# C_2012391EN.01000101.xml

| 18.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/1

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Developing a maritime strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area’

2012/C 391/01

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| — | welcomes the proposal for Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area and the elaboration of an Atlantic Action Plan 2014-2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

welcomes the proposal for Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area and the elaboration of an Atlantic Action Plan 2014-2020;

| — | stresses that the Committee's endorsement of an Atlantic strategy is conditional on it adopting a broader approach, fully incorporating the territorial dimension, developing clear links between land and sea and contributing to the achievement of other key EU policy objectives and calls therefore on the European Commission to re-title the strategy as "An Integrated Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area"; |
| --- | --- |

—

stresses that the Committee's endorsement of an Atlantic strategy is conditional on it adopting a broader approach, fully incorporating the territorial dimension, developing clear links between land and sea and contributing to the achievement of other key EU policy objectives and calls therefore on the European Commission to re-title the strategy as "An Integrated Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area";

,

| — | recognises that projects under the Atlantic Action Plan will have to use existing sources of funding, at EU level (funds within and outside the Common Strategic Framework (CSF)) and other funds from national, regional and local levels and the private sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognises that projects under the Atlantic Action Plan will have to use existing sources of funding, at EU level (funds within and outside the Common Strategic Framework (CSF)) and other funds from national, regional and local levels and the private sector;

| — | disagrees with the proposed abolition of the Atlantic Forum once the Action Plan is adopted and suggests that the Atlantic Forum remain in place, up to 2020, to oversee the implementation, review progress and drive delivery of the strategy's objectives; |
| --- | --- |

—

disagrees with the proposed abolition of the Atlantic Forum once the Action Plan is adopted and suggests that the Atlantic Forum remain in place, up to 2020, to oversee the implementation, review progress and drive delivery of the strategy's objectives;

,

| — | suggests that the governance structure must maximise the contribution of the many stakeholders and potential actors in the Atlantic strategy and demands that a multilevel governance approach be applied, in the elaboration, implementation, evaluation and review of the Action Plan. |
| --- | --- |

—

suggests that the governance structure must maximise the contribution of the many stakeholders and potential actors in the Atlantic strategy and demands that a multilevel governance approach be applied, in the elaboration, implementation, evaluation and review of the Action Plan.

| Rapporteur | Mr Paul O'DONOGHUE (IE/ALDE), Member of Kerry County Council and South West Regional Authority |
| --- | --- |
| Reference document | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area
  COM(2011) 782 final |

Rapporteur

Mr Paul O'DONOGHUE (IE/ALDE), Member of Kerry County Council and South West Regional Authority

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area

COM(2011) 782 final

I.   GENERAL COMMENTS

GENERAL COMMENTS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

| 1. | welcomes the proposal for Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area and the elaboration of an Atlantic Action Plan 2014-2020; |
| --- | --- |

1.

welcomes the proposal for Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area and the elaboration of an Atlantic Action Plan 2014-2020;

| 2. | considers that the Atlantic Area has suffered to date from a lack of an agreed strategic vision for its future development and considers that this proposal provides a real opportunity to set out a strategic vision, which must have territorial cohesion and prosperity at its core; |
| --- | --- |

2.

considers that the Atlantic Area has suffered to date from a lack of an agreed strategic vision for its future development and considers that this proposal provides a real opportunity to set out a strategic vision, which must have territorial cohesion and prosperity at its core;

| 3. | supports the rationale for a European strategy, as the challenges and opportunities of the Atlantic Area go beyond national borders and require a more holistic, integrated approach; that said, emphasises that the strategy must also demonstrate real added-value when it comes to delivery and implementation; |
| --- | --- |

3.

supports the rationale for a European strategy, as the challenges and opportunities of the Atlantic Area go beyond national borders and require a more holistic, integrated approach; that said, emphasises that the strategy must also demonstrate real added-value when it comes to delivery and implementation;

| 4. | understands that the European Commission is making this proposal as a "sea-basin strategy", under the Integrated Maritime Policy domain (as opposed to a "macro-regional strategy"); however
  stresses that the Committee's endorsement of an Atlantic strategy is conditional on it adopting a broader approach, fully incorporating the territorial dimension, developing clear links between land and sea and contributing to the achievement of other key EU policy objectives; |
| --- | --- |

4.

understands that the European Commission is making this proposal as a "sea-basin strategy", under the Integrated Maritime Policy domain (as opposed to a "macro-regional strategy"); however
  stresses that the Committee's endorsement of an Atlantic strategy is conditional on it adopting a broader approach, fully incorporating the territorial dimension, developing clear links between land and sea and contributing to the achievement of other key EU policy objectives;

stresses that the Committee's endorsement of an Atlantic strategy is conditional on it adopting a broader approach

| 5. | calls therefore on the European Commission to re-title the strategy as "An Integrated Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area" and considers that further such strategies should be developed in other European sea areas, building on the experiences in the Atlantic Area (such as in the North Sea region); |
| --- | --- |

5.

calls therefore on the European Commission to re-title the strategy as "An Integrated Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area" and considers that further such strategies should be developed in other European sea areas, building on the experiences in the Atlantic Area (such as in the North Sea region);

| 6. | recognises the specific requirements of the Atlantic outermost regions and considers that the strategy may provide opportunities for enhanced effectiveness and coherence of EU policy frameworks in the regions; |
| --- | --- |

6.

recognises the specific requirements of the Atlantic outermost regions and considers that the strategy may provide opportunities for enhanced effectiveness and coherence of EU policy frameworks in the regions;

| 7. | demands that the Atlantic strategy and its Action Plan must
  have a strong focus on jobs, sustainable growth and investment,
  whilst at the same time helping to improve the marine environment; |
| --- | --- |

7.

demands that the Atlantic strategy and its Action Plan must
  have a strong focus on jobs, sustainable growth and investment,
  whilst at the same time helping to improve the marine environment;

have a strong focus on jobs, sustainable growth and investment,

| 8. | feels that with regard to its geographical scope the strategy should adopt a pragmatic approach to allow the area's borders the flexibility to address issues without imposing artificial limits but calls for some reconsideration of the geographical scope northwards to allow Iceland to be associated with the strategy; |
| --- | --- |

8.

feels that with regard to its geographical scope the strategy should adopt a pragmatic approach to allow the area's borders the flexibility to address issues without imposing artificial limits but calls for some reconsideration of the geographical scope northwards to allow Iceland to be associated with the strategy;

| 9. | has concerns that the valuable lessons learned from the development of existing macro-regional and other transnational strategies (1) are not being taken on board in the Atlantic strategy process, particularly on issues such as governance, policy development, communication and ownership, targets and evaluation; |
| --- | --- |

9.

has concerns that the valuable lessons learned from the development of existing macro-regional and other transnational strategies (1) are not being taken on board in the Atlantic strategy process, particularly on issues such as governance, policy development, communication and ownership, targets and evaluation;

1

;

| 10. | highlights that there is a heavy responsibility on the Atlantic Forum to manage the expectations of stakeholders, provide an inclusive process for engagement in the elaboration of the Action Plan and establish coherent frameworks for the programming and implementation of priority measures and projects; |
| --- | --- |

10.

highlights that there is a heavy responsibility on the Atlantic Forum to manage the expectations of stakeholders, provide an inclusive process for engagement in the elaboration of the Action Plan and establish coherent frameworks for the programming and implementation of priority measures and projects;

II.   CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

| 11. | does not disagree with the challenges and opportunities that the European Commission has identified but feels that the Action Plan must focus on achieving tangible outcomes and address challenges where the partnership approach will lead to more effective responses; |
| --- | --- |

11.

does not disagree with the challenges and opportunities that the European Commission has identified but feels that the Action Plan must focus on achieving tangible outcomes and address challenges where the partnership approach will lead to more effective responses;

| 12. | underlines that the Action Plan themes must be more closely aligned with those of the Europe 2020 strategy and its flagship initiatives but also consistent with the themes under the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) and the proposed reforms for the CSF Funds; |
| --- | --- |

12.

underlines that the Action Plan themes must be more closely aligned with those of the Europe 2020 strategy and its flagship initiatives but also consistent with the themes under the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) and the proposed reforms for the CSF Funds;

| 13. | generally endorses the thematic headings identified by the Atlantic Arc Commission (CPMR) (2) as follows: (1) Accessibility and Transport in the Atlantic Area; (2) Economy and Maritime Industries; (3) Climate and the Environment; (4) Research and Innovation; and (5) Attractiveness of Territories; |
| --- | --- |

13.

generally endorses the thematic headings identified by the Atlantic Arc Commission (CPMR) (2) as follows: (1) Accessibility and Transport in the Atlantic Area; (2) Economy and Maritime Industries; (3) Climate and the Environment; (4) Research and Innovation; and (5) Attractiveness of Territories;

2

| 14. | emphasises the importance of fishing, shell-fishing and aquaculture activities and the processing and marketing of seafood products in the Atlantic area and the number of jobs that depend on them; a growth and jobs strategy for this area must necessarily strive to consolidate and strengthen this employment sector; |
| --- | --- |

14.

emphasises the importance of fishing, shell-fishing and aquaculture activities and the processing and marketing of seafood products in the Atlantic area and the number of jobs that depend on them; a growth and jobs strategy for this area must necessarily strive to consolidate and strengthen this employment sector;

| 15. | considers that the Action Plan must address the need for a plan-led approach to the marine environment in the Atlantic Area; suggests that this will require an agreed coordination of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and marine management processes across the area, as well as, better coordination between marine and terrestrial planning frameworks; |
| --- | --- |

15.

considers that the Action Plan must address the need for a plan-led approach to the marine environment in the Atlantic Area; suggests that this will require an agreed coordination of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and marine management processes across the area, as well as, better coordination between marine and terrestrial planning frameworks;

| 16. | believes that Atlantic coastal areas hold a strong attraction both for new permanent residents and for seasonal visitors drawn mainly by sea sports, leisure activities and tourism; it is important for these regions to prepare themselves for these population movements, which can exert land, economic, environmental and other pressures on the coast; |
| --- | --- |

16.

believes that Atlantic coastal areas hold a strong attraction both for new permanent residents and for seasonal visitors drawn mainly by sea sports, leisure activities and tourism; it is important for these regions to prepare themselves for these population movements, which can exert land, economic, environmental and other pressures on the coast;

| 17. | stresses the need for the strategy to capitalise on the achievements of previous and on-going EU-funded projects in the Atlantic Area, including an assessment of what has been funded to date and what can be built-on in the Action Plan; highlights that this may have implications for some programmes, with the need to scale-up projects to deliver greater and more tangible impact; |
| --- | --- |

17.

stresses the need for the strategy to capitalise on the achievements of previous and on-going EU-funded projects in the Atlantic Area, including an assessment of what has been funded to date and what can be built-on in the Action Plan; highlights that this may have implications for some programmes, with the need to scale-up projects to deliver greater and more tangible impact;

| 18. | advocates an external dimension for the Action Plan, to advance strategic objectives with stakeholders across the Atlantic Ocean; |
| --- | --- |

18.

advocates an external dimension for the Action Plan, to advance strategic objectives with stakeholders across the Atlantic Ocean;

III.   FUNDING THE ATLANTIC STRATEGY

FUNDING THE ATLANTIC STRATEGY

| 19. | recognises that projects under the Atlantic Action Plan will have to use existing sources of funding, at EU level (funds within and outside the Common Strategic Framework (CSF)) and other funds from national, regional and local levels and the private sector; highlights that this
  raises a number of questions as to how exactly the strategy will drawdown financial supports for its implementation,
  especially as the elaboration of the Action Plan runs in parallel with the programming process for the various EU funding programmes; |
| --- | --- |

19.

recognises that projects under the Atlantic Action Plan will have to use existing sources of funding, at EU level (funds within and outside the Common Strategic Framework (CSF)) and other funds from national, regional and local levels and the private sector; highlights that this
  raises a number of questions as to how exactly the strategy will drawdown financial supports for its implementation,
  especially as the elaboration of the Action Plan runs in parallel with the programming process for the various EU funding programmes;

raises a number of questions as to how exactly the strategy will drawdown financial supports for its implementation,

| 20. | highlights that for the Action Plan to deliver results there must be clear alignment between it and available funding; highlights that this reinforces the necessity for the strategy to adopt a more integrated territorial approach and the need for the Action Plan to fit more directly with Europe 2020 objectives and be compatible with the regulatory requirements of the various EU funds; |
| --- | --- |

20.

highlights that for the Action Plan to deliver results there must be clear alignment between it and available funding; highlights that this reinforces the necessity for the strategy to adopt a more integrated territorial approach and the need for the Action Plan to fit more directly with Europe 2020 objectives and be compatible with the regulatory requirements of the various EU funds;

Funding under the Common Strategic Framework

Funding under the Common Strategic Framework

| 21. | suggests that the Atlantic Forum engage with the relevant Managing Authorities in the five Member States to ensure that
  national partnership agreements
  adequately reflect Atlantic strategy priorities and that there is sufficient complementarity between Operational Programmes and the measures of the Action Plan; however, is concerned that a strategy framed within the Integrated Maritime Policy domain would leave limited scope for alignment with the programmes funded under the CSF, with the exception of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF); |
| --- | --- |

21.

suggests that the Atlantic Forum engage with the relevant Managing Authorities in the five Member States to ensure that
  national partnership agreements
  adequately reflect Atlantic strategy priorities and that there is sufficient complementarity between Operational Programmes and the measures of the Action Plan; however, is concerned that a strategy framed within the Integrated Maritime Policy domain would leave limited scope for alignment with the programmes funded under the CSF, with the exception of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF);

national partnership agreements

| 22. | points out that the elaboration of the Action Plan will therefore have to comply with the principles and objectives of the Funds, especially those under the Common Strategic Framework; |
| --- | --- |

22.

points out that the elaboration of the Action Plan will therefore have to comply with the principles and objectives of the Funds, especially those under the Common Strategic Framework;

| 23. | is not in favour of an earmarking of resources for the Atlantic Action Plan within each
  operational programme
  , given the already proposed strict thematic concentration imposed on Managing Authorities; |
| --- | --- |

23.

is not in favour of an earmarking of resources for the Atlantic Action Plan within each
  operational programme
  , given the already proposed strict thematic concentration imposed on Managing Authorities;

operational programme

| 24. | suggests, however, that the Atlantic Forum work with Managing Authorities during the programming process to identify how the Action Plan measures could be funded, through clear alignment with the selected thematic priorities in the programmes concerned and specific project selection criteria; |
| --- | --- |

24.

suggests, however, that the Atlantic Forum work with Managing Authorities during the programming process to identify how the Action Plan measures could be funded, through clear alignment with the selected thematic priorities in the programmes concerned and specific project selection criteria;

| 25. | highlights the potential that some elements of the CSF Regulations may present for supporting and implementing key Atlantic strategy's objectives, in particular the
  multi-fund approach
  ; further suggests that achieving coherence between the strategy and some of the integrated approaches in the CSF (such as the urban dimension, Integrated Territorial Investments, Joint Action Plans) has the potential, if properly deployed, to lever the experience and expertise of local authorities to help achieve key Atlantic objectives; |
| --- | --- |

25.

highlights the potential that some elements of the CSF Regulations may present for supporting and implementing key Atlantic strategy's objectives, in particular the
  multi-fund approach
  ; further suggests that achieving coherence between the strategy and some of the integrated approaches in the CSF (such as the urban dimension, Integrated Territorial Investments, Joint Action Plans) has the potential, if properly deployed, to lever the experience and expertise of local authorities to help achieve key Atlantic objectives;

multi-fund approach

| 26. | further proposes that annual implementation reports for the relevant programmes must include an assessment of how programmes under the CSF are contributing to the objectives of the Atlantic strategy and the implementation of the Action Plan; |
| --- | --- |

26.

further proposes that annual implementation reports for the relevant programmes must include an assessment of how programmes under the CSF are contributing to the objectives of the Atlantic strategy and the implementation of the Action Plan;

Territorial cooperation programmes

Territorial cooperation programmes

| 27. | considers that future territorial cooperation programmes will be crucial to realising key aspects of the Atlantic strategy and highlights that there are more than 10 territorial co-operation programmes (cross-border, transnational and inter-regional) currently operational in the proposed strategy area; |
| --- | --- |

27.

considers that future territorial cooperation programmes will be crucial to realising key aspects of the Atlantic strategy and highlights that there are more than 10 territorial co-operation programmes (cross-border, transnational and inter-regional) currently operational in the proposed strategy area;

| 28. | endorses the continuation of the
  Atlantic Area (transnational) programme
  , with an enhanced financial allocation to match some of the ambitions of the Atlantic strategy; further suggests that the Atlantic Area Programme represents that appropriate vehicle by which to issue specific calls for Atlantic strategy "Strategic Initiatives" (flagship projects), as well as fund the Implementation Platform (see Points 40 - 41); |
| --- | --- |

28.

endorses the continuation of the
  Atlantic Area (transnational) programme
  , with an enhanced financial allocation to match some of the ambitions of the Atlantic strategy; further suggests that the Atlantic Area Programme represents that appropriate vehicle by which to issue specific calls for Atlantic strategy "Strategic Initiatives" (flagship projects), as well as fund the Implementation Platform (see Points 40 - 41);

Atlantic Area (transnational) programme

Implementation Platform (see Points 40 - 41)

| 29. | proposes that the Atlantic Forum should
  engage the INTERACT programme to support awareness-building measures
  and involve existing territorial cooperation programme Managing Authorities early in the process of elaborating the Atlantic Action Plan; |
| --- | --- |

29.

proposes that the Atlantic Forum should
  engage the INTERACT programme to support awareness-building measures
  and involve existing territorial cooperation programme Managing Authorities early in the process of elaborating the Atlantic Action Plan;

engage the INTERACT programme to support awareness-building measures

| 30. | highlights that this engagement would help:






  (a) | during the development of the Action Plan by identifying: lessons for the strategy from INTERREG programme management; how the strategy will impact on programme implementation, including synergies and cooperation between programmes; and how Atlantic strategy projects could be efficiently managed across programmes; |
| --- | --- | --- |

30.

highlights that this engagement would help:

(a)

during the development of the Action Plan by identifying: lessons for the strategy from INTERREG programme management; how the strategy will impact on programme implementation, including synergies and cooperation between programmes; and how Atlantic strategy projects could be efficiently managed across programmes;

| (b) | during the programming process by: raising awareness of the strategy among territorial cooperation programmes; identifying relevant projects to achieve strategy objectives; using cooperation programmes to address thematic issues and facilitate exchange between programmes; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

during the programming process by: raising awareness of the strategy among territorial cooperation programmes; identifying relevant projects to achieve strategy objectives; using cooperation programmes to address thematic issues and facilitate exchange between programmes;

Funding from other EU programmes

Funding from other EU programmes

| 31. | is concerned that there is not sufficient coherence across other EU programmes, whereby the objectives of the Atlantic strategy and its requirements for funding its Action Plan will not be sufficiently provided for in the 2014-2020 programming period; |
| --- | --- |

31.

is concerned that there is not sufficient coherence across other EU programmes, whereby the objectives of the Atlantic strategy and its requirements for funding its Action Plan will not be sufficiently provided for in the 2014-2020 programming period;

| 32. | highlights, by way of example, the new "integrated projects" under the LIFE+ programme (2014-2020), which are longer duration projects covering larger territorial areas to better implement environment and climate policy, but will not provide for projects in the marine environment (3); considers that this is an opportunity wasted to deliver on key IMP and Atlantic strategy objectives; |
| --- | --- |

32.

highlights, by way of example, the new "integrated projects" under the LIFE+ programme (2014-2020), which are longer duration projects covering larger territorial areas to better implement environment and climate policy, but will not provide for projects in the marine environment (3); considers that this is an opportunity wasted to deliver on key IMP and Atlantic strategy objectives;

3

| 33. | similarly regrets that the Atlantic Area has been overlooked when it comes to identifying core networks in the trans-European networks and requests that priority is given to using the Connecting Europe Facility to address what are fundamental accessibility and peripherality issues (in transport, energy and ICT) in the Atlantic Area; |
| --- | --- |

33.

similarly regrets that the Atlantic Area has been overlooked when it comes to identifying core networks in the trans-European networks and requests that priority is given to using the Connecting Europe Facility to address what are fundamental accessibility and peripherality issues (in transport, energy and ICT) in the Atlantic Area;

Connecting Europe Facility

| 34. | asks how the Atlantic Forum proposes to better target and deploy the other EU funds available and to increase the drawdown of resources to realise the strategy's objectives; suggests for example that the Action Plan will have to promote research partnerships across the Atlantic Area in order to maximise support under the Horizon 2020 Programme; |
| --- | --- |

34.

asks how the Atlantic Forum proposes to better target and deploy the other EU funds available and to increase the drawdown of resources to realise the strategy's objectives; suggests for example that the Action Plan will have to promote research partnerships across the Atlantic Area in order to maximise support under the Horizon 2020 Programme;

Other funding sources

Other funding sources

| 35. | is concerned about the lack of emphasis on attracting private sector financing and engaging the private sector generally to achieve the strategy's objectives; considers that this is a challenge that the Atlantic Forum must address during the consultation processes and through tailored communication campaigns; |
| --- | --- |

35.

is concerned about the lack of emphasis on attracting private sector financing and engaging the private sector generally to achieve the strategy's objectives; considers that this is a challenge that the Atlantic Forum must address during the consultation processes and through tailored communication campaigns;

| 36. | points out that the current crisis in public budgets requires the Atlantic Area to attract international investment to capitalise on the opportunities that exist (in sectors such as marine renewable energies; sea food and aquaculture; marine resources; shipping and port development); suggests that the marketing of the Atlantic Area as a place to invest in and do business must be a key element of the Action Plan; |
| --- | --- |

36.

points out that the current crisis in public budgets requires the Atlantic Area to attract international investment to capitalise on the opportunities that exist (in sectors such as marine renewable energies; sea food and aquaculture; marine resources; shipping and port development); suggests that the marketing of the Atlantic Area as a place to invest in and do business must be a key element of the Action Plan;

| 37. | suggests that the Atlantic Forum also work with the European Commission and the European Investment Bank to assess the potential of establishing a dedicated financial instrument to facilitate the preparation of "bankable projects" by combining grants with loans, equity and risk guarantee instruments and developing more streamlined project implementation; |
| --- | --- |

37.

suggests that the Atlantic Forum also work with the European Commission and the European Investment Bank to assess the potential of establishing a dedicated financial instrument to facilitate the preparation of "bankable projects" by combining grants with loans, equity and risk guarantee instruments and developing more streamlined project implementation;

IV.   GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY

GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY

| 38. | stresses that for the Atlantic strategy to be a success it must be strongly embedded in political and administrative structures and underlines that this requires:






  (a) | political commitment, engagement and ownership; |
| --- | --- | --- |

38.

stresses that for the Atlantic strategy to be a success it must be strongly embedded in political and administrative structures and underlines that this requires:

(a)

political commitment, engagement and ownership;

| (b) | a multilevel governance approach (EU, national, regional and local); and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

a multilevel governance approach (EU, national, regional and local); and

| (c) | sufficient human and technical assistance resources; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

sufficient human and technical assistance resources;

Governance aspects

Governance aspects

| 39. | suggests that the governance structure must maximise the contribution of the many stakeholders and potential actors in the Atlantic strategy and demands that a multilevel governance approach be applied, in the elaboration, implementation, evaluation and review of the Action Plan; |
| --- | --- |

39.

suggests that the governance structure must maximise the contribution of the many stakeholders and potential actors in the Atlantic strategy and demands that a multilevel governance approach be applied, in the elaboration, implementation, evaluation and review of the Action Plan;

| 40. | that said, recognises that without strong political commitment by the Member States, at the highest levels, in conjunction with national coordination processes across relevant policy domains, the Atlantic strategy will not meet expectations and fail to deliver on its objectives; equally suggests that the Action Plan will not succeed without the full involvement of local and regional stakeholders and their ownership of the strategy; |
| --- | --- |

40.

that said, recognises that without strong political commitment by the Member States, at the highest levels, in conjunction with national coordination processes across relevant policy domains, the Atlantic strategy will not meet expectations and fail to deliver on its objectives; equally suggests that the Action Plan will not succeed without the full involvement of local and regional stakeholders and their ownership of the strategy;

| 41. | disagrees with the proposed abolition of the Atlantic Forum once the Action Plan is adopted and suggests that the Atlantic Forum remain in place, up to 2020, to oversee the implementation (through an Implementation Platform (see Points 27, 41)), review progress and drive delivery of the strategy's objectives; |
| --- | --- |

41.

disagrees with the proposed abolition of the Atlantic Forum once the Action Plan is adopted and suggests that the Atlantic Forum remain in place, up to 2020, to oversee the implementation (through an Implementation Platform (see Points 27, 41)), review progress and drive delivery of the strategy's objectives;

(see Points 27, 41)),

| 42. | proposes that the following governance model be developed for the Atlantic strategy: (a) the
  Atlantic Forum
  – to give political oversight at EU level and incorporating an
  Implementation Platform
  – to act as a point of contact for the strategy, initiate capacity-building measures, provide guidance on project formulation and promote and manage delivery of the Action Plan; (b)
  National and Regional Coordination Points
  – to promote policy coherence and encourage engagement by stakeholders and potential project promoters in the roll-out of the Atlantic strategy; |
| --- | --- |

42.

proposes that the following governance model be developed for the Atlantic strategy: (a) the
  Atlantic Forum
  – to give political oversight at EU level and incorporating an
  Implementation Platform
  – to act as a point of contact for the strategy, initiate capacity-building measures, provide guidance on project formulation and promote and manage delivery of the Action Plan; (b)
  National and Regional Coordination Points
  – to promote policy coherence and encourage engagement by stakeholders and potential project promoters in the roll-out of the Atlantic strategy;

Atlantic Forum

Implementation Platform

National and Regional Coordination Points

Implementation aspects

Implementation aspects

| 43. | highlights that the Atlantic Area is a complex geographical space, with very different characteristics, cultures and outlooks; considers that, in order for the strategy to succeed, more should be done to broaden and deepen the level and nature of cooperation across the Atlantic Area; and expects that the Atlantic strategy will: (a) provide a common reference point to enable this; but (b) must also include a capacity building measure to foster a stronger cooperation ethos; |
| --- | --- |

43.

highlights that the Atlantic Area is a complex geographical space, with very different characteristics, cultures and outlooks; considers that, in order for the strategy to succeed, more should be done to broaden and deepen the level and nature of cooperation across the Atlantic Area; and expects that the Atlantic strategy will: (a) provide a common reference point to enable this; but (b) must also include a capacity building measure to foster a stronger cooperation ethos;

| 44. | believes that the Atlantic Action Plan, once adopted, will require an
  Information and communication module: to raise visibility, promote understanding of the objectives, attract broader participation (especially from the private sector) and over time the achievements of the strategy; |
| --- | --- |

44.

believes that the Atlantic Action Plan, once adopted, will require an
  Information and communication module: to raise visibility, promote understanding of the objectives, attract broader participation (especially from the private sector) and over time the achievements of the strategy;

Information and communication module

| 45. | highlights the potential benefits that the EGTC Regulation may provide as a tool to facilitate implementation of the strategy; |
| --- | --- |

45.

highlights the potential benefits that the EGTC Regulation may provide as a tool to facilitate implementation of the strategy;

| 46. | proposes that an
  Atlantic strategy inter-services taskforce
  be established within the European Commission to ensure coherence across relevant policy domains and compatibility between the objectives of the Atlantic strategy and EU programmes and funding calls; further suggests that, given the horizontal nature of the strategy, this taskforce should be chaired by the Secretariat-General; |
| --- | --- |

46.

proposes that an
  Atlantic strategy inter-services taskforce
  be established within the European Commission to ensure coherence across relevant policy domains and compatibility between the objectives of the Atlantic strategy and EU programmes and funding calls; further suggests that, given the horizontal nature of the strategy, this taskforce should be chaired by the Secretariat-General;

Atlantic strategy inter-services taskforce

V.   ATLANTIC ACTION PLAN - PROCESS

ATLANTIC ACTION PLAN - PROCESS

| 47. | stresses the need for a greater sense of urgency in the adoption process of the Action Plan and proposes more frequent meetings of the Atlantic Forum (Leadership and Steering Committees) in order to set process milestones and ensure timely action; |
| --- | --- |

47.

stresses the need for a greater sense of urgency in the adoption process of the Action Plan and proposes more frequent meetings of the Atlantic Forum (Leadership and Steering Committees) in order to set process milestones and ensure timely action;

| 48. | looks forward to the expected Consultation Paper which must form the basis for a wider, more structured process of mobilisation and consultation of stakeholders later in 2012 and urges the European Commission to quickly broaden and deepen engagement so that stakeholders, including the local and regional levels, feel they have sufficient ownership of the Action Plan and ensure that there are genuine "bottom-up" and citizen-centred aspects to the process; |
| --- | --- |

48.

looks forward to the expected Consultation Paper which must form the basis for a wider, more structured process of mobilisation and consultation of stakeholders later in 2012 and urges the European Commission to quickly broaden and deepen engagement so that stakeholders, including the local and regional levels, feel they have sufficient ownership of the Action Plan and ensure that there are genuine "bottom-up" and citizen-centred aspects to the process;

| 49. | concerned that the proposed thematic seminars, one per Member State, will be insufficient to engage stakeholders and give them ownership of the strategy; proposes additional Atlantic strategy activities to agree a strategic vision; discuss governance aspects; and set targets and verifiable indicators of success; and clarify funding implication; further suggests that the European Commission should mobilise its national representations to enable wider participation in the Action Plan process; |
| --- | --- |

49.

concerned that the proposed thematic seminars, one per Member State, will be insufficient to engage stakeholders and give them ownership of the strategy; proposes additional Atlantic strategy activities to agree a strategic vision; discuss governance aspects; and set targets and verifiable indicators of success; and clarify funding implication; further suggests that the European Commission should mobilise its national representations to enable wider participation in the Action Plan process;

| 50. | underlines that the
  proposed timeframe for adopting the Action Plan needs to be advanced
  so that it is aligned to relevant funding programme priorities 2014-2020; |
| --- | --- |

50.

underlines that the
  proposed timeframe for adopting the Action Plan needs to be advanced
  so that it is aligned to relevant funding programme priorities 2014-2020;

proposed timeframe for adopting the Action Plan needs to be advanced

| 51. | recommends that the Atlantic strategy process must firstly agree on a
  Strategic Vision for the Atlantic Area
  , which will provide the reference for the Atlantic Action Plan 2014-2020; further proposes that this Action Plan must:






  — | establish
  key priorities, measures and identify flagship projects
  – including short, medium and longer-term actions; |
| --- | --- | --- |

51.

recommends that the Atlantic strategy process must firstly agree on a
  Strategic Vision for the Atlantic Area
  , which will provide the reference for the Atlantic Action Plan 2014-2020; further proposes that this Action Plan must:

Strategic Vision for the Atlantic Area

—

establish
  key priorities, measures and identify flagship projects
  – including short, medium and longer-term actions;

key priorities, measures and identify flagship projects

| — | set out clearly
  defined roles and responsibilities for all policy and implementation stakeholders
  in a multilevel governance structure, with a clear delivery-chain established for realising the strategy's objectives; |
| --- | --- |

—

set out clearly
  defined roles and responsibilities for all policy and implementation stakeholders
  in a multilevel governance structure, with a clear delivery-chain established for realising the strategy's objectives;

defined roles and responsibilities for all policy and implementation stakeholders

| — | include a
  capacity building measure
  to foster a stronger cooperation ethos across the area; |
| --- | --- |

—

include a
  capacity building measure
  to foster a stronger cooperation ethos across the area;

capacity building measure

| — | set out
  key targets and a range of indicators
  - to measure delivery and adopt a result-based approach; |
| --- | --- |

—

set out
  key targets and a range of indicators
  - to measure delivery and adopt a result-based approach;

key targets and a range of indicators

| — | agree a
  process of evaluation and a mid-term review
  of achievements; |
| --- | --- |

—

agree a
  process of evaluation and a mid-term review
  of achievements;

process of evaluation and a mid-term review

| — | incorporate an
  information and communication module
  to raise visibility, promote understanding of the objectives and attract broader participation in the strategy; |
| --- | --- |

—

incorporate an
  information and communication module
  to raise visibility, promote understanding of the objectives and attract broader participation in the strategy;

information and communication module

| — | identify the
  necessary resources
  , both financial and human resources, to implement the Action Plan. |
| --- | --- |

—

identify the
  necessary resources
  , both financial and human resources, to implement the Action Plan.

necessary resources

| 52. | requests that the Atlantic strategy and the process for elaborating its Action Plan must form part of the proposed European Commission assessment of the added value of the macro-regional approach in 2013, as requested by the European Council; |
| --- | --- |

52.

requests that the Atlantic strategy and the process for elaborating its Action Plan must form part of the proposed European Commission assessment of the added value of the macro-regional approach in 2013, as requested by the European Council;

| 53. | proposes that the Action Plan is adopted by the Atlantic Forum and calls on the forthcoming Irish Presidency to prioritise European Council endorsement of the Action Plan during its Presidency, with a focus on delivery, a credible process for monitoring and on-going evaluation and a scheduled mid-term review. |
| --- | --- |

53.

proposes that the Action Plan is adopted by the Atlantic Forum and calls on the forthcoming Irish Presidency to prioritise European Council endorsement of the Action Plan during its Presidency, with a focus on delivery, a credible process for monitoring and on-going evaluation and a scheduled mid-term review.

Brussels, 9 October 2012.

The President of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO

---

(1)  In particular the Report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR), June 2011 (COM(2011) 381 final).

1

(2)  Position and proposals of the Atlantic Arc Commission on the EC Communication establishing a Strategy for the Atlantic, Adopted by the Political Bureau, March 22, 2012.

2

(3)  See Draft Opinion on A Regulation on the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), CdR 86/2012.

3

A Regulation on the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE),

---