritage protection in this new structure;

The Cross-sectoral Strand

| 28. | welcomes the strategic and inclusive approach proposed by the Commission to supporting the development of cultural and creative industries; |
| --- | --- |

28.

welcomes the strategic and inclusive approach proposed by the Commission to supporting the development of cultural and creative industries;

| 29. | emphasises that in order to succeed, integrated development strategies should be defined at the relevant territorial levels, in partnership between authorities in charge of various government policies (such as economic development, employment, education and culture) and representatives from civil society, namely business, employees and citizens’ associations; |
| --- | --- |

29.

emphasises that in order to succeed, integrated development strategies should be defined at the relevant territorial levels, in partnership between authorities in charge of various government policies (such as economic development, employment, education and culture) and representatives from civil society, namely business, employees and citizens’ associations;

| 30. | underlines the need to investigate which areas and topics constitute regional and local strengths that can be promoted, given that each region has some possibilities which need to be identified: large cities and wealthy regions have the possibility and means to become multi-level poles of creation and attraction; however, smaller and less favoured regions are in a position to make known their cultural abilities to the rest of the world - this particularly applies to peripheral and sparsely populated EU regions; |
| --- | --- |

30.

underlines the need to investigate which areas and topics constitute regional and local strengths that can be promoted, given that each region has some possibilities which need to be identified: large cities and wealthy regions have the possibility and means to become multi-level poles of creation and attraction; however, smaller and less favoured regions are in a position to make known their cultural abilities to the rest of the world - this particularly applies to peripheral and sparsely populated EU regions;

| 31. | has already pointed out that there is a real need for more reliable information on the cultural sector in Europe generally (10); therefore welcomes the proposed support measures for market data, studies, anticipation skills and employment tools, evaluations, policy analysis and support for statistical surveys. Nonetheless, the data gathering and analysis to be shared with national and European statistical bodies in order to prevent duplication of sources, costs and data processing should be safeguarded; |
| --- | --- |

31.

has already pointed out that there is a real need for more reliable information on the cultural sector in Europe generally (10); therefore welcomes the proposed support measures for market data, studies, anticipation skills and employment tools, evaluations, policy analysis and support for statistical surveys. Nonetheless, the data gathering and analysis to be shared with national and European statistical bodies in order to prevent duplication of sources, costs and data processing should be safeguarded;

| 32. | underlines that cultural and creative industries are best nurtured in interdisciplinary environments, hence it is recommended to help build new bridges between art, philosophy, science, research and innovation and business; |
| --- | --- |

32.

underlines that cultural and creative industries are best nurtured in interdisciplinary environments, hence it is recommended to help build new bridges between art, philosophy, science, research and innovation and business;

| 33. | feels that there is a need to develop real ‘creative partnerships’ between the cultural and creative industries and fields such as education, industry, research or administration, and advocates building effective mechanisms for transferring creative knowledge such as design into other sectors; |
| --- | --- |

33.

feels that there is a need to develop real ‘creative partnerships’ between the cultural and creative industries and fields such as education, industry, research or administration, and advocates building effective mechanisms for transferring creative knowledge such as design into other sectors;

The Culture Strand

| 34. | welcomes the measures proposed to reinforce the cultural sector’s capacity, as well as for promoting cross-border circulation within and outside Europe; |
| --- | --- |

34.

welcomes the measures proposed to reinforce the cultural sector’s capacity, as well as for promoting cross-border circulation within and outside Europe;

| 35. | is pleased that in the Culture Strand, the Programme will include a clearer focus than hitherto on capacity-building and transnational circulation, including international touring, new European platforms with a large-scale structuring effect, and more strategic packages of support for literary translation for publishing houses including promotional support; |
| --- | --- |

35.

is pleased that in the Culture Strand, the Programme will include a clearer focus than hitherto on capacity-building and transnational circulation, including international touring, new European platforms with a large-scale structuring effect, and more strategic packages of support for literary translation for publishing houses including promotional support;

| 36. | emphasises that, in the post-crisis economy, culture can play a role in creatively meeting social policy objectives by fostering innovation and experimentation as a way to achieve social outcomes; |
| --- | --- |

36.

emphasises that, in the post-crisis economy, culture can play a role in creatively meeting social policy objectives by fostering innovation and experimentation as a way to achieve social outcomes;

| 37. | welcomes the envisaged support for transnational cultural circulation and underlines the importance of facilitating all connected industries allowing culture to reach its audience, notwithstanding the sometimes unfavourable geographical situation of particular regions and problems related to multilingualism; |
| --- | --- |

37.

welcomes the envisaged support for transnational cultural circulation and underlines the importance of facilitating all connected industries allowing culture to reach its audience, notwithstanding the sometimes unfavourable geographical situation of particular regions and problems related to multilingualism;

| 38. | emphasises that investments for culture should address both support for individual or collective art production and areas crucial for cultural and creative industries, such as new business models, creativity and innovation, digitisation, skills and improvement of human capital, and creative partnerships with other sectors; |
| --- | --- |

38.

emphasises that investments for culture should address both support for individual or collective art production and areas crucial for cultural and creative industries, such as new business models, creativity and innovation, digitisation, skills and improvement of human capital, and creative partnerships with other sectors;

| 39. | underlines the importance of building private-public initiatives to support artist-led experimentation, which can be effectively used to the mutual benefit of cultural enhancement and business profitability; |
| --- | --- |

39.

underlines the importance of building private-public initiatives to support artist-led experimentation, which can be effectively used to the mutual benefit of cultural enhancement and business profitability;

| 40. | affirms that local and regional authorities can play a more effective role in informing local companies about ways and means to promote local and regional cultural activities; |
| --- | --- |

40.

affirms that local and regional authorities can play a more effective role in informing local companies about ways and means to promote local and regional cultural activities;

| 41. | underlines that the private sector often plays an important role in cultural promotion through donations or support in the context of corporate social responsibility; for their part, local and regional authorities could contribute to the creation of a conducive environment for the best use of this support; |
| --- | --- |

41.

underlines that the private sector often plays an important role in cultural promotion through donations or support in the context of corporate social responsibility; for their part, local and regional authorities could contribute to the creation of a conducive environment for the best use of this support;

| 42. | underlines the importance of a consistent and medium to long-term approach when planning measures in the field of culture. A good example is the European Capital of Culture (ECoC), where a long-term development strategy helps to promote more sustainable approaches to cultural development, enhance the impact and legacy of the ECOC cities (11), and stress the richness, diversity and shared characteristics of European cultures; |
| --- | --- |

42.

underlines the importance of a consistent and medium to long-term approach when planning measures in the field of culture. A good example is the European Capital of Culture (ECoC), where a long-term development strategy helps to promote more sustainable approaches to cultural development, enhance the impact and legacy of the ECOC cities (11), and stress the richness, diversity and shared characteristics of European cultures;

The MEDIA Strand

| 43. | notes that local and regional authorities can play a key role in promoting local and regional audiovisual works, effectively strengthening audiovisual production and actively contributing to the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue (12); |
| --- | --- |

43.

notes that local and regional authorities can play a key role in promoting local and regional audiovisual works, effectively strengthening audiovisual production and actively contributing to the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue (12);

| 44. | appreciates the importance of promoting broad international cooperation in the audiovisual sector, with the aim of strengthening both cultural and commercial ties between the European film industry and that of third countries; |
| --- | --- |

44.

appreciates the importance of promoting broad international cooperation in the audiovisual sector, with the aim of strengthening both cultural and commercial ties between the European film industry and that of third countries;

| 45. | agrees that we should address current challenges associated with changes in the international audiovisual sphere, especially as a result of technological developments and structural weaknesses affecting the circulation of European audiovisual works in third-country markets, which are preventing Europe’s audiovisual sector from seizing international opportunities and undermining its competitiveness; |
| --- | --- |

45.

agrees that we should address current challenges associated with changes in the international audiovisual sphere, especially as a result of technological developments and structural weaknesses affecting the circulation of European audiovisual works in third-country markets, which are preventing Europe’s audiovisual sector from seizing international opportunities and undermining its competitiveness;

| 46. | in terms of the broader social relevance of the programme, points out that developing media literacy, combined with adapting teaching methods to the media in schools and beyond, is particularly important for Europe’s future. Adaptation will also involve support for the teaching of new communication technologies, which are vitally important to social and professional integration (13); |
| --- | --- |

46.

in terms of the broader social relevance of the programme, points out that developing media literacy, combined with adapting teaching methods to the media in schools and beyond, is particularly important for Europe’s future. Adaptation will also involve support for the teaching of new communication technologies, which are vitally important to social and professional integration (13);

| 47. | reiterates the importance of cinema’s role in building European identity and integrating regions (14); |
| --- | --- |

47.

reiterates the importance of cinema’s role in building European identity and integrating regions (14);

| 48. | emphasises that, as a result of the programme, a healthy cultural industry can develop creative partnerships between the cultural sector and other sectors (ICTs, research, tourism, social partners, etc) to reinforce the social and economic impact of investments in culture and creativity (15), in particular with regard to the promotion of growth and jobs and the development and attractiveness of regions and cities; |
| --- | --- |

48.

emphasises that, as a result of the programme, a healthy cultural industry can develop creative partnerships between the cultural sector and other sectors (ICTs, research, tourism, social partners, etc) to reinforce the social and economic impact of investments in culture and creativity (15), in particular with regard to the promotion of growth and jobs and the development and attractiveness of regions and cities;

| 49. | stresses that more measures must be taken to fully activate the potential of European creative content (16), with the aim of boosting the production, availability and circulation of high-quality, innovative European works, enhancing Europe’s cultural diversity and the competitiveness of European media; |
| --- | --- |

49.

stresses that more measures must be taken to fully activate the potential of European creative content (16), with the aim of boosting the production, availability and circulation of high-quality, innovative European works, enhancing Europe’s cultural diversity and the competitiveness of European media;

| 50. | reiterates that local and regional authorities must play a key role in managing their cultural and linguistic heritage, promoting new business models in local creative industries and local media, and promoting creative works that are (co-)financed by media institutes and organisations (17); |
| --- | --- |

50.

reiterates that local and regional authorities must play a key role in managing their cultural and linguistic heritage, promoting new business models in local creative industries and local media, and promoting creative works that are (co-)financed by media institutes and organisations (17);

| 51. | points out that, although Creative Europe is not a social programme, policies relating to new services and new digital media, as well as creative content, must not be framed on the basis of economic criteria alone, but must take cultural and social factors into account (18). In view of this, creative content must promote social cohesion and inclusion, particularly in the case of groups which are at risk of exclusion or otherwise socially disadvantaged; |
| --- | --- |

51.

points out that, although Creative Europe is not a social programme, policies relating to new services and new digital media, as well as creative content, must not be framed on the basis of economic criteria alone, but must take cultural and social factors into account (18). In view of this, creative content must promote social cohesion and inclusion, particularly in the case of groups which are at risk of exclusion or otherwise socially disadvantaged;

Performance results and monitoring

| 52. | emphasises that in terms of implementing the Programme it is particularly important to ensure synergies with national and regional strategies for smart specialisation; |
| --- | --- |

52.

emphasises that in terms of implementing the Programme it is particularly important to ensure synergies with national and regional strategies for smart specialisation;

| 53. | agrees that in looking at performance results, it is important to take into account that performance results depend on the complementary impact of other activities at European and national level affecting the cultural and creative sectors, and that therefore changes in indicators cannot always be attributed to the effects of the Creative Europe programme; |
| --- | --- |

53.

agrees that in looking at performance results, it is important to take into account that performance results depend on the complementary impact of other activities at European and national level affecting the cultural and creative sectors, and that therefore changes in indicators cannot always be attributed to the effects of the Creative Europe programme;

| 54. | agrees that it is useful to develop quantifiable indicators for the general and specific objectives relating to cultural and creative activity, such as employment, accessibility, partnerships, learning opportunities, circulation of works and operators, audiences reached by films and the percentage of European audiovisual works; at the same time, emphasises the regional dimension of these indicators; however, is critical of the excessive focus on economic growth, profit and competition in these indicators, which makes them unsuitable for evaluating or monitoring the non-commercial cultural sector; |
| --- | --- |

54.

agrees that it is useful to develop quantifiable indicators for the general and specific objectives relating to cultural and creative activity, such as employment, accessibility, partnerships, learning opportunities, circulation of works and operators, audiences reached by films and the percentage of European audiovisual works; at the same time, emphasises the regional dimension of these indicators; however, is critical of the excessive focus on economic growth, profit and competition in these indicators, which makes them unsuitable for evaluating or monitoring the non-commercial cultural sector;

| 55. | with regard to implementing the objective on strengthening the financial capacity of the cultural and creative sectors, is pleased to note that not only the amount of loans but also the number and geographical spread of financial institutions providing access to finance are mentioned; |
| --- | --- |

55.

with regard to implementing the objective on strengthening the financial capacity of the cultural and creative sectors, is pleased to note that not only the amount of loans but also the number and geographical spread of financial institutions providing access to finance are mentioned;

| 56. | calls on the Council and the European Parliament to ensure that, in addition to regular monitoring, the Commission refers the evaluation report which is to be drawn up by the end of 2017 on the programme’s achievement of its objectives, its efficiency and European added value, to the Committee of the Regions for an opinion. |
| --- | --- |

56.

calls on the Council and the European Parliament to ensure that, in addition to regular monitoring, the Commission refers the evaluation report which is to be drawn up by the end of 2017 on the programme’s achievement of its objectives, its efficiency and European added value, to the Committee of the Regions for an opinion.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 3(1)

European added value

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Programme shall only support those actions and activities presenting a potential European added value and contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and its flagship initiatives. | The Programme shall only support those actions and activities presenting a potential European added value and contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and its flagship initiatives. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Programme shall only support those actions and activities presenting a potential European added value and contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and its flagship initiatives.

The Programme shall only support those actions and activities presenting a potential European added value and contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy and its flagship initiatives.

Reason

The European added value is not only concentrated around the EU2020, but also around the Horizon2020 and cohesion amongst others.

Amendment 2

Article 3(2)a

European added value

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| a) | the transnational character of its activities and their impact, which will complement national, international and other Union programmes; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

a)

the transnational character of its activities and their impact, which will complement national, international and other Union programmes;

| a) | the transnational character of its activities and their impact, which will complement national, international and other Union programmes; |
| --- | --- |

a)

the transnational character of its activities and their impact, which will complement national, international and other Union programmes;

Reason

There are transnational projects and programmes which are developed and implemented at local and regional and could benefit from support at EU level, through the future Creative Europe programme.

Amendment 3

Article 5c

Specific objectives of the Programme

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| to strengthen the financial capacity of the cultural and creative sectors, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations; | to strengthen the financial capacity of the cultural and creative sectors, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations ; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

to strengthen the financial capacity of the cultural and creative sectors, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations;

to strengthen the financial capacity of the cultural and creative sectors, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations ;

Reason

The scope of the specific objectives of the Programme should be broader and go below SME level in order to accurately depict the reality of those working in the creative and cultural sectors.

Amendment 4

Article 7(1)a

The Cultural and Creative Sectors Facility

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| facilitate access to finance for small- and medium-sized enterprises and organisations in the European cultural and creative sectors; | facilitate access to finance for small- and medium-sized enterprises and and |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

facilitate access to finance for small- and medium-sized enterprises and organisations in the European cultural and creative sectors;

facilitate access to finance for small- and medium-sized enterprises and and

Reason

The scope of the Cultural and Creative Sectors Facility should be broader and go below SME level in order to accurately depict the reality of those working in the creative and cultural sectors.

Amendment 5

Article 13(1)a

Consistency and complementarity

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| a) | relevant EU policies, in particular those in the fields of education, employment, health, research and innovation, enterprise, tourism, justice and development; |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

a)

relevant EU policies, in particular those in the fields of education, employment, health, research and innovation, enterprise, tourism, justice and development;

| a) | relevant EU policies, in particular those in the fields of education, employment, health, research and innovation, enterprise, tourism, justice and development; |
| --- | --- |

a)

relevant EU policies, in particular those in the fields of education, employment, health, research and innovation, enterprise, tourism, justice and development;

Reason

The cultural sector is very dynamic in economic activity and job creation within the EU and substantially contributes to local and regional development. Support for cultural and creative industries could also lead to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Union by reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions.

Amendment 6

Article 14(1)

Monitoring and evaluation

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| (1)   The Commission shall ensure regular monitoring and external evaluation of the Creative Europe Programme against the following performance indicators. It has to be taken into account that the achievement of performance results depends on the complementary impact of other activities at European and national level affecting the cultural and creative sectors: | (1)   The Commission shall ensure regular monitoring and external evaluation of the Creative Europe Programme against the following performance indicators. It has to be taken into account that the achievement of performance results depends on the complementary impact of other at European, national level affecting the cultural and creative sectors: |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

(1)   The Commission shall ensure regular monitoring and external evaluation of the Creative Europe Programme against the following performance indicators. It has to be taken into account that the achievement of performance results depends on the complementary impact of other activities at European and national level affecting the cultural and creative sectors:

(1)   The Commission shall ensure regular monitoring and external evaluation of the Creative Europe Programme against the following performance indicators. It has to be taken into account that the achievement of performance results depends on the complementary impact of other at European, national level affecting the cultural and creative sectors:

Reason

Self-explanatory.

Amendment 7

Annex 1

Implementation arrangements for the cultural and creative sectors facility

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall establish a facility targeting the cultural and creative sectors and operated within the context of a European Union debt instrument for small and medium-sized enterprises. The financial support thus provided shall be earmarked to small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations operating in the cultural and creative sectors. | The Commission shall establish a facility targeting the cultural and creative sectors and operated within the context of a European Union debt instrument for small and medium-sized enterprises. The financial support thus provided shall be earmarked to small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations operating in the cultural and creative sectors. |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall establish a facility targeting the cultural and creative sectors and operated within the context of a European Union debt instrument for small and medium-sized enterprises. The financial support thus provided shall be earmarked to small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations operating in the cultural and creative sectors.

The Commission shall establish a facility targeting the cultural and creative sectors and operated within the context of a European Union debt instrument for small and medium-sized enterprises. The financial support thus provided shall be earmarked to small and medium-sized enterprises and organisations operating in the cultural and creative sectors.

Reason

The implementation arrangements of the Cultural and Creative Sectors Facility should be broader and go below SME level in order to accurately depict the reality of those working in the creative and cultural sectors.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’, COM(2011) 500 final, 29.6.2011.

1

(2)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’, COM(2011) 500 final, 29.6.2011.

2

(3)  CdR 181/2010 fin.

3

(4)  CdR 172/2007 fin.

4

(5)  CdR 44/2006 fin.

5

(6)  CdR 181/2010 fin.

6

(7)  CdR 27/2009 fin.

7

(8)  CdR 293/2010 fin.

8

(9)  CdR 259/2004 fin.

9

(10)  CdR 259/2004 fin.

10

(11)  CdR 251/2005 fin.

11

(12)  CdR 27/2009 fin.

12

(13)  CdR 133/2009 fin.

13

(14)  CdR 293/2010 fin.

14

(15)  CdR 293/2010 fin.

15

(16)  CdR 94/2008 fin.

16

(17)  CdR 94/2008 fin.

17

(18)  CdR 94/2008 fin.

18

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/164 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/164

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Union civil protection mechanism’

2012/C 277/16

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the transformation from a reactive and ad hoc approach to a more integrated, effective and improved mechanism; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the transformation from a reactive and ad hoc approach to a more integrated, effective and improved mechanism;

| — | points out that local and regional authorities are usually key participants in the management of crisis situations and thus it would be appropriate to involve them in preparing risk assessment and risk management plans; |
| --- | --- |

—

points out that local and regional authorities are usually key participants in the management of crisis situations and thus it would be appropriate to involve them in preparing risk assessment and risk management plans;

| — | believes that the EU should work with national authorities on increasing the number of staff training courses at local and regional level to ensure an effective response to crisis situations; |
| --- | --- |

—

believes that the EU should work with national authorities on increasing the number of staff training courses at local and regional level to ensure an effective response to crisis situations;

| — | firmly believes that the EU should establish a platform which could be used to exchange information and experiences on dealing with disasters between Member States and their local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

firmly believes that the EU should establish a platform which could be used to exchange information and experiences on dealing with disasters between Member States and their local and regional authorities;

| — | emphasises the need for greater precision in the definitions set out in the decision and regarding requests for help in reacting to actual and imminent major disasters; |
| --- | --- |

—

emphasises the need for greater precision in the definitions set out in the decision and regarding requests for help in reacting to actual and imminent major disasters;

| — | feels that A standard model should be used as a basis for risk management plans to ensure the comparability of their content; |
| --- | --- |

—

feels that A standard model should be used as a basis for risk management plans to ensure the comparability of their content;

| — | is persuaded that a schedule must be established for Member States to regularly update and submit risk management plans. |
| --- | --- |

—

is persuaded that a schedule must be established for Member States to regularly update and submit risk management plans.

| Rapporteur | Adam BANASZAK (PL/EA), Member of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Regional Assembly |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
  COM(2011) 934 final |

Rapporteur

Adam BANASZAK (PL/EA), Member of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Regional Assembly

Reference document

Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism

COM(2011) 934 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments

| 1. | is pleased to note that the proposal ties in with the Commission’s policy to develop better solutions and a more coherent policy on responding to disasters, and that it contributes to the Europe 2020 objectives and to increasing the security of EU citizens as part of the Stockholm Programme and the EU Internal Security Strategy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

is pleased to note that the proposal ties in with the Commission’s policy to develop better solutions and a more coherent policy on responding to disasters, and that it contributes to the Europe 2020 objectives and to increasing the security of EU citizens as part of the Stockholm Programme and the EU Internal Security Strategy;

| 2. | notes that the new proposals have been formulated on the basis of a review of civil protection provisions and experience of previous disasters; |
| --- | --- |

2.

notes that the new proposals have been formulated on the basis of a review of civil protection provisions and experience of previous disasters;

| 3. | is pleased to note that this proposal represents another step by the Commission towards simplifying and streamlining legislation, with a single legislative proposal for 2014-2020 combining existing proposals on cooperation in the field of civil protection at EU level regulated by two legal instruments: Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism, and Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument; |
| --- | --- |

3.

is pleased to note that this proposal represents another step by the Commission towards simplifying and streamlining legislation, with a single legislative proposal for 2014-2020 combining existing proposals on cooperation in the field of civil protection at EU level regulated by two legal instruments: Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism, and Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument;

| 4. | points out that local and regional authorities are usually key participants in the management of crisis situations, and that dissemination of information to those in charge of crisis response measures at local and regional level should be one of the objectives of civil protection legislation; |
| --- | --- |

4.

points out that local and regional authorities are usually key participants in the management of crisis situations, and that dissemination of information to those in charge of crisis response measures at local and regional level should be one of the objectives of civil protection legislation;

| 5. | emphasises that a strengthened civil protection mechanism will contribute to implementation of the Solidarity Clause; appreciates that particular attention has been given to ensuring close coordination between civil protection and humanitarian aid, as well as consistency with actions carried out under other EU policies and instruments, in particular in the field of freedom, security and justice policy. Consistency with other EU financial instruments should exclude duplication of financing; |
| --- | --- |

5.

emphasises that a strengthened civil protection mechanism will contribute to implementation of the Solidarity Clause; appreciates that particular attention has been given to ensuring close coordination between civil protection and humanitarian aid, as well as consistency with actions carried out under other EU policies and instruments, in particular in the field of freedom, security and justice policy. Consistency with other EU financial instruments should exclude duplication of financing;

| 6. | identifies with the principles of solidarity, cooperation, coordination and mutual support between EU countries, regions and local communities in the field of civil protection; agrees with the Commission that in order to reinforce the EU’s integrated disaster response capacity, a shift is needed from an ad hoc approach to measures planned sufficiently in advance, together with an integrated policy on exercises and training courses, consideration for the cross-cutting nature of disaster prevention measures (for example, in the fields of environmental protection, climate change, flooding, fire risks, security, health protection and regional policy), and facilitation of further cooperation between participating states; |
| --- | --- |

6.

identifies with the principles of solidarity, cooperation, coordination and mutual support between EU countries, regions and local communities in the field of civil protection; agrees with the Commission that in order to reinforce the EU’s integrated disaster response capacity, a shift is needed from an ad hoc approach to measures planned sufficiently in advance, together with an integrated policy on exercises and training courses, consideration for the cross-cutting nature of disaster prevention measures (for example, in the fields of environmental protection, climate change, flooding, fire risks, security, health protection and regional policy), and facilitation of further cooperation between participating states;

| 7. | also points out that the EU should work with national authorities on increasing the number of staff training courses at local and regional level to ensure a sufficient initial, and above all effective response to crisis situations; |
| --- | --- |

7.

also points out that the EU should work with national authorities on increasing the number of staff training courses at local and regional level to ensure a sufficient initial, and above all effective response to crisis situations;

| 8. | agrees that civil protection measures are a fundamental Member State competence and that the mechanism should not affect the primary Member States’ responsibility for protecting people, the environment and property on their territory against disasters. The main aim of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism should be to support, coordinate and supplement the actions of the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

8.

agrees that civil protection measures are a fundamental Member State competence and that the mechanism should not affect the primary Member States’ responsibility for protecting people, the environment and property on their territory against disasters. The main aim of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism should be to support, coordinate and supplement the actions of the Member States;

| 9. | emphasises the importance of closer cooperation with Member States and local and regional authorities on civil protection measures in the event of major emergencies; |
| --- | --- |

9.

emphasises the importance of closer cooperation with Member States and local and regional authorities on civil protection measures in the event of major emergencies;

| 10. | feels that the EU should identify specific resource shortages and define exactly how it could help Member States in their efforts to improve readiness, especially in relation to local and regional authorities. Member States and the EU should aim to use existing resources so as not to create additional financial and administrative burdens, not least for local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

10.

feels that the EU should identify specific resource shortages and define exactly how it could help Member States in their efforts to improve readiness, especially in relation to local and regional authorities. Member States and the EU should aim to use existing resources so as not to create additional financial and administrative burdens, not least for local and regional authorities;

| 11. | firmly believes that the EU should establish a platform which could be used to exchange information and experiences on dealing with disasters between Member States and their local and regional authorities; |
| --- | --- |

11.

firmly believes that the EU should establish a platform which could be used to exchange information and experiences on dealing with disasters between Member States and their local and regional authorities;

| 12. | emphasises that the Member States, with EU support, should involve local and regional authorities in disaster response at an early stage, making use of the multilevel governance system used in the field of cohesion policy; |
| --- | --- |

12.

emphasises that the Member States, with EU support, should involve local and regional authorities in disaster response at an early stage, making use of the multilevel governance system used in the field of cohesion policy;

| 13. | supports the proposal to focus specific objectives on prevention, ensuring preparedness for disaster response, and facilitating rapid and efficient emergency response interventions in the event of major disasters or their imminence; |
| --- | --- |

13.

supports the proposal to focus specific objectives on prevention, ensuring preparedness for disaster response, and facilitating rapid and efficient emergency response interventions in the event of major disasters or their imminence;

Evaluation of existing shortcomings and areas in which they have been addressed

| 14. | notes the importance of continued simplification of applicable legislation (the proposal is a major step in this direction) and of the relevant procedures, while ensuring that they are unambiguous and transparent; this should limit administrative burdens and serve as a starting point for further measures to simplify and streamline the mechanism. Notes that a standard model could be helpful to establish individual risk management plans. The lack of that model also increases the risk of conflicts with other risk management plans. The lack of any indication of the scope of plans and their basic content increases the cost of drawing them up, makes comparison more difficult, and most importantly undermines the rationale behind the requirement for Member States to submit plans; |
| --- | --- |

14.

notes the importance of continued simplification of applicable legislation (the proposal is a major step in this direction) and of the relevant procedures, while ensuring that they are unambiguous and transparent; this should limit administrative burdens and serve as a starting point for further measures to simplify and streamline the mechanism. Notes that a standard model could be helpful to establish individual risk management plans. The lack of that model also increases the risk of conflicts with other risk management plans. The lack of any indication of the scope of plans and their basic content increases the cost of drawing them up, makes comparison more difficult, and most importantly undermines the rationale behind the requirement for Member States to submit plans;

| 15. | emphasises that local and regional authorities can ensure immediate disaster response because they have detailed knowledge of local geographical and social conditions; feels it would be appropriate for Member States to involve local and regional authorities in preparing risk assessment and risk management plans, as in many cases the latter have more knowledge than the national level, for example in terms of evaluating threats; |
| --- | --- |

15.

emphasises that local and regional authorities can ensure immediate disaster response because they have detailed knowledge of local geographical and social conditions; feels it would be appropriate for Member States to involve local and regional authorities in preparing risk assessment and risk management plans, as in many cases the latter have more knowledge than the national level, for example in terms of evaluating threats;

| 16. | notes that the financial provisions in the proposal on transport go in the right direction, and should enable more steps to be taken in a shorter time at the same time as widening the range of countries using resources, given that transport is one of the main costs in the case of the international missions; |
| --- | --- |

16.

notes that the financial provisions in the proposal on transport go in the right direction, and should enable more steps to be taken in a shorter time at the same time as widening the range of countries using resources, given that transport is one of the main costs in the case of the international missions;

| 17. | supports the Commission’s measures to improve access to adequate transport resources in order to support the process of building a rapid response capacity at EU level provided that the purpose, scope and conditions for the potential application of these measures are clearly specified; welcomes the possibility of the Commission complementing transport provided by Member States by providing additional transport resources necessary for ensuring a rapid response to major disasters; |
| --- | --- |

17.

supports the Commission’s measures to improve access to adequate transport resources in order to support the process of building a rapid response capacity at EU level provided that the purpose, scope and conditions for the potential application of these measures are clearly specified; welcomes the possibility of the Commission complementing transport provided by Member States by providing additional transport resources necessary for ensuring a rapid response to major disasters;

| 18. | emphasises the importance of the transformation from a reactive and ad hoc approach to a more integrated, effective and improved mechanism. We need a genuine transition from the current ad hoc approach to advance planning and rapid response; |
| --- | --- |

18.

emphasises the importance of the transformation from a reactive and ad hoc approach to a more integrated, effective and improved mechanism. We need a genuine transition from the current ad hoc approach to advance planning and rapid response;

| 19. | understands the Commission’s intentions with regard to its broad definition of concepts associated with the instrument in order to ensure flexible and more effective operation of the Civil Protection Mechanism; feels however that it would be useful to clarify the definitions set out in Article 4 of the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, in particular the concepts of ‘disaster’ and ‘major disaster’; in future, this could prevent irregularities in Member States’ use of resources through the mechanism; |
| --- | --- |

19.

understands the Commission’s intentions with regard to its broad definition of concepts associated with the instrument in order to ensure flexible and more effective operation of the Civil Protection Mechanism; feels however that it would be useful to clarify the definitions set out in Article 4 of the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, in particular the concepts of ‘disaster’ and ‘major disaster’; in future, this could prevent irregularities in Member States’ use of resources through the mechanism;

| 20. | agrees with the Commission that access to critical response capacity and transport solutions should be improved, at the same time as facilitating procedures to ensure optimal response and integrating preventive policies more closely; |
| --- | --- |

20.

agrees with the Commission that access to critical response capacity and transport solutions should be improved, at the same time as facilitating procedures to ensure optimal response and integrating preventive policies more closely;

| 21. | welcomes the Commission’s efforts to improve emergency response capacity by stepping up training courses and exercises and drawing up appropriate emergency plans; |
| --- | --- |

21.

welcomes the Commission’s efforts to improve emergency response capacity by stepping up training courses and exercises and drawing up appropriate emergency plans;

The main foundations of civil protection policy: prevention, preparedness, response and the external dimension

| 22. | is in favour of basing the mechanism on the four main cornerstones of civil protection policy: prevention, preparedness, response and the external dimension, at the same time as adding financial provisions; |
| --- | --- |

22.

is in favour of basing the mechanism on the four main cornerstones of civil protection policy: prevention, preparedness, response and the external dimension, at the same time as adding financial provisions;

| 23. | is in favour of measures to encourage Member States and third countries to adopt an integrated approach to disaster management; |
| --- | --- |

23.

is in favour of measures to encourage Member States and third countries to adopt an integrated approach to disaster management;

| 24. | emphasises that in order to prevent damage caused by disasters to people, property and the environment, it is vital to take measures to build and constantly update a knowledge base on risk, while exchanging knowledge, practices and information. It is also vital to raise awareness of prevention and to support Member States and third countries in taking steps with a particular focus on drawing up risk management plans; |
| --- | --- |

24.

emphasises that in order to prevent damage caused by disasters to people, property and the environment, it is vital to take measures to build and constantly update a knowledge base on risk, while exchanging knowledge, practices and information. It is also vital to raise awareness of prevention and to support Member States and third countries in taking steps with a particular focus on drawing up risk management plans;

| 25. | agrees with the Commission’s planned measures to ensure preparedness, for example by establishing an Emergency Response Centre (ERC), managing a Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS), contributing to the development of detection and early warning systems for disasters, establishing and maintaining the capacity of expert teams, modules and elements, as well as taking supporting and complementary action (training, disseminating experience and knowledge). At the same time, the Committee would like more details on Member States’ requests for assistance through the ERC. The reference to a ‘specific request’ in the text is extremely vague. The ERC must also be coordinated with existing national and regional bodies; |
| --- | --- |

25.

agrees with the Commission’s planned measures to ensure preparedness, for example by establishing an Emergency Response Centre (ERC), managing a Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS), contributing to the development of detection and early warning systems for disasters, establishing and maintaining the capacity of expert teams, modules and elements, as well as taking supporting and complementary action (training, disseminating experience and knowledge). At the same time, the Committee would like more details on Member States’ requests for assistance through the ERC. The reference to a ‘specific request’ in the text is extremely vague. The ERC must also be coordinated with existing national and regional bodies;

| 26. | agrees with the Commission’s planned measures in the event of a request by a Member State for help in dealing with an actual or imminent major disaster, particularly in relation to measures to facilitate the mobilisation of teams, experts, modules and intervention support other than that from the European Emergency Response Capacity; |
| --- | --- |

26.

agrees with the Commission’s planned measures in the event of a request by a Member State for help in dealing with an actual or imminent major disaster, particularly in relation to measures to facilitate the mobilisation of teams, experts, modules and intervention support other than that from the European Emergency Response Capacity;

| 27. | supports the Commission’s initiative to establish a European Emergency Response Capacity in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed response capacities of Member States. The quality requirements for the emergency response capacity must be defined in cooperation with the Member States. At the same time, it would like more details of the procedure for Member States to inform the Commission of any reasons that prevent them from making these capacities available in a specific emergency. It must also be made clear that the response capacity need not to be made available in a specific emergency if it is needed for national purposes; |
| --- | --- |

27.

supports the Commission’s initiative to establish a European Emergency Response Capacity in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed response capacities of Member States. The quality requirements for the emergency response capacity must be defined in cooperation with the Member States. At the same time, it would like more details of the procedure for Member States to inform the Commission of any reasons that prevent them from making these capacities available in a specific emergency. It must also be made clear that the response capacity need not to be made available in a specific emergency if it is needed for national purposes;

| 28. | feels it is essential to include Member State information for the Commission on reasons preventing them from making capacities available in updates to risk management plans; |
| --- | --- |

28.

feels it is essential to include Member State information for the Commission on reasons preventing them from making capacities available in updates to risk management plans;

| 29. | supports the Commission’s planned mid-term evaluation of the European Emergency Response Capacity; if this operates efficiently, it should help to achieve the specific objectives which have been defined; |
| --- | --- |

29.

supports the Commission’s planned mid-term evaluation of the European Emergency Response Capacity; if this operates efficiently, it should help to achieve the specific objectives which have been defined;

Concluding remarks

| 30. | supports the Commission’s initiative to broaden grant allocations on the basis of the decision under review in any of the forms provided by the Financial Regulation, in particular grants, reimbursement of expenses, public procurement, or contributions to trust funds; |
| --- | --- |

30.

supports the Commission’s initiative to broaden grant allocations on the basis of the decision under review in any of the forms provided by the Financial Regulation, in particular grants, reimbursement of expenses, public procurement, or contributions to trust funds;

| 31. | supports the Commission’s efforts to take action in order to achieve synergies and complementarity with other instruments of the Union while excluding simultaneous assistance from Union financial instruments; |
| --- | --- |

31.

supports the Commission’s efforts to take action in order to achieve synergies and complementarity with other instruments of the Union while excluding simultaneous assistance from Union financial instruments;

| 32. | feels that it is appropriate for the Commission to take appropriate measures ensuring that, when financial actions are implemented, the financial interests of the Union are protected by the application of preventive measures against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities; |
| --- | --- |

32.

feels that it is appropriate for the Commission to take appropriate measures ensuring that, when financial actions are implemented, the financial interests of the Union are protected by the application of preventive measures against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities;

| 33. | at the same time, emphasises the need for greater precision in the definitions set out in the decision and regarding requests for help in reacting to actual or imminent major disasters, in order to exclude potential irregularities arising from improperly defined concepts. |
| --- | --- |

33.

at the same time, emphasises the need for greater precision in the definitions set out in the decision and regarding requests for help in reacting to actual or imminent major disasters, in order to exclude potential irregularities arising from improperly defined concepts.

II.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Article 4 (2) - Definitions

| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| For the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:






  2. | ‘major disaster’ means any situation, which has or may have an adverse impact on people, the environment or property and which may result in a call for assistance under the Mechanism; |

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

For the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:

2.

‘major disaster’ means any situation, which has or may have an adverse impact on people, the environment or property and which may result in a call for assistance under the Mechanism;

For the purpose of this Decision, the following definitions shall apply:

| 2. | ‘major disaster’ means any situation , which has or may have an adverse impact on people, the environment or property and which |
| --- | --- |

2.

‘major disaster’ means any situation , which has or may have an adverse impact on people, the environment or property and which

Amendment 2

Article 6 - Risk management plans

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   In order to ensure an effective cooperation within the Mechanism, Members States shall communicate to the Commission their risk management plans. | 1.   In order to ensure an effective cooperation within the Mechanism, Members States shall communicate to the Commission their risk management plans . |
| 2.   The risk management plans shall take into account the national risk assessments and other relevant risk assessment and shall be coherent with other relevant plans in force in that Member State. | 2.   The risk management plans shall take into account the national risk assessments and other relevant risk assessment and shall be coherent with other relevant plans in force in that Member State. |
| 3.   Member States shall ensure by the end of 2016 at the latest that their risk management plans are ready and communicated to the Commission in their most up-to-date form. | | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   In order to ensure an effective cooperation within the Mechanism, Members States shall communicate to the Commission their risk management plans.

1.   In order to ensure an effective cooperation within the Mechanism, Members States shall communicate to the Commission their risk management plans .

2.   The risk management plans shall take into account the national risk assessments and other relevant risk assessment and shall be coherent with other relevant plans in force in that Member State.

2.   The risk management plans shall take into account the national risk assessments and other relevant risk assessment and shall be coherent with other relevant plans in force in that Member State.

3.   Member States shall ensure by the end of 2016 at the latest that their risk management plans are ready and communicated to the Commission in their most up-to-date form.

Member States shall ensure by the end of at the latest that their risk management plans are ready and communicated to the Commission .

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

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

Reasons

The lack of a standard model to be used as a basis for risk management plans could lead to significant differences in the content of individual plans. Moreover, it is essential to define and emphasise the role of local and regional authorities, given that they are best placed to ensure immediate disaster response in view of their detailed knowledge of local geographical and social conditions. A schedule must be established for Member States to regularly update and submit risk management plans, at the same time as requiring immediate one-off updating in the event of sudden and unexpected changes to the current plan.

Amendment 3

Article 7 (a) - General preparedness actions of the Commission

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| The Commission shall carry out the following preparedness actions:






  (a) | establish and manage the Emergency Response Centre (ERC), ensuring 24/7 operational capacity, and serving the Member States and the Commission for the purposes of the Mechanism |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

The Commission shall carry out the following preparedness actions:

(a)

establish and manage the Emergency Response Centre (ERC), ensuring 24/7 operational capacity, and serving the Member States and the Commission for the purposes of the Mechanism

The Commission shall carry out the following preparedness actions:

| (a) | establish and manage the Emergency Response Centre (ERC) , ensuring 24/7 operational capacity, and serving the Member States and the Commission for the purposes of the Mechanism; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

establish and manage the Emergency Response Centre (ERC) , ensuring 24/7 operational capacity, and serving the Member States and the Commission for the purposes of the Mechanism;

Reason

It is essential to ensure that the establishment and management of the ERC does not create parallel structures or unclear deployment procedures at European level. Article 7 of the proposal for a decision, which concerns the ERC, should therefore provide that regard must be paid to national and regional bodies and that the ERC must be coordinated with them.

Amendment 4

Article 11 (3) and (7) – European Emergency Response Capacity

| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   A European Emergency Response Capacity in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed response capacities of Member States shall be established. | 1.   A European Emergency Response Capacity in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed response capacities of Member States shall be established. |
| 2.   On the basis of reference scenarios, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall define the types and number of capacities required for the European Emergency Response Capacity (hereinafter referred to as ‘capacity goals’). | 2.   On the basis of reference scenarios, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall define the types and number of capacities required for the European Emergency Response Capacity (hereinafter referred to as ‘capacity goals’). |
| 3.   The Commission shall define quality requirements for the capacities to be committed to the European Emergency Response Capacity. Member States shall be responsible for ensuring their quality. | 3.   The Commission shall define quality requirements for the capacities to be committed to the European Emergency Response Capacity. Member States shall be responsible for ensuring their quality. |
| 4.   The Commission shall establish and manage a process for certification and registration of capacities that Member States make available to the European Emergency Response Capacity. | 4.   The Commission shall establish and manage a process for certification and registration of capacities that Member States make available to the European Emergency Response Capacity. |
| 5.   Member States shall on a voluntary basis identify and register capacities, which they commit to the European Emergency Response Capacity. The registration of multinational modules provided by two or more Member States shall be undertaken jointly by all Member States concerned. | 5.   Member States shall on a voluntary basis identify and register capacities, which they commit to the European Emergency Response Capacity. The registration of multinational modules provided by two or more Member States shall be undertaken jointly by all Member States concerned. |
| 6.   The capacities registered in the European Emergency Response Capacity shall be available for emergency response operations under the Mechanism at the request of the Commission through the ERC. Member States shall inform the Commission as soon as possible of any compelling reasons that prevent them from making these capacities available in a specific emergency. | 6.   The capacities registered in the European Emergency Response Capacity shall be available for emergency response operations under the Mechanism at the request of the Commission through the ERC. Member States shall inform the Commission as soon as possible of any compelling reasons that prevent them from making these capacities available in a specific emergency. |
| 7.   In the event of deployment, the capacities shall remain under Member States’ command and direction. The coordination among the different capacities shall be ensured by the Commission through the ERC. The capacities shall remain available for the national purposes of Member States when not deployed in operations under the Mechanism. | 7.   In the event of deployment, the capacities shall remain under Member States’ command and direction. The coordination among the different capacities shall be ensured by the Commission through the ERC. |
| 8.   Member States and the Commission shall ensure an appropriate visibility of the interventions of the European Emergency Response Capacity. | 8.   Member States and the Commission shall ensure an appropriate visibility of the interventions of the European Emergency Response Capacity. |

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.   A European Emergency Response Capacity in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed response capacities of Member States shall be established.

1.   A European Emergency Response Capacity in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed response capacities of Member States shall be established.

2.   On the basis of reference scenarios, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall define the types and number of capacities required for the European Emergency Response Capacity (hereinafter referred to as ‘capacity goals’).

2.   On the basis of reference scenarios, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall define the types and number of capacities required for the European Emergency Response Capacity (hereinafter referred to as ‘capacity goals’).

3.   The Commission shall define quality requirements for the capacities to be committed to the European Emergency Response Capacity. Member States shall be responsible for ensuring their quality.

3.   The Commission shall define quality requirements for the capacities to be committed to the European Emergency Response Capacity. Member States shall be responsible for ensuring their quality.

4.   The Commission shall establish and manage a process for certification and registration of capacities that Member States make available to the European Emergency Response Capacity.

4.   The Commission shall establish and manage a process for certification and registration of capacities that Member States make available to the European Emergency Response Capacity.

5.   Member States shall on a voluntary basis identify and register capacities, which they commit to the European Emergency Response Capacity. The registration of multinational modules provided by two or more Member States shall be undertaken jointly by all Member States concerned.

5.   Member States shall on a voluntary basis identify and register capacities, which they commit to the European Emergency Response Capacity. The registration of multinational modules provided by two or more Member States shall be undertaken jointly by all Member States concerned.

6.   The capacities registered in the European Emergency Response Capacity shall be available for emergency response operations under the Mechanism at the request of the Commission through the ERC. Member States shall inform the Commission as soon as possible of any compelling reasons that prevent them from making these capacities available in a specific emergency.

6.   The capacities registered in the European Emergency Response Capacity shall be available for emergency response operations under the Mechanism at the request of the Commission through the ERC. Member States shall inform the Commission as soon as possible of any compelling reasons that prevent them from making these capacities available in a specific emergency.

7.   In the event of deployment, the capacities shall remain under Member States’ command and direction. The coordination among the different capacities shall be ensured by the Commission through the ERC. The capacities shall remain available for the national purposes of Member States when not deployed in operations under the Mechanism.

7.   In the event of deployment, the capacities shall remain under Member States’ command and direction. The coordination among the different capacities shall be ensured by the Commission through the ERC.

8.   Member States and the Commission shall ensure an appropriate visibility of the interventions of the European Emergency Response Capacity.

8.   Member States and the Commission shall ensure an appropriate visibility of the interventions of the European Emergency Response Capacity.

Amendment 5

Article 15 - Responding to major disasters within the Union

| Text proposed by the Commission | CoR amendment |
| --- | --- |
| 1.   Where a major disaster occurs within the Union, or in the imminence thereof, a Member State may request assistance through the ERC. The request shall be as specific as possible. | 1.   Where a major disaster occurs within the Union, or in the imminence thereof, a Member State may request assistance through the ERC. The request shall be specific | |

Text proposed by the Commission

CoR amendment

1.   Where a major disaster occurs within the Union, or in the imminence thereof, a Member State may request assistance through the ERC. The request shall be as specific as possible.

1.   Where a major disaster occurs within the Union, or in the imminence thereof, a Member State may request assistance through the ERC. The request shall be specific

Reason

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

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

More accurate information from the Member States in the event of a major disaster would enable more effective, targeted and cost-efficient action under the Mechanism, besides enabling the desired objectives to be achieved more rapidly, which is of great importance in responding to disasters.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

| 13.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/171

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Responsible Businesses Package’

2012/C 277/17

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the fact that the Commission has placed the social economy and social innovation at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy flagship initiative Innovation Union, the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, and the Single Market Act; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the fact that the Commission has placed the social economy and social innovation at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy flagship initiative Innovation Union, the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, and the Single Market Act;

| — | agrees that a strategic analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become more important in terms of businesses' competitiveness. This can help with risk management, cost containment, securing capital, customer relations, management of staff, and innovation capacity. By paying attention to CSR, businesses can consolidate the trust that employees, consumers and citizens have in them; |
| --- | --- |

—

agrees that a strategic analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become more important in terms of businesses' competitiveness. This can help with risk management, cost containment, securing capital, customer relations, management of staff, and innovation capacity. By paying attention to CSR, businesses can consolidate the trust that employees, consumers and citizens have in them;

| — | approves of the Commission's appeal to European business leaders to work closely with public authorities and other stakeholders to promote responsible business in an increasing number of EU companies, in line with the clear targets set for 2015 and 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

approves of the Commission's appeal to European business leaders to work closely with public authorities and other stakeholders to promote responsible business in an increasing number of EU companies, in line with the clear targets set for 2015 and 2020;

| — | encourages the Commission to pay more attention to different levels of development and to the regional differences still observed within the EU. The situations of Member States, regions and cities in relation to the Europe 2020 strategy's five headline targets - for employment, research and innovation, climate change and energy, education, and preventing poverty - vary considerably, and the crisis is affecting them in varying degrees. |
| --- | --- |

—

encourages the Commission to pay more attention to different levels of development and to the regional differences still observed within the EU. The situations of Member States, regions and cities in relation to the Europe 2020 strategy's five headline targets - for employment, research and innovation, climate change and energy, education, and preventing poverty - vary considerably, and the crisis is affecting them in varying degrees.

| Rapporteur | Satu TIETARI (FI/ALDE), Member of Säkylä Municipal Council |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Responsible Businesses Package, comprising:






  — | the introductory Communication,
  COM(2011) 685 final |

Rapporteur

Satu TIETARI (FI/ALDE), Member of Säkylä Municipal Council

Reference documents

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Responsible Businesses Package, comprising:

—

the introductory Communication,

COM(2011) 685 final

| — | the proposal to revise the Accounting Directives,
  COM(2011) 684 final |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposal to revise the Accounting Directives,

COM(2011) 684 final

| — | the proposal to revise the Transparency Directive,
  COM(2011) 683 final |
| --- | --- |

—

the proposal to revise the Transparency Directive,

COM(2011) 683 final

| — | the Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
  COM(2011) 681 final |
| --- | --- |

—

the Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),

COM(2011) 681 final

| — | the Communication on the ‘Social Business Initiative’,
  COM(2011) 682 final |
| --- | --- |

—

the Communication on the ‘Social Business Initiative’,

COM(2011) 682 final

I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes the fact that the Commission has placed the social economy and social innovation at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy flagship initiative Innovation Union, the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, and the Single Market Act; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the fact that the Commission has placed the social economy and social innovation at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy flagship initiative Innovation Union, the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, and the Single Market Act;

| 2. | agrees that a strategic analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become more important in terms of businesses' competitiveness. This can help with risk management, cost containment, securing capital, customer relations, management of staff, and innovation capacity. By paying attention to CSR, businesses can consolidate the trust that employees, consumers and citizens have in them; |
| --- | --- |

2.

agrees that a strategic analysis of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become more important in terms of businesses' competitiveness. This can help with risk management, cost containment, securing capital, customer relations, management of staff, and innovation capacity. By paying attention to CSR, businesses can consolidate the trust that employees, consumers and citizens have in them;

| 3. | approves of the Commission's appeal to European business leaders to work closely with public authorities and other stakeholders to promote responsible business in an increasing number of EU companies, in line with the clear targets set for 2015 and 2020; |
| --- | --- |

3.

approves of the Commission's appeal to European business leaders to work closely with public authorities and other stakeholders to promote responsible business in an increasing number of EU companies, in line with the clear targets set for 2015 and 2020;

| 4. | supports the Commission's intention not to give a standard definition of social entrepreneurship for the EU as a whole that would bind all parties and result in excessively tight regulation, and approves of the proposal for common principles to allow consideration of the political, economic and social strategies and capacities of the different Member States. Language and terminology should be consistent across all EU countries, however; |
| --- | --- |

4.

supports the Commission's intention not to give a standard definition of social entrepreneurship for the EU as a whole that would bind all parties and result in excessively tight regulation, and approves of the proposal for common principles to allow consideration of the political, economic and social strategies and capacities of the different Member States. Language and terminology should be consistent across all EU countries, however;

| 5. | approves of the European Commission's commitment to building a strong and competitive Europe oriented towards sustainable growth in order to consolidate economic recovery. The Europe 2020 strategy places support for competitive and sustainable business at ‘centre stage’ (1); |
| --- | --- |

5.

approves of the European Commission's commitment to building a strong and competitive Europe oriented towards sustainable growth in order to consolidate economic recovery. The Europe 2020 strategy places support for competitive and sustainable business at ‘centre stage’ (1);

| 6. | notes that new variables affecting competitiveness have put the global role of the European economy in question, and that the Europe 2020 strategy should be strongly supported so as to help the European economy regain its position. As a driver of growth, the social perspective should be at the heart of this process; |
| --- | --- |

6.

notes that new variables affecting competitiveness have put the global role of the European economy in question, and that the Europe 2020 strategy should be strongly supported so as to help the European economy regain its position. As a driver of growth, the social perspective should be at the heart of this process;

| 7. | stresses the importance of taking advantage of the value added by EU-level action when formulating a response to global challenges. The targets of the Europe 2020 strategy can only be met by pooling Member States' resources and creating synergies; |
| --- | --- |

7.

stresses the importance of taking advantage of the value added by EU-level action when formulating a response to global challenges. The targets of the Europe 2020 strategy can only be met by pooling Member States' resources and creating synergies;

| 8. | supports an increase in comprehensive cooperation and agreements between regions and Member States that commit them to meeting the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy; |
| --- | --- |

8.

supports an increase in comprehensive cooperation and agreements between regions and Member States that commit them to meeting the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy;

| 9. | encourages the Commission to pay more attention to different levels of development and to the regional differences still observed within the EU. The situations of Member States, regions and cities in relation to the Europe 2020 strategy's five headline targets - for employment, research and innovation, climate change and energy, education, and preventing poverty - vary considerably, and the crisis is affecting them in varying degrees; |
| --- | --- |

9.

encourages the Commission to pay more attention to different levels of development and to the regional differences still observed within the EU. The situations of Member States, regions and cities in relation to the Europe 2020 strategy's five headline targets - for employment, research and innovation, climate change and energy, education, and preventing poverty - vary considerably, and the crisis is affecting them in varying degrees;

| 10. | believes that responsible business activity should be supported and rewarded on the market, e.g. through investment grants and public procurement. Support should be geared towards stakeholders recognising the key importance of workers for development of businesses. Increasing employment of people from groups considered to be at risk of unemployment should be rewarded in order to achieve an imitation effect; |
| --- | --- |

10.

believes that responsible business activity should be supported and rewarded on the market, e.g. through investment grants and public procurement. Support should be geared towards stakeholders recognising the key importance of workers for development of businesses. Increasing employment of people from groups considered to be at risk of unemployment should be rewarded in order to achieve an imitation effect;

| 11. | is satisfied with the Commission's proposal to publicly recognise businesses doing their share in being socially responsible. The EU can help to disseminate best practices, reinforce peer learning and encourage an increasing number of businesses to develop their own approach to CSR issues; |
| --- | --- |

11.

is satisfied with the Commission's proposal to publicly recognise businesses doing their share in being socially responsible. The EU can help to disseminate best practices, reinforce peer learning and encourage an increasing number of businesses to develop their own approach to CSR issues;

| 12. | calls on the Commission to draw up legislation obliging investment funds and financial institutions to inform their clients (citizens, companies, authorities, etc.) of the ethical or responsible investment principles they use, or the standards and rules they apply, to bring a new system of ethics into the mainstream; |
| --- | --- |

12.

calls on the Commission to draw up legislation obliging investment funds and financial institutions to inform their clients (citizens, companies, authorities, etc.) of the ethical or responsible investment principles they use, or the standards and rules they apply, to bring a new system of ethics into the mainstream;

| 13. | supports the creation of a European instrument that will help social enterprises to secure financing; |
| --- | --- |

13.

supports the creation of a European instrument that will help social enterprises to secure financing;

| 14. | suggests that the Commission and the CoR monitor and regularly assess implementation and information in this area. By providing information about social, environmental and climate-related issues, commitment to various measures can be strengthened, which will make it easier to identify key risks to sustainable development; |
| --- | --- |

14.

suggests that the Commission and the CoR monitor and regularly assess implementation and information in this area. By providing information about social, environmental and climate-related issues, commitment to various measures can be strengthened, which will make it easier to identify key risks to sustainable development;

| 15. | understands that building CSR will require new skills from businesses and a shift in values and behaviour. Member States can play a key role in providing educational institutions with incentives to include CSR, sustainable development and responsible citizenship in the relevant curricula, in both secondary and higher education; |
| --- | --- |

15.

understands that building CSR will require new skills from businesses and a shift in values and behaviour. Member States can play a key role in providing educational institutions with incentives to include CSR, sustainable development and responsible citizenship in the relevant curricula, in both secondary and higher education;

| 16. | is pleased that the initiative assigns a key role in the EU's new model of growth to learning, social awareness and to recognising development activity, and supports the Commission's intention to guide and fund education projects that strengthen social responsibility; believes that development of social entrepreneurship mindsets should take place at the earliest stage of education. As a result, an appropriate awareness will be formed of the role of human capital in the economy; |
| --- | --- |

16.

is pleased that the initiative assigns a key role in the EU's new model of growth to learning, social awareness and to recognising development activity, and supports the Commission's intention to guide and fund education projects that strengthen social responsibility; believes that development of social entrepreneurship mindsets should take place at the earliest stage of education. As a result, an appropriate awareness will be formed of the role of human capital in the economy;

| 17. | acknowledges that industry as a concept has expanded, and that a new type of industry based on networking has become increasingly important. Extending social responsibility to all operations will help such businesses to develop; |
| --- | --- |

17.

acknowledges that industry as a concept has expanded, and that a new type of industry based on networking has become increasingly important. Extending social responsibility to all operations will help such businesses to develop;

| 18. | recognises that the extension of social responsibility to cover business constitutes a key challenge in making EU human rights policy more consistent; |
| --- | --- |

18.

recognises that the extension of social responsibility to cover business constitutes a key challenge in making EU human rights policy more consistent;

| 19. | notes that more effective implementation of the UN Guiding Principles will further EU interests in individual human rights issues and in promoting key labour standards in areas including child labour, forced prison labour, people-smuggling, gender equality, discrimination, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; |
| --- | --- |

19.

notes that more effective implementation of the UN Guiding Principles will further EU interests in individual human rights issues and in promoting key labour standards in areas including child labour, forced prison labour, people-smuggling, gender equality, discrimination, freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining;

| 20. | believes that the European Union should invest in measures with the greatest socio-economic potential, and supports the Commission's intention to work with businesses and stakeholders in 2012 to draw up human rights guidelines for certain sectors and for SMEs on the basis of the UN Guiding Principles; |
| --- | --- |

20.

believes that the European Union should invest in measures with the greatest socio-economic potential, and supports the Commission's intention to work with businesses and stakeholders in 2012 to draw up human rights guidelines for certain sectors and for SMEs on the basis of the UN Guiding Principles;

| 21. | reiterates that one of the most important objectives should be the creation of a more responsible and more transparent system of financing. Investors should consider more than just current financial benefits when making investment decisions. The effect of a responsible policy on human capital is long-term competitive advantages. These translate into notable financial benefits; |
| --- | --- |

21.

reiterates that one of the most important objectives should be the creation of a more responsible and more transparent system of financing. Investors should consider more than just current financial benefits when making investment decisions. The effect of a responsible policy on human capital is long-term competitive advantages. These translate into notable financial benefits;

| 22. | believes that the aim of social responsibility should be to develop processes that allow more efficient, responsible and transparent management of shrinking resources, and to increase implementation of socially responsible measures; |
| --- | --- |

22.

believes that the aim of social responsibility should be to develop processes that allow more efficient, responsible and transparent management of shrinking resources, and to increase implementation of socially responsible measures;

| 23. | points out that demographic trends are bound up with new models of consumption. Population ageing in developed countries is making growing demands on social services, but will also provide opportunities to create socially responsible businesses; |
| --- | --- |

23.

points out that demographic trends are bound up with new models of consumption. Population ageing in developed countries is making growing demands on social services, but will also provide opportunities to create socially responsible businesses;

| 24. | suggests that the Commission and the CoR identify ethical and value-based measures to increase businesses' motivation to develop their social responsibility. This will require new skills and a shift in values and behaviour; |
| --- | --- |

24.

suggests that the Commission and the CoR identify ethical and value-based measures to increase businesses' motivation to develop their social responsibility. This will require new skills and a shift in values and behaviour;

| 25. | recommends looking for incentives that will encourage businesses to become more socially responsible voluntarily and on their own initiative. Businesses should be given the flexibility to innovate and to develop an approach to social responsibility adapted to their own circumstances, and they should not be overburdened in relation to their size and sector. It should be noted that CSR promotes and supports social dialogue; |
| --- | --- |

25.

recommends looking for incentives that will encourage businesses to become more socially responsible voluntarily and on their own initiative. Businesses should be given the flexibility to innovate and to develop an approach to social responsibility adapted to their own circumstances, and they should not be overburdened in relation to their size and sector. It should be noted that CSR promotes and supports social dialogue;

| 26. | believes that tangible, quantifiable measures should be developed at local level in different parts of Europe so that both the direct and indirect impact of activities can be seen and shared; |
| --- | --- |

26.

believes that tangible, quantifiable measures should be developed at local level in different parts of Europe so that both the direct and indirect impact of activities can be seen and shared;

| 27. | supports a concept of integrated sustainability, in which economic, social and environmental factors are balanced. Consideration of social aspects in public procurement should be encouraged, while applying the current EU legal framework (2); |
| --- | --- |

27.

supports a concept of integrated sustainability, in which economic, social and environmental factors are balanced. Consideration of social aspects in public procurement should be encouraged, while applying the current EU legal framework (2);

| 28. | stresses the importance of ensuring that Member States and public authorities at all levels take full advantage of the opportunities offered by current public procurement law to include social responsibility criteria in procurement. However, small businesses and micro-enterprises should be guaranteed equal opportunities to take part and sustainable participation in tenders; |
| --- | --- |

28.

stresses the importance of ensuring that Member States and public authorities at all levels take full advantage of the opportunities offered by current public procurement law to include social responsibility criteria in procurement. However, small businesses and micro-enterprises should be guaranteed equal opportunities to take part and sustainable participation in tenders;

| 29. | welcomes the Commission's efforts to match public procurement legislation better to local needs, and asks the European Parliament and the Council to continue to consider these needs as well as those of SMEs; |
| --- | --- |

29.

welcomes the Commission's efforts to match public procurement legislation better to local needs, and asks the European Parliament and the Council to continue to consider these needs as well as those of SMEs;

| 30. | recommends seeking proposals for measures to reform procurement legislation so that it creates more opportunities for smaller, more agile and socially responsible actors. It should be possible to emphasise quality and working conditions when carrying out public procurement, particularly in the social and healthcare sectors; |
| --- | --- |

30.

recommends seeking proposals for measures to reform procurement legislation so that it creates more opportunities for smaller, more agile and socially responsible actors. It should be possible to emphasise quality and working conditions when carrying out public procurement, particularly in the social and healthcare sectors;

| 31. | insists that the creation of partnerships and networks should be supported in calls for tender. Competitive bidding must not be too onerous and complex, and it should not require an unmanageable amount of paperwork. Undue emphasis on achieving a result as cheaply and as quickly as possible should also be avoided. The most important thing is to achieve the qualitative results expected by the public; |
| --- | --- |

31.

insists that the creation of partnerships and networks should be supported in calls for tender. Competitive bidding must not be too onerous and complex, and it should not require an unmanageable amount of paperwork. Undue emphasis on achieving a result as cheaply and as quickly as possible should also be avoided. The most important thing is to achieve the qualitative results expected by the public;

New models needed and proposed measures to increase socially responsible business

Social responsibility as a competitive factor

| 32. | advocates measures that will help businesses develop more socially responsible and competitive activities, products and service packages. A survey should be designed and carried out which identifies know-how in the sector, ways in which it can be developed, and a measurable objective, and which also promotes the exchange of best practices; |
| --- | --- |

32.

advocates measures that will help businesses develop more socially responsible and competitive activities, products and service packages. A survey should be designed and carried out which identifies know-how in the sector, ways in which it can be developed, and a measurable objective, and which also promotes the exchange of best practices;

User-friendliness for consumers

| 33. | believes that consumers should have easy access to information about socially responsible businesses and their products. Information should be available in a form that can be easily used and circulated; |
| --- | --- |

33.

believes that consumers should have easy access to information about socially responsible businesses and their products. Information should be available in a form that can be easily used and circulated;

| 34. | underlines the importance of transparency and opening up the different aspects of production processes in order to demonstrate social responsibility. Terminology should be clear and consistent and consumers should be offered a chance to give feedback; |
| --- | --- |

34.

underlines the importance of transparency and opening up the different aspects of production processes in order to demonstrate social responsibility. Terminology should be clear and consistent and consumers should be offered a chance to give feedback;

Financial incentives must be made comprehensible

| 35. | considers that if financial and other incentives are provided for social entrepreneurship, these must be made comprehensible. At the same time, the business environment must be able to foster responsible business and make it attractive. Smaller businesses should also be given a genuine chance to operate as social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

35.

considers that if financial and other incentives are provided for social entrepreneurship, these must be made comprehensible. At the same time, the business environment must be able to foster responsible business and make it attractive. Smaller businesses should also be given a genuine chance to operate as social enterprises;

Training, education

| 36. | believes that social entrepreneurship is given too little attention in training. Lack of an entrepreneurial approach by managers of social enterprises may be impeding development. It is therefore essential in future to adopt a dual approach to the issue of the social economy: an ongoing approach, within the framework of training, and an approach geared to the future in the framework of higher education programmes. Taking account of such issues will allow personnel to be trained appropriately; |
| --- | --- |

36.

believes that social entrepreneurship is given too little attention in training. Lack of an entrepreneurial approach by managers of social enterprises may be impeding development. It is therefore essential in future to adopt a dual approach to the issue of the social economy: an ongoing approach, within the framework of training, and an approach geared to the future in the framework of higher education programmes. Taking account of such issues will allow personnel to be trained appropriately;

| 37. | considers that development and training initiatives should be designed in cooperation with finance providers. In this way human capital could also be used to help develop social entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

37.

considers that development and training initiatives should be designed in cooperation with finance providers. In this way human capital could also be used to help develop social entrepreneurship;

Revising procurement legislation

| 38. | notes that in tendering for public services and supplies, particular emphasis has come to be placed on cost. Procurement takes the form of large, one-off tenders for services or supplies, which may exclude smaller actors due to their higher unit price. It should be made easier to take sustainable development into account during procurement. Training and guidance should be organised on how to submit a bid; |
| --- | --- |

38.

notes that in tendering for public services and supplies, particular emphasis has come to be placed on cost. Procurement takes the form of large, one-off tenders for services or supplies, which may exclude smaller actors due to their higher unit price. It should be made easier to take sustainable development into account during procurement. Training and guidance should be organised on how to submit a bid;

Encouraging social entrepreneurship

| 39. | feels that social entrepreneurship should be encouraged so that experts in different fields get involved and share information on various practical aspects; |
| --- | --- |

39.

feels that social entrepreneurship should be encouraged so that experts in different fields get involved and share information on various practical aspects;

| 40. | points out that many SMEs in particular feel excluded when new provisions and regulations are drawn up. Businesses should be given practical opportunities to exert influence and to assess the impact of different measures, and they should be offered more flexible options, e.g. for financing; |
| --- | --- |

40.

points out that many SMEs in particular feel excluded when new provisions and regulations are drawn up. Businesses should be given practical opportunities to exert influence and to assess the impact of different measures, and they should be offered more flexible options, e.g. for financing;

| 41. | also believes it is important to find a new way to strengthen companies' performance, accountability and transparency in order to facilitate access to financing; |
| --- | --- |

41.

also believes it is important to find a new way to strengthen companies' performance, accountability and transparency in order to facilitate access to financing;

| 42. | notes that the social economy currently employs more than 11 million people in the EU, or six per cent of the entire workforce (3). It comprises organisations with a special legal status (cooperatives, foundations, associations and mutual societies) – many of which pursue social objectives in accordance with their particular legal form – as well as social enterprises operating as traditional private businesses or limited liability companies; |
| --- | --- |

42.

notes that the social economy currently employs more than 11 million people in the EU, or six per cent of the entire workforce (3). It comprises organisations with a special legal status (cooperatives, foundations, associations and mutual societies) – many of which pursue social objectives in accordance with their particular legal form – as well as social enterprises operating as traditional private businesses or limited liability companies;

| 43. | highlights the lack of recognition of social entrepreneurship. Stakeholders from different regions and countries are not sufficiently networked with each other, which hinders the spread of best practices, establishment of partnerships and creation of new opportunities; |
| --- | --- |

43.

highlights the lack of recognition of social entrepreneurship. Stakeholders from different regions and countries are not sufficiently networked with each other, which hinders the spread of best practices, establishment of partnerships and creation of new opportunities;

| 44. | particularly emphases the need in the single market for a new, inclusive form of growth aimed at the maximum level of employment possible; |
| --- | --- |

44.

particularly emphases the need in the single market for a new, inclusive form of growth aimed at the maximum level of employment possible;

| 45. | calls for consideration of whether social enterprises could make a significant economic contribution, subject for example to intervention in public-sector production methods. Social entrepreneurship can serve as one model for reforming public services, a measure that will be unavoidable in future; |
| --- | --- |

45.

calls for consideration of whether social enterprises could make a significant economic contribution, subject for example to intervention in public-sector production methods. Social entrepreneurship can serve as one model for reforming public services, a measure that will be unavoidable in future;

| 46. | would like to see the special features of social enterprises taken into account in public procurement in particular. However, this must not distort competition; |
| --- | --- |

46.

would like to see the special features of social enterprises taken into account in public procurement in particular. However, this must not distort competition;

| 47. | supports the measures taken by the Commission in the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (4) and in the Single Market Act (5) to reinforce territorial cohesion and to identify original approaches to social problems, especially with a view to tackling poverty and social exclusion; |
| --- | --- |

47.

supports the measures taken by the Commission in the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (4) and in the Single Market Act (5) to reinforce territorial cohesion and to identify original approaches to social problems, especially with a view to tackling poverty and social exclusion;

| 48. | supports the idea that social enterprises could form a specific company category with its own legal status and other objectives than simply profit for shareholders. Such a company category would have its own regional and national priorities, however; |
| --- | --- |

48.

supports the idea that social enterprises could form a specific company category with its own legal status and other objectives than simply profit for shareholders. Such a company category would have its own regional and national priorities, however;

| 49. | supports the Commission's proposal to frame shared principles, while respecting different Member States' political, economic and social choices and social enterprises' capacity for innovation; |
| --- | --- |

49.

supports the Commission's proposal to frame shared principles, while respecting different Member States' political, economic and social choices and social enterprises' capacity for innovation;

| 50. | points out that social responsibility is nothing new to small businesses. Social entrepreneurship is already being practised by businesses without their being conscious of it. The terminology and concepts may be unfamiliar to them. General awareness of the concepts should be raised so that they can be applied in business operations and when putting operations on the right track; |
| --- | --- |

50.

points out that social responsibility is nothing new to small businesses. Social entrepreneurship is already being practised by businesses without their being conscious of it. The terminology and concepts may be unfamiliar to them. General awareness of the concepts should be raised so that they can be applied in business operations and when putting operations on the right track;

| 51. | supports measures that will raise awareness of social entrepreneurship and boost its visibility and familiarity. Information about social enterprises should be quicker and easier to find so that experiences and best practices can be shared; |
| --- | --- |

51.

supports measures that will raise awareness of social entrepreneurship and boost its visibility and familiarity. Information about social enterprises should be quicker and easier to find so that experiences and best practices can be shared;

| 52. | is in favour of creating a multilingual digital platform for exchanging information aimed at social enterprises, business incubators, business clusters and investors in social enterprise, and of facilitating information-sharing and access to support from EU programmes. The development of the platform should be preceded by consultations with interested groups; |
| --- | --- |

52.

is in favour of creating a multilingual digital platform for exchanging information aimed at social enterprises, business incubators, business clusters and investors in social enterprise, and of facilitating information-sharing and access to support from EU programmes. The development of the platform should be preceded by consultations with interested groups;

| 53. | suggests creating all the conditions for standardising project-financing practices. Given that project financing must be sought from several different funders, applicants must acquaint themselves with the rules and instructions specific to each one, because the type and amount of support offered by different systems varies depending on the public funding body, the nature of the project, and national legislation. For smaller actors with few resources in particular, this limits opportunities to participate in projects. The implementation, interpretation and application procedures for EU funding also require attention; |
| --- | --- |

53.

suggests creating all the conditions for standardising project-financing practices. Given that project financing must be sought from several different funders, applicants must acquaint themselves with the rules and instructions specific to each one, because the type and amount of support offered by different systems varies depending on the public funding body, the nature of the project, and national legislation. For smaller actors with few resources in particular, this limits opportunities to participate in projects. The implementation, interpretation and application procedures for EU funding also require attention;

| 54. | believes that broad lines of action and targeted programmes should be developed to support social enterprises and promote social innovation. However, these measures must be designed so as not to distort competition; |
| --- | --- |

54.

believes that broad lines of action and targeted programmes should be developed to support social enterprises and promote social innovation. However, these measures must be designed so as not to distort competition;

| 55. | draws attention to the difficulties faced by social enterprises in finding financing to develop their activities. The way they use profits or their employment of socially vulnerable people mean that social enterprises often give lenders or potential investors the impression that they are riskier and less profitable than other businesses; |
| --- | --- |

55.

draws attention to the difficulties faced by social enterprises in finding financing to develop their activities. The way they use profits or their employment of socially vulnerable people mean that social enterprises often give lenders or potential investors the impression that they are riskier and less profitable than other businesses;

| 56. | supports the Commission's proposed measures (6) to encourage private and public-sector stakeholders to invest more in these businesses through equity stakes or loans, whether through socially responsible investment or a European instrument used to support funding of social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

56.

supports the Commission's proposed measures (6) to encourage private and public-sector stakeholders to invest more in these businesses through equity stakes or loans, whether through socially responsible investment or a European instrument used to support funding of social enterprises;

| 57. | is in favour of devising a regulatory framework at European level that will enable creation of novel, socially responsible investment vehicles; |
| --- | --- |

57.

is in favour of devising a regulatory framework at European level that will enable creation of novel, socially responsible investment vehicles;

| 58. | insists that all businesses and foundations in the social entrepreneurship sector should be able to operate in the single market, which is why rules should not be over-complex. It should be easy to master and comply with the rules; |
| --- | --- |

58.

insists that all businesses and foundations in the social entrepreneurship sector should be able to operate in the single market, which is why rules should not be over-complex. It should be easy to master and comply with the rules;

| 59. | welcomes plans by the European Investment Fund (7) to introduce an ‘equity window’ (ESIEF (8)) in 2012 to invest in vehicles pursuing social objectives. It is difficult to secure financing for the start-up phase, in particular; |
| --- | --- |

59.

welcomes plans by the European Investment Fund (7) to introduce an ‘equity window’ (ESIEF (8)) in 2012 to invest in vehicles pursuing social objectives. It is difficult to secure financing for the start-up phase, in particular;

| 60. | suggests looking at the option of a new social entrepreneurship investment pool and considering whether an approach to initiating social entrepreneurship could be developed that encourages involvement of different finance providers in the innovation system. Financing should be coupled with advice and guidance on investment and business skills, as the sheer variety of financing options makes it difficult for new, small-scale enterprises to apply. The fact that it is difficult to describe business activities and set objectives impedes access to financing; |
| --- | --- |

60.

suggests looking at the option of a new social entrepreneurship investment pool and considering whether an approach to initiating social entrepreneurship could be developed that encourages involvement of different finance providers in the innovation system. Financing should be coupled with advice and guidance on investment and business skills, as the sheer variety of financing options makes it difficult for new, small-scale enterprises to apply. The fact that it is difficult to describe business activities and set objectives impedes access to financing;

| 61. | insists that investment should be matched by a precise definition of impacts and the requirement to operate responsibly; |
| --- | --- |

61.

insists that investment should be matched by a precise definition of impacts and the requirement to operate responsibly;

| 62. | proposes that generating new innovations and new businesses be made a qualitative goal in developing social entrepreneurship, so as to help reduce long-term unemployment and create new and permanent jobs and networks, especially among small businesses; |
| --- | --- |

62.

proposes that generating new innovations and new businesses be made a qualitative goal in developing social entrepreneurship, so as to help reduce long-term unemployment and create new and permanent jobs and networks, especially among small businesses;

| 63. | recommends closer study of whether social entrepreneurship and the training that goes with it could be used to help vulnerable young people into work, and whether participating in social enterprise could give them a trade and experience, getting them off the dole and into working life; |
| --- | --- |

63.

recommends closer study of whether social entrepreneurship and the training that goes with it could be used to help vulnerable young people into work, and whether participating in social enterprise could give them a trade and experience, getting them off the dole and into working life;

| 64. | highlights the opportunity to pass on the skills and tacit knowledge of middle-aged workers to younger generations by setting up a social enterprise. Older workers who are capable of working for much longer are also threatened with redundancy and marginalisation in the economic crisis. EU funding should also be used to help adopt the master-apprentice model in social entrepreneurship. Transfer of knowledge between the generations creates significant added value, because older workers can pass on ways of thinking and know-how, while younger workers offer fresh ideas and enthusiasm. Thus, the master-apprentice model works in both directions; |
| --- | --- |

64.

highlights the opportunity to pass on the skills and tacit knowledge of middle-aged workers to younger generations by setting up a social enterprise. Older workers who are capable of working for much longer are also threatened with redundancy and marginalisation in the economic crisis. EU funding should also be used to help adopt the master-apprentice model in social entrepreneurship. Transfer of knowledge between the generations creates significant added value, because older workers can pass on ways of thinking and know-how, while younger workers offer fresh ideas and enthusiasm. Thus, the master-apprentice model works in both directions;

| 65. | is in favour of increasing information for older people about the benefits of social entrepreneurship as part of the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations 2012; |
| --- | --- |

65.

is in favour of increasing information for older people about the benefits of social entrepreneurship as part of the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations 2012;

| 66. | believes that expert guidance, development services, seminars on cooperation, study visits and other relevant activities suited to each situation faced by a business should be organised in order to improve business skills and promote the exchange of know-how; |
| --- | --- |

66.

believes that expert guidance, development services, seminars on cooperation, study visits and other relevant activities suited to each situation faced by a business should be organised in order to improve business skills and promote the exchange of know-how;

| 67. | favours a sufficiently long-term approach over a fragmented, project-based one. A stepwise process based on clear interim targets is a prerequisite for creating profitable operations among social enterprises; |
| --- | --- |

67.

favours a sufficiently long-term approach over a fragmented, project-based one. A stepwise process based on clear interim targets is a prerequisite for creating profitable operations among social enterprises;

| 68. | advocates building partnerships across sectors as well as between organisations in different disciplines and fields. What other relevant actors is it important to bring on board; which ones are already involved in social entrepreneurship? What about related projects, programmes and networks with which social entrepreneurship as a whole is, or tries to be, connected? In what way can other projects/funders/investors benefit from networking? |
| --- | --- |

68.

advocates building partnerships across sectors as well as between organisations in different disciplines and fields. What other relevant actors is it important to bring on board; which ones are already involved in social entrepreneurship? What about related projects, programmes and networks with which social entrepreneurship as a whole is, or tries to be, connected? In what way can other projects/funders/investors benefit from networking?

| 69. | believes that sound approaches and workable models should be identified in cooperation with stakeholders. Social enterprises in Europe should be evaluated and listed, and their specific features, financial models, economic weight, cross-border growth potential, legal forms and the content and principles of the tax regimes that govern them should be established. That way, existing information can be used and conceptual models can be built incorporating best practices; |
| --- | --- |

69.

believes that sound approaches and workable models should be identified in cooperation with stakeholders. Social enterprises in Europe should be evaluated and listed, and their specific features, financial models, economic weight, cross-border growth potential, legal forms and the content and principles of the tax regimes that govern them should be established. That way, existing information can be used and conceptual models can be built incorporating best practices;

Developing a system of certification for social entrepreneurship

| 70. | feels that as entrepreneurship becomes more diverse and the number of different entrepreneurs grows, social entrepreneurship needs to be defined more precisely so that fair tax treatment, pension systems and social security spending are applied in a way that creates jobs and helps different business opportunities to emerge; |
| --- | --- |

70.

feels that as entrepreneurship becomes more diverse and the number of different entrepreneurs grows, social entrepreneurship needs to be defined more precisely so that fair tax treatment, pension systems and social security spending are applied in a way that creates jobs and helps different business opportunities to emerge;

| 71. | recommends developing accreditation at local level based on certain criteria, as well as close cooperation and development of partnerships between regions; advocates giving space to specific regional considerations in order to support responsible businesses with regard to the content as well as the form of recognition; |
| --- | --- |

71.

recommends developing accreditation at local level based on certain criteria, as well as close cooperation and development of partnerships between regions; advocates giving space to specific regional considerations in order to support responsible businesses with regard to the content as well as the form of recognition;

Training, guidance and mentoring for ongoing development

| 72. | believes that shaping a favourable environment for companies that are part of the social economy will require a new form of leadership and expertise from them, which will be created through the modification of higher education programmes, training and systematic improvement efforts; |
| --- | --- |

72.

believes that shaping a favourable environment for companies that are part of the social economy will require a new form of leadership and expertise from them, which will be created through the modification of higher education programmes, training and systematic improvement efforts;

| 73. | recommends learning by doing, or a master-apprentice approach, to allow efficient use of resources. Gathering and sharing the experiences of social entrepreneurs who have already been active in the sector for some time is one important way of increasing the information available; |
| --- | --- |

73.

recommends learning by doing, or a master-apprentice approach, to allow efficient use of resources. Gathering and sharing the experiences of social entrepreneurs who have already been active in the sector for some time is one important way of increasing the information available;

Results that can be modelled and reproduced

| 74. | notes the need to assess the extent to which the work and activities of those active in social entrepreneurship can be modelled and reproduced, and how an attractive production model could be developed from this which would encourage investors to engage in improvement efforts and consumers to buy; |
| --- | --- |

74.

notes the need to assess the extent to which the work and activities of those active in social entrepreneurship can be modelled and reproduced, and how an attractive production model could be developed from this which would encourage investors to engage in improvement efforts and consumers to buy;

Preventing marginalisation of young people

| 75. | considers that there should be investment in the employment and well-being of young people and others at risk of marginalisation by improving their employment options and expanding opportunities for social entrepreneurship. An easy-access ‘operational concept’ could provide conditional funding for activities to prevent marginalisation of children and young people with a view to developing and expanding new types of services. Young people should also be given opportunities to apply for funding for their own projects and activities; |
| --- | --- |

75.

considers that there should be investment in the employment and well-being of young people and others at risk of marginalisation by improving their employment options and expanding opportunities for social entrepreneurship. An easy-access ‘operational concept’ could provide conditional funding for activities to prevent marginalisation of children and young people with a view to developing and expanding new types of services. Young people should also be given opportunities to apply for funding for their own projects and activities;

| 76. | notes that a listed company cannot operate without supervision by a Member State; |
| --- | --- |

76.

notes that a listed company cannot operate without supervision by a Member State;

| 77. | highlights the need to gear measures under the ‘operational concept’ to assessing impacts in particular; |
| --- | --- |

77.

highlights the need to gear measures under the ‘operational concept’ to assessing impacts in particular;

| 78. | advocates flexibility regarding the frequency and timing of publication of financial information for small and medium-sized issuers and would like the frequency of publication to be appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

78.

advocates flexibility regarding the frequency and timing of publication of financial information for small and medium-sized issuers and would like the frequency of publication to be appropriate;

| 79. | would support measures to simplify the narrative parts of financial reports for small and medium-sized issuers; |
| --- | --- |

79.

would support measures to simplify the narrative parts of financial reports for small and medium-sized issuers;

| 80. | hopes that particular attention will be paid when discussing social innovation to preventing marginalisation and to gender equality; |
| --- | --- |

80.

hopes that particular attention will be paid when discussing social innovation to preventing marginalisation and to gender equality;

| 81. | urges that standardising and simplifying communication be welcomed, while noting that access to financial information on listed companies on an EU-wide basis is currently burdensome: interested parties need to go through 27 different national databases in order to search for information; |
| --- | --- |

81.

urges that standardising and simplifying communication be welcomed, while noting that access to financial information on listed companies on an EU-wide basis is currently burdensome: interested parties need to go through 27 different national databases in order to search for information;

| 82. | would like to see a business environment developed that is more encouraging of creativity and innovation and which improves confidence in business by cutting red tape and removing obstacles, which hamper the activities of small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) in particular; |
| --- | --- |

82.

would like to see a business environment developed that is more encouraging of creativity and innovation and which improves confidence in business by cutting red tape and removing obstacles, which hamper the activities of small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) in particular;

| 83. | is in favour of expanding the role of responsible business in society and developing an environment in which entrepreneurs are encouraged to develop innovations that have a social impact and economically viable projects. Activities should be profitable and motivating for business, and operational activities should take entrepreneurs into account from the start; |
| --- | --- |

83.

is in favour of expanding the role of responsible business in society and developing an environment in which entrepreneurs are encouraged to develop innovations that have a social impact and economically viable projects. Activities should be profitable and motivating for business, and operational activities should take entrepreneurs into account from the start;

| 84. | recommends concurrent assessment of the Innovation union flagship initiative, which is intended to promote social innovation and harness the creativity of associations and social enterprises to benefit the most vulnerable groups and to fulfil pressing social needs that markets and public authorities have not met, in order to avoid overlapping measures; |
| --- | --- |

84.

recommends concurrent assessment of the Innovation union flagship initiative, which is intended to promote social innovation and harness the creativity of associations and social enterprises to benefit the most vulnerable groups and to fulfil pressing social needs that markets and public authorities have not met, in order to avoid overlapping measures;

| 85. | endorses simplification of the accounting directives, in particular to benefit smaller companies. The accounting directives should be reasonable and fair in their requirements, such as disclosure and valuation rules, taking the size and sector of the company into account; |
| --- | --- |

85.

endorses simplification of the accounting directives, in particular to benefit smaller companies. The accounting directives should be reasonable and fair in their requirements, such as disclosure and valuation rules, taking the size and sector of the company into account;

| 86. | believes that simpler accounting requirements could foster a business climate that encourages business start-ups and entrepreneurship. The Committee of the Regions does not have the resources to assess the effects of accounting requirements, and recommends that the European Parliament arrange for a comprehensive assessment to be carried out before the accounting directives come into force; |
| --- | --- |

86.

believes that simpler accounting requirements could foster a business climate that encourages business start-ups and entrepreneurship. The Committee of the Regions does not have the resources to assess the effects of accounting requirements, and recommends that the European Parliament arrange for a comprehensive assessment to be carried out before the accounting directives come into force;

| 87. | however, favours simplifying the current requirements in such a way that accounts remain comparable and fit for purpose; |
| --- | --- |

87.

however, favours simplifying the current requirements in such a way that accounts remain comparable and fit for purpose;

| 88. | recommends standardising thresholds for companies of the same size in order to facilitate comparisons and would like to see comparability of financial data promoted across the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

88.

recommends standardising thresholds for companies of the same size in order to facilitate comparisons and would like to see comparability of financial data promoted across the European Union;

| 89. | supports the aim of regulating in compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and wants to ensure that the administrative burdens are proportionate to the benefits they bring; |
| --- | --- |

89.

supports the aim of regulating in compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and wants to ensure that the administrative burdens are proportionate to the benefits they bring;

| 90. | endorses the Single Market Act (9), which aims to simplify life for SMEs, which make up more than 99 % of Europe's businesses. The Small Business Act recognises the need to consider distinct needs for SMEs as a category, and to have segments within that category. In addition, the ‘think small first’ approach of this proposal allows for accounting regimes to fit different sizes of company; |
| --- | --- |

90.

endorses the Single Market Act (9), which aims to simplify life for SMEs, which make up more than 99 % of Europe's businesses. The Small Business Act recognises the need to consider distinct needs for SMEs as a category, and to have segments within that category. In addition, the ‘think small first’ approach of this proposal allows for accounting regimes to fit different sizes of company;

| 91. | advocates ensuring that the Member States do not set pointless additional requirements. This can be best achieved through coordinated EU law. As far as medium-sized and large companies are concerned, financial reporting needs to be made more comparable at EU level as the activities of these companies are often EU-wide and relevant to stakeholders throughout the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

91.

advocates ensuring that the Member States do not set pointless additional requirements. This can be best achieved through coordinated EU law. As far as medium-sized and large companies are concerned, financial reporting needs to be made more comparable at EU level as the activities of these companies are often EU-wide and relevant to stakeholders throughout the internal market;

| 92. | supports the pledge by the G8 governments ‘to setting in place transparency laws and regulations or to promoting voluntary standards that require or encourage oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose the payments they make to governments’. The European Parliament has also presented a Resolution (10) reiterating its support for country-by-country reporting requirements, in particular for the extractive industries; |
| --- | --- |

92.

supports the pledge by the G8 governments ‘to setting in place transparency laws and regulations or to promoting voluntary standards that require or encourage oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose the payments they make to governments’. The European Parliament has also presented a Resolution (10) reiterating its support for country-by-country reporting requirements, in particular for the extractive industries;

Conclusions

| 93. | considers it a priority to take measures that guide, encourage and assist SMEs in more broadly adopting social and socially responsible perspectives in their activities. There are some 24 million small and medium-sized businesses in the European Union, and it matters for the future of the Union how we encourage young people in particular to engage in a new type of socially responsible business; |
| --- | --- |

93.

considers it a priority to take measures that guide, encourage and assist SMEs in more broadly adopting social and socially responsible perspectives in their activities. There are some 24 million small and medium-sized businesses in the European Union, and it matters for the future of the Union how we encourage young people in particular to engage in a new type of socially responsible business;

| 94. | believes that well-chosen measures will promote the creation of new businesses and the growth of existing ones. Industrial policy measures should be geared towards supporting in particular job-rich businesses with ambitions for international and socially responsible growth and that are good at exploiting networks; |
| --- | --- |

94.

believes that well-chosen measures will promote the creation of new businesses and the growth of existing ones. Industrial policy measures should be geared towards supporting in particular job-rich businesses with ambitions for international and socially responsible growth and that are good at exploiting networks;

| 95. | is convinced that the future will be forged in regional development. The objectives or procedures chosen may be aimed at building something new, maintaining the old or trying to adapt to changes in the business environment. The key factor is a region's ability to build on its know-how, play to its strengths, specialise, and network regionally, nationally and internationally; |
| --- | --- |

95.

is convinced that the future will be forged in regional development. The objectives or procedures chosen may be aimed at building something new, maintaining the old or trying to adapt to changes in the business environment. The key factor is a region's ability to build on its know-how, play to its strengths, specialise, and network regionally, nationally and internationally;

| 96. | notes that the efficacy and relevance of support provided to businesses should be ascertained, and any necessary changes and savings made according to the findings obtained. Networked business activities should be developed to support regional industrial policy in general, while making better use of a region's potential, strengths and opportunities. Cooperation between central and peripheral areas can be increased by mapping developments. Cooperation, partnership and networking between regions should also be made more effective; |
| --- | --- |

96.

notes that the efficacy and relevance of support provided to businesses should be ascertained, and any necessary changes and savings made according to the findings obtained. Networked business activities should be developed to support regional industrial policy in general, while making better use of a region's potential, strengths and opportunities. Cooperation between central and peripheral areas can be increased by mapping developments. Cooperation, partnership and networking between regions should also be made more effective;

| 97. | believes that it is also important to consider whether the scope of projects and the complexity of the rules means that projects are run by bodies that specialise in project management, such as municipalities, universities, schools and various business development companies. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring equal opportunities for small businesses to take part in projects. Established organisations have more resources at their disposal for researching complex project rules and drawing up reports that are required, for which smaller businesses may not have the know-how or capacity. However, more nimble approaches by businesses might allow projects to be implemented more cost-effectively; |
| --- | --- |

97.

believes that it is also important to consider whether the scope of projects and the complexity of the rules means that projects are run by bodies that specialise in project management, such as municipalities, universities, schools and various business development companies. Particular attention should be paid to ensuring equal opportunities for small businesses to take part in projects. Established organisations have more resources at their disposal for researching complex project rules and drawing up reports that are required, for which smaller businesses may not have the know-how or capacity. However, more nimble approaches by businesses might allow projects to be implemented more cost-effectively;

| 98. | points out that the organisational form of the social enterprise is at the moment ill-defined; the main actors are still public administrators and larger players, and businesses see social entrepreneurship more as a type of benevolent service provision than as a genuine generator of business activity. Thus such operations feel unfamiliar and unrelated to entrepreneurship, or they are seen as competing with each other rather than as parallel types of activity. Particular attention should be paid to this issue in the context of developing social entrepreneurship; |
| --- | --- |

98.

points out that the organisational form of the social enterprise is at the moment ill-defined; the main actors are still public administrators and larger players, and businesses see social entrepreneurship more as a type of benevolent service provision than as a genuine generator of business activity. Thus such operations feel unfamiliar and unrelated to entrepreneurship, or they are seen as competing with each other rather than as parallel types of activity. Particular attention should be paid to this issue in the context of developing social entrepreneurship;

| 99. | believes that information about opportunities for social enterprises should be improved and made more accessible. The main web portal should have a link to updated, essential information. Information should be interlinked and delivered using effective presentation approaches such as bulletins, sharing of key experiences and running updates; |
| --- | --- |

99.

believes that information about opportunities for social enterprises should be improved and made more accessible. The main web portal should have a link to updated, essential information. Information should be interlinked and delivered using effective presentation approaches such as bulletins, sharing of key experiences and running updates;

| 100. | thinks that the order of priority of measures to be implemented should be agreed on, and the best practical measures, techniques and methods should be sought to address problems in different spheres. These methods should be identified and reproduced for use by as many stakeholders as possible; |
| --- | --- |

100.

thinks that the order of priority of measures to be implemented should be agreed on, and the best practical measures, techniques and methods should be sought to address problems in different spheres. These methods should be identified and reproduced for use by as many stakeholders as possible;

| 101. | believes that all-round business-related development capacity should be increased; gathering and sharing the experiences of social entrepreneurs that have already worked in the sector is one important way of increasing the amount of information. There should be a determination in Europe to build an integrated EU in which every player is important and efforts mounted to find a role for everybody that enhances their skills; |
| --- | --- |

101.

believes that all-round business-related development capacity should be increased; gathering and sharing the experiences of social entrepreneurs that have already worked in the sector is one important way of increasing the amount of information. There should be a determination in Europe to build an integrated EU in which every player is important and efforts mounted to find a role for everybody that enhances their skills;

| 102. | notes that the objective is to help generate new concepts and accelerate adoption of novel methods. Piloting can be used to bring new methods to the market and gain practical experience through successes and failures. The sector will acquire better-quality and more functional models and information about the efficacy and impact of a given concept in different target countries, and about the difficulties and problems that arise; |
| --- | --- |

102.

notes that the objective is to help generate new concepts and accelerate adoption of novel methods. Piloting can be used to bring new methods to the market and gain practical experience through successes and failures. The sector will acquire better-quality and more functional models and information about the efficacy and impact of a given concept in different target countries, and about the difficulties and problems that arise;

| 103. | notes that piloting provides a way of generating new interest in entrepreneurship. There are plenty of areas for experimentation, and piloting makes it possible to contain risk within set limits. If pilot projects are to generate profitable business ideas, support in the form of funding and information is important in the initial stages. Pilot projects can also function as learning platforms before new approaches are introduced; |
| --- | --- |

103.

notes that piloting provides a way of generating new interest in entrepreneurship. There are plenty of areas for experimentation, and piloting makes it possible to contain risk within set limits. If pilot projects are to generate profitable business ideas, support in the form of funding and information is important in the initial stages. Pilot projects can also function as learning platforms before new approaches are introduced;

| 104. | finally, recommends seeking solutions methodically, for the long term, and one step at a time. Fresh determination is needed in Europe to stimulate economic growth, and this can happen in a socially responsible way, also in a context of environmental constraints. Measures should be elaborated to prevent exclusion, and these should extend far enough into the future. Short-term and project-based measures without specific follow-up requirements should be avoided. We continue to advocate drawing up more detailed proposals for measures and reports on both social responsibility and social enterprise, so that more can be done to foster social stability. Overall, drawing attention to improvement efforts, sharing and drawing on examples of best practice, sharing available information and reproducing results are of primary importance. The Committee would encourage the identification of prototypes and support for forward-looking activities. |
| --- | --- |

104.

finally, recommends seeking solutions methodically, for the long term, and one step at a time. Fresh determination is needed in Europe to stimulate economic growth, and this can happen in a socially responsible way, also in a context of environmental constraints. Measures should be elaborated to prevent exclusion, and these should extend far enough into the future. Short-term and project-based measures without specific follow-up requirements should be avoided. We continue to advocate drawing up more detailed proposals for measures and reports on both social responsibility and social enterprise, so that more can be done to foster social stability. Overall, drawing attention to improvement efforts, sharing and drawing on examples of best practice, sharing available information and reproducing results are of primary importance. The Committee would encourage the identification of prototypes and support for forward-looking activities.

Brussels, 19 July 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO

---

(1)  COM(2010) 614 final.

1

(2)  Buying Social: A Guide to Taking Account of Social Considerations in Public Procurement. European Commission, 2011.

2

Buying Social: A Guide to Taking Account of Social Considerations in Public Procurement

(3)  CIRIEC (International Centre of Research and Information on the Public, Social and Cooperative Economy). The Social Economy in the European Union, p. 48.

3

The Social Economy in the European Union

(4)  Communication from the Commission on The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion. COM(2010) 758 final, 16.12.2010.

4

The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion

(5)  Communication from the Commission on the Single Market Act; Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence; Working together to create new growth. COM(2011) 206 final, 13.4.2011.

5

Single Market Act; Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence; Working together to create new growth

(6)  COM(2011) 681 final.

6

(7)  EIB Group.

7

(8)  European Social Investment and Entrepreneurship Fund (ESIEF), which would invest in 10 to 15 vehicles across the Member States.

8

European Social Investment and Entrepreneurship Fund

(9)  The review of the Accounting Directives is flagged in section 2.11 of the Communication of April 2011 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Single Market Act – Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, ‘Working together to create new growth’, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/docs/20110413-communication_en.pdf#page=2.

9

Single Market Act – Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, ‘Working together to create new growth’

(10)  Resolution INI/2010/2102.

10

---