Outlook Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and local and regional authorities: the need for coordination and a specific instrument for decentralised cooperation
Date: 2004-04-21
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Union for the Mediterranean, aid programme, cooperation policy

C 121/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Outlook Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and
local and regional authorities: the need for coordination and a specific instrument for decentralised
cooperation

(2004/C 121/05)

The Committee of the Regions,

HAVING REGARD to the letter of 5 September 2003 from Mrs de Palacio, Vice-President of the European
Commission, to Sir Albert Bore, President of the Committee of the Regions, inviting the Committee of the
Regions, in accordance with Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw
up an outlook opinion assessing the progress made in the Barcelona Process, analysing the functioning of
the association agreements in force with the Mediterranean partner countries and to provide insights,
drawn from the experience of the CoR, on the development of cooperation between EU regions and
regions of the southern Mediterranean countries or between the southern Mediterranean regions them-
selves;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision by its Bureau on 6 November 2003 to instruct the Commission for
External Relations to draw up an outlook opinion on the matter;

HAVING REGARD TO the Protocol governing arrangements for cooperation between the European
Commission and the Committee of the Regions, signed by their respective presidents on 20 September
2001 (DI CdR 81/2001 rev. 2);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament on strengthening the Mediterranean policy of the European Union: Proposals for
implementing a Euro-Mediterranean partnership (COM(1995) 72 final) (CdR 371/95) (1);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on Local authorities and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (CdR
125/97 fin) (2);

HAVING REGARD TO its resolution on Decentralised cooperation and the role of regional and local
authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (CdR 40/2000 fin) (3);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on Regional and local authorities and the European Union's common
strategy for the Mediterranean (CdR 123/2000 fin) (4);

HAVING REGARD TO the European Parliament resolution on the Commission Communication on rela-
tions between the EU and the Mediterranean: reinvigorating the Barcelona partnership (A5-0009/2001);

HAVING REGARD TO the European Parliament report on the annual report on the MEDA 2000
programme (A5-0114/2003);

HAVING REGARD TO the European Parliament report on Wider Europe (A5-0378/2003);

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood
(COM(2003)104 final);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion of 9 October 2003 on the Communication from the Commission to
the Council and the European Parliament on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: a New Framework for our
Relations with our Eastern and Southern neighbours (CdR 175/2003 fin) (5);

HAVING REGARD TO the declaration of Euro-Mediterranean mayors approved by the Eurocities' Euromed
Commission in Byblos on 27 September 2003;

(1) OJ C 126 of 29.4.1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ C 64 of 27.2.1998, p. 59.
(3) OJ C 156 of 6.6.2000, p. 47.
(4) OJ C 22 of 24.1.2001, p. 7.
(5) OJ C 23 of 27.1.2004, p. 36.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/19

HAVING REGARD TO the conclusions of the conference Towards a new Euro-Mediterranean area, which
brought together local and regional representatives in Livorno on 31 October 2003 at the initiative of the
Committee of the Regions (CdR 350/2003);

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parlia-
ment To prepare the VI Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Naples, 2-3
December 2003 (Barcelona VI),which the Commission referred to the Committee of the Regions on 5
November 2003;

HAVING REGARD TO the conclusions of the Interinstitutional Conference to re-launch the Mediterranean
dimension, Palermo, 27–28 November 2003;

HAVING REGARD TO its resolution on the VI Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Naples on 2 and 3
December (CdR 357/2003 fin) (1);

HAVING REGARD TO the Report by the High-Level Advisory Group on the Dialogue between Peoples
and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area of 2 December 2003;

HAVING REGARD TO the Commission's Third report on economic and social cohesion, in particular its
reference to the need to promote a neighbourhood policy and establish a ‘Grand Voisinage’ action or
instrument for the outermost regions of the EU;

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion (CdR 327/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 1 March 2004 by the Commis-
sion for External Relations (rapporteurs: Mr Jacques Blanc, President of the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional
Council (FR/EPP) and Mr Gianfranco Lamberti, Mayor of Livorno (IT/PES));

Unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 54th plenary session, held on 21 and 22 April 2004
(meeting of 21 April):

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

— managing a new framework for relations with our new
neighbours in eastern Europe and the southern Mediterra-
nean, in the light of the strategy for an enlarged Europe;

that

welcomes the fact

1.1
the Commission, under the
Protocol on Cooperation with the Committee, has requested it
to draw up an outlook opinion on the Euro-Mediterranean
partnership and decentralised cooperation, so that an assess-
ment can be made of
the partnership
between the northern and southern sides of the Mediterranean
from the viewpoint of the regions and local authorities;

the experience of

1.2
warmly welcomes every new opportunity and initiative
for cooperation between local and regional authorities in the
EU and their counterparts in Mediterranean partner countries;

1.3
considers that the relations which local and regional
authorities and cities in countries on the northern and southern
sides of the Mediterranean have already established over the
past two decades or more constitute a ‘common heritage’ of
know-how, knowledge and exchanges.
the
Committee of the Regions this heritage, which must be built
on and fostered, is a key pillar of the partnership, not only in
social and cultural terms but also in terms of promoting poli-
tical stability and security, which has not yet attained an
adequate level;

In the view of

notes that EU enlargement poses a double challenge for

1.4
the EU institutions as regards:

— implementing development and cohesion policies designed

to bring about integration between 25 states;

(1) OJ C 73 of 23.3.2004, p. 77.

In a recent speech in Alexandria, President Prodi stated: ‘This
means establishing ever closer and stronger relations with all
our neighbours, creating a “ring of friends” with whom we can
share all the benefits of membership, barring the Union's insti-
tutions’;

points out that, as long ago as 1995, in its opinion on
1.5
strengthening EU Mediterranean policy,
the
Mediterranean Basin was a strategically important region –
both for the EU and its present and future Member States – in
which it was necessary to construct a strong economic area
capable of contributing to the Union's regional balance by
pursuing peace, stability and prosperity as the key objectives;

it stressed that

1.6
considers that, in creating an area of peace, stability and
prosperity in the Mediterranean, the fact cannot be ignored
that
that
the Kingdom of Morocco has an Atlantic coast
borders the EU. Cooperation between this area and nearby
European territories, some of which are outermost regions,
must therefore be promoted;

1.7
feels that failure to take account of the Euro-Mediterra-
nean dimension would create instability and insecurity on the
European Union's southern fringes, from Morocco to Turkey
and from the Sahara to the Caspian Sea. Cooperation in the
Mediterranean area is essential for peace and stability. ‘To try to
build the new Europe while neglecting “the cradle of civilisa-
tion” would be grave error’
(Romano Prodi, Bologna, May
2003);

C 121/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

1.8
believes accession of Cyprus and Malta to the EU can
bring a positive impetus to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.
Wishes also in this respect for a successful conclusion to the
current negotiations on a reunification of Cyprus;

and stability founded on dialogue; 2) the creation of an area of
prosperity based on free trade; 3) mutual understanding and
closeness between peoples and cultures in the Mediterranean
Basin;

1.9
stresses that, in view of the situation in the countries of
the southern and eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East,
the European Union must significantly step up its action in this
region. The Mediterranean cannot be both the ‘cradle of civili-
sation’ and a peripheral region; it cannot be considered both a
top priority for action to promote coexistence and cooperation
between peoples and cultures, and solely a security issue. More-
over, the Mediterranean is characterised by its wealth and diver-
sity, its regions steeped in history, and also its vulnerability;

emphasises that, as concerns the strategy of Euro-Medi-
1.10
terranean cooperation: ‘The EU is committed to the promotion
of democracy, good governance and the rule of law as well as
the promotion and protection of all human rights: civil, poli-
tical, economic, social and cultural … In particular, the EU
places great importance on: the abolition of the death penalty,
the fight against torture and inhuman treatment, combating
racism, xenophobia and discrimination against minorities, the
promotion and protection of the rights of women and of the
child and the protection of human rights defenders. The EU
fully recognises the crucial role played by civil society in the
promotion of human rights and democratisation’;

1.11
points out that, already in its opinions on Local autho-
rities and the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and Regional and
local authorities and the European Union's common strategy
for the Mediterranean, the Committee considered it necessary
to promote dialogue between cultures and religions.

1.15
notes that the Barcelona Process, as also pointed out
by the Commission and the European Parliament, has not
evolved linearly or produced the hoped-for results, despite the
partners' efforts: 1) the conflicts and tensions in the Balkans,
Algeria and the Near and Middle East (including the war in
Iraq) have hampered the creation of an area of stability while
the Israeli-Arab peace process is seriously stalled; 2) with the
signing of new association agreements and an increase in the
volume of trade, the economic disparity between the two sides
of the Mediterranean countries has widened. On the one hand
the economic dependence of countries in the South on those in
the North has increased; on the other hand the food self-suffi-
ciency of countries in the South has decreased (1); 3) some
progress has been made in the area of cultural and social
dialogue. However,
fully
respected in many countries. In addition, dialogue must extend
beyond the elitist circles of politicians, civil servants and intel-
lectuals to embrace civil society and local and regional institu-
tions, which are closer to citizens. Hence our specific proposals
in this regard;

freedom of expression is still not

1.16
thinks that the Valencia Action Plan, by providing for
the creation of Euro-Mediterranean institutions on an ad hoc
basis and supporting the Eurocities' proposal for a Euromed
Pact, is an important milestone in re-launching the Barcelona
Process;

Continuing and strengthening the Barcelona Process

The Committee of the Regions

the

support

endorses

expressed by ministers

1.17
at
Valencia for the Agadir process and all ‘South-South’ initiatives
aimed at extending free trade agreements to partners in the
the sub-
Maghreb and Near East,
regional level such as the Arab Maghreb Union (UMA), noting,
however, that the fact that borders still remain closed between
some partner countries has impeded integration;

including integration at

1.12
believes that, because of its strategic dimension, the
Barcelona Process represents the key framework for dialogue
and cooperation between the EU and its Mediterranean part-
ners;

welcomes the fact

1.18
following in the wake of
that,
Valencia, the decisions taken at the Sixth Euro-Mediterranean
Conference in Naples led to the setting up of the Euro-Mediter-
ranean Parliamentary Assembly as a forum for political
dialogue;

1.13
recalls that, in keeping with the ‘Barcelona spirit’, the
Euro-Mediterranean partnership is structured on two levels of
action – bilateral and regional – in three equally important
areas, viz.: political and security cooperation; economic and
financial cooperation; and cooperation in the sphere of social,
cultural and human relations. Launched in 1995, this strategy
is gradually becoming imbued with the spirit of sustainable
development, which should be at the heart of all Euro-Mediter-
ranean cooperation at sub-national level, as it is in the action
plan initiated by States under the aegis of UNEP (United
Nations Strategic Action Plan for the Mediterranean);

1.19
notes the decision taken at the Naples Conference to
strengthen the European Investment Bank's Facility for Euro-
Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) and to eval-
uate, by the end of 2006, the possibility of introducing a
subsidiary instrument;

1.20
Mediterranean Investment Bank;

is following closely the case for establishing a Euro-

1.14
stresses that the 27 Euro-Mediterranean partners have
set three priority objectives: 1) the creation of an area of peace

(1) Cf. T. Schumacher, Programma Mediterraneo, Istituto Universitario

Europeo di Fiesole, Livorno, 31 October 2003.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/21

1.21
warmly welcomes the establishment of the Euro-Medi-
terranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, which will
contribute to the development of the civil society chapter of
the Barcelona Process, and asks to be involved in future activ-
ities;

welcomes

1.22
the report by the High-Level Advisory
Group on the Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the
Euro-Mediterranean Area, drawn up in December 2003 at the
the European Commission (1),
initiative of
which proposes an action programme for this Foundation;

the President of

1.23
notes with satisfaction that, at their meeting in Naples
(Barcelona VI), the Euro-Mediterranean ministers took note of
the conclusions of the conference Towards a new Euro-Mediter-
ranean Area, which was held in Livorno on 31 October 2003
at the initiative of the CoR. The conference called for new
impetus to be given to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and
the closer involvement of local and regional authorities as key
players in realising an area of freedom, stability, prosperity and
peace in the Mediterranean;

1.24
regrets, however, that the request made repeatedly by
the CoR since 1997 for the creation of a body representing
local and regional authorities was not taken up by the Euro-
Mediterranean ministers at their meeting in Naples.

The MEDA programme: a mixed record

The Committee of the Regions

1.25
recalls that association agreements are currently in
force with Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority
and Jordan, whilst the agreements with Egypt, Lebanon and
Algeria are awaiting ratification; negotiations are currently
under way with Syria;

that

stresses

the main objectives of

1.26
the MEDA
programme are to support reforms of economic and social
structures in partner countries, improve the living conditions
for disadvantaged groups and mitigate the effects of the liberali-
fabric and territorial
sation of
balance, with a view to establishing a free trade area by
2010 (2);

the economy on the social

believes that the free trade area is a necessary stage in
1.27
implementing the three pillars of the Barcelona Process and not
‘an end in itself’. It must be conceived in accordance with the
principles of sustainable development and an awareness that
the transitional phase entails risks for countries on the southern
side of the Mediterranean: 1) major social imbalances, resulting
from the restructuring of the economic and productive system;
2) new polarisations and spatial concentrations with the poten-
imbalances; 3) increased
tial to exacerbate existing territorial

pressure on the environment, as a result of an expansion of
trade,
infrastructure,
the creation of energy and transport
increased land use and higher levels of waste production;

1.28
agrees with the Commission ‘that economic coopera-
tion with those countries was relevant, that overall effectiveness
of the EC economic cooperation with MED partner countries
was reasonably good but it did not achieve all its potential,
while the management of the programmes revealed inefficien-
cies’ (3);

that,

regrets

in the third strand of

1.29
the MEDA I
programme, the involvement of local and regional authorities
on the two sides of the Mediterranean, has faced serious obsta-
cles;

1.30
notes that under the MEDA I programme (1996-99)
the EU used EUR 3.5 billion out of total appropriations of
more than EUR 4.68 billion for the Mediterranean partners,
whilst it has allocated funds totalling some EUR 5.35 billion for
MEDA II (2000-2006);

feels that these sums are insufficient, given the ambi-
1.31
tious aims of the Barcelona Process and the huge demand for
cooperation and resources by the countries of the southern
Mediterranean;

1.32
regrets the fact that – despite the improvements under
the MEDA II programme (with a payment-to-commitment ratio
of about 50 % in 2001 and about 70 % in 2002) – the situa-
tion is far from satisfactory; calls upon the EU Commission to
intensify its information campaigns and other measures aimed
at improving the percentage of appropriations used;

1.33
welcomes the regional cooperation initiatives comple-
menting bilateral programmes, such as Euromed Heritage,
MEDA Democracy and the Euromed regional programme for
local water management, but draws attention to the low profile
of these programmes among partners and citizens in the coun-
tries of the southern Mediterranean;

1.34
deplores, however, the minuscule share of funding allo-
cated to the Mediterranean countries from the horizontal
programmes under the European Initiative for Democracy and
Human Rights (EIDHR), which has taken over from the MEDA
democracy programmes following the introduction of MEDA
II;

1.35
recalls that partners in the southern Mediterranean
countries report real difficulties in the implementation of bilat-
eral cooperation, which they attribute, inter alia, to red tape
and the slowness of project appraisal; regrets the absence of an
institutional mechanism dedicated entirely to partnerships (4);

(1) Euromed Report No 68, 2 December 2003.
(2) This date is indicative as the agreements provide for the entry of
Tunisia into the Euro-Mediterranean free trade area in 2008, Libya
in 2014 and Algeria and Syria at a later date.

(3) Evaluation of Economic Co-operation between the European
Commission and Mediterranean Countries (12/1997) — 951645.
(4) H. Abouyoub, Moroccan ambassador to France, Le partenariat euro-
méditerranéen, Travaux des tables rondes des Assisses de la Méditer-
ranée, Marseille, July 2000.

C 121/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

1.36
notes the reform which led to the creation in 2001 of
DG EuropeAid, involving a devolved approach to the manage-
ment of funds whereby responsibilities are transferred to the
delegations, in line with the principle that ‘everything that can
be better managed or decided close to the field should not be
managed or decided in Brussels’; joins with the European Parlia-
this new devolution procedure
ment
requires constant monitoring and greater
in
programmes and projects by authorities in the partner coun-
tries;

in emphasising that

involvement

1.37
regrets that the Commission has not yet carried out
the study evaluating the impact of establishing the free trade
area; the evaluation should take into account the five challenges
to be tackled by MEDA II: population, employment and migra-
tion, globalisation, dwindling of resources and the environ-
mental challenge; recalls that this document has been expected
since the Malta conference (Barcelona II, 1997) and has been
requested on several occasions by the CoR and the European
Parliament;

stresses that EU local and regional authorities have not
1.38
found the MEDA programme to be an appropriate vehicle for
making their contribution to the partnership. Local and
regional authorities have gradually acquired expertise which
could be used to contribute effectively to the implementation
of partnerships, exchanges and cooperation in specialist fields
and to help promote proximity policy and plan the reception
of immigrants from the southern side of the Mediterranean;

deplores the lack of coordination between MEDA and
1.39
INTERREG, despite a specific request by the CoR for a section
on decentralised cooperation to be included in the MEDA
programme, a request which was reiterated by the European
Parliament in the run-up to the Valencia Conference.

Decentralised cooperation:
regional authorities

the added value provided by local and

The Committee of the Regions

wishes

to share with Mediterranean partners

1.40
the
experience gained by its members as result of their contacts
with local and regional authorities in the candidate countries
during the enlargement process;

1.41
appropriate level for decentralised cooperation;

believes that local and regional authorities are the most

1.42
regional authorities has most to offer:

recalls the areas where the expertise of

local and

— regional and spatial planning;

— urban planning;

— agriculture, fisheries and rural development;

— environment,

resource management and prevention of

natural disasters;

— the sub-regional dimension of transport and energy;

— policies promoting SMEs;

— policies promoting employment;

— cultural and sporting initiatives;

— policies for safeguarding and fostering heritage;

— social proximity policies;

— education and training;

— health;

— managing immigration flows, reception and integration

policy;

1.43
regrets that the lack of coordination between MEDA II
and INTERREG III has limited involvement by local and
regional authorities in the southern Mediterranean countries in
cooperation projects implemented under INTERREG III owing
to the lack of European co-financing for the Mediterranean
partners;

regrets that, as consequence, this has prevented the
1.44
dissemination,
in accordance with the Barcelona spirit, of
experience and good practice relating to the partnership at
local and regional level, despite the fact that many regional and
local authorities in the EU have forged close links with their
counterparts on the southern side of the Mediterranean;

1.45
considers that there is an urgent need to launch an
initiative by 2006 that will help to make the EU's strategic and
macro-economic objectives under MEDA (bilateral section of
MEDA) compatible with the expertise that EU local and
regional authorities possess in terms of initiative, local govern-
ance and their special relationship with their Mediterranean
counterparts;

1.46
feels that, after 2006, this strategy must lead to the
establishment of a financial instrument that is tailor-made for
decentralised cooperation and intended for use by local and
regional authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean region, a real
tool that is sufficiently well-funded to be able to pursue a truly
ambitious programme that warrants the designation MEDPLUS;

believes that this financial instrument will have to: 1)
1.47
extend beyond the exchange of experience to the implementa-
tion of projects that are of tangible significance for the general
population (which must be considered the primary beneficiaries
of cooperation); 2) build on the pilot experience gained from
MED-projects, which, despite the obvious criticisms, have
helped to establish links and promote practical measures in
several fields, involving institutions, local and regional authori-
ties, NGOs and civil society; 3) rely for funding not only on its
the European Investment
own resources but also those of
Bank's Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partner-
ship (FEMIP) and a possible Euro-Mediterranean Investment
Bank;

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/23

recalls that

1.48
there is scope for action by local and
regional authorities that complements and goes beyond the
traditional limits of cooperation at the level of central govern-
ments. Indeed, it is at the level of local and regional authorities
that the new neighbourhood policy advocated by the Commis-
sion can really be effective. Therefore it is necessary to ‘trans-
cend the traditional limits of centralized cooperation. Steps can
thus be taken to overcome the problems of traditional develop-
ment models, develop existing networking between cities, with
a view to producing real tangible development projects and
meet the challenges of sustainable development, in the urban
and rural context’;

1.49
feels that there is an urgent need to improve local,
regional and urban governance, health and social protection,
and prevention of natural disasters in the countries surrounding
the Mediterranean, a sea that is enclosed and under threat. This
should be part of a policy of long-term development. The Insti-
tute of Mediterranean Regions for Sustainable Development
(IRMEDD) (1) is a good example of how to link up analysis and
coordinate action and exchange of experience between local
and regional authorities on the northern and southern sides of
the Mediterranean in the field of sustainable development;

considers that it is essential that funding be earmarked
1.50
for spatial planning not only at State level, but also and above
all – in a an effort to improve efficiency – at the level where
proximity really works, i.e. local and regional authorities and
their networks of research institutes and foundations. For
example, in the field of maritime safety, the LEM (Livorno Euro
Mediterraneo)
foundation works in close collaboration with
numerous partners (2) to promote the spread of the culture of
maritime safety throughout the Mediterranean;

1.51
feels that the INTERREG III programme represents a
benchmark in terms of the potential it offers for cooperation
between local and regional authorities on the northern and
southern sides of the Mediterranean. For example, more than
60 % of the projects conducted in the Médoc area under
INTERREG III B involve one or several Mediterranean partners
from European regions outside the Médoc area. However, the
lack of European co-financing limits the financial involvement
of partners on the southern side of the Mediterranean; (3)

1.52
is pleased that the European Commission decided to
launch a MED'ACT pilot project for cooperation between Euro-
Mediterranean cities; hopes that the interest displayed by the
European Commission leads
to a broad-based regional
programme aimed at cooperation between Euro-Mediterranean
local authorities within the framework of MEDA;

1.53
points out that the decentralised cooperation practices
developed in recent years have highlighted the responsibility

(1) The IRMEDD was set up by the CPMR in Ioannina on 17 September
2002 and commenced operations in Montpellier on 19 December
2003.

(2) Including the Tuscany region, the University of Pisa, the Intermedi-
terranean Commission of the CPMR, the Italian Ministry for Trans-
port.

(3) Cf. R. Favresse, Analyse des partenariats entre les pays de l'espace
Medoc et
les Pays tiers méditerranéens au sein du programme
Interreg III B Medoc, Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, November
2003.

that local authorities bear in their role as a catalyst for these
new cooperation processes, as was also acknowledged by the
Commission in its note on decentralised cooperation in January
2000;

1.54
notes that while the crucial role played by local and
regional authorities has been acknowledged by many Member
States, it should be harmonised and better clarified at EU level;
it should also be stated explicitly that their partners in the
southern Mediterranean countries
represent decentralised
bodies, directly elected by citizens in the regions concerned,
and are not – or not only – officials who are local representa-
tives of central government.

2. The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

2.1
emphasises that local and regional authorities, both on
the northern and southern sides of the Mediterranean, provide
link between central
a functional, political and territorial
government and civil society;

regrets that, although the Barcelona Declaration envi-
2.2
saged the holding of meetings between representatives of local
and regional authorities, to date no such meetings have been
held, despite repeated calls by the CoR (CoR documents CdR
125/1997; 40/2000; 123/2000; 173/2003; and 357/2003)
and declarations by Euro-Mediterranean ministers from the
Stuttgart conference (Barcelona III, 1999) until
the Naples
conference (Barcelona VI, 2003);

2.3
recommends that EU local and regional authorities be
consulted on the neighbourhood policy, particularly with
regard the definition of objectives, benchmarks and the time-
table for implementing action plans, in keeping with the role
attributed to them by the Commission in the White Paper on
European governance (COM(2001) 428 final);

urges the Commission to set up a forum designed to
2.4
represent – as institutions involved in the Barcelona Process –
sub-national decentralised authorities
(municipal, provincial
and regional) in the Member States and in partner countries in
the Mediterranean Basin;

2.5
proposes that this body be devoted to discussion of
operational problems and actively contribute to the exchange
of ideas on subjects in the area of decentralised cooperation
(including, training, project management, cultural arbitration
and communication, natural disasters, sustainable development,
etc.);

C 121/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2.6
calls for the coordination of MEDA and INTERREG as
rapidly as possible, inter alia by incorporating the ‘neighbour-
hood’ strategy in the Commission's new guidelines;
in this
context emphasises that MedAct is a good example, at another
territorial
involving Euro-Mediterra-
nean cities (including Bordeaux, Rome, Brussels Capital region,
Tunis, Sfax, Casablanca). The Euro-Mediterranean mayors also
called for the inclusion of the urban dimension in MEDA in
their declaration on the eve of the Naples conference;

level, of ‘single projects’

a

that

specific

proposes

Initiative
2.7
Programme be launched to maintain, develop and facilitate
dialogue between cultures in the Mediterranean Basin, based on
cooperation projects that would pave the way, by 2006, for the
coordination of the MED and INTERREG programmes;

Community

2.8
requests that MEDPLUS, the new instrument for sub-
national Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, be launched right
away on a trial basis and include the outermost regions located
in this geographical area, and that
the CoR be consulted
regarding the definition of the new ‘neighbourhood instrument’
for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, which it is planned to
introduce in 2006, and in this context be given the opportunity
to contribute its practical experience of governance at local
level. Similarly, the experience accumulated by the Congress of
Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and
the wide network of international and national associations of
local and regional authorities on both sides of the Mediterra-
nean (including AER, CEMR, CPMR, WFUC, AEBR, REVES,
Eurocities and the Latin Arc) (1) should be harnessed, on the
basis of both the expertise which local and regional authorities
in the EU have acquired in their relations with each other and
with their counterparts in the candidate countries. With this in
mind, the CoR recently commissioned a study on the present
state of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and decentralised
cooperation;

2.9
believes it is important to overcome the present frag-
mentation of programmes and measures in the field of decen-
tralised cooperation;

suggests that the Commission show a keen interest in
2.10
all action planned at Mediterranean level and that such action
be coordinated and centralised in just one Directorate-General;

requests that EU local and regional authorities be
2.11
allowed to co-manage,
in partnership with the European
Commission, the resources allocated for decentralised coopera-
tion, along the lines of the partnership established under the
Integrated Mediterranean Programmes (1986-92); believes that
local and regional authorities are the appropriate level of

(1) Assembly of European Regions, Council of European Municipalities
and Regions, Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe,
World Federation of United Cities, Association of Frontier Regions
in Europe, European Network of Cities and Regions for Social
Economy.

governance for strengthening dialogue and cooperation, in that
they can more easily overcome constraints of a macroeconomic
and geostrategic nature;

in the

2.12
recommends that the Commission acquire a more in-
depth knowledge of the functions and powers of sub-national
institutions
southern Mediterranean countries by
carrying out a comparative analysis of local and regional autho-
rities and the reforms under way in the region. At the moment
there is no comprehensive and exhaustive overview of these
institutions and the way in which they have evolved. This
would meet the request made by the European Parliament to
the Commission ‘to submit to it a report on the progress made
in the beneficiary countries in the field of institutional reforms’;

believes

that decentralised cooperation fosters
local and regional authorities

2.13
the
democratisation of
in the
thereby reinforcing their
southern Mediterranean countries,
institutional role vis-à-vis central governments and decentra-
lised State authorities (2), and legitimises their activities in the
eyes of the general population;

in the southern Mediterranean countries

2.14
therefore calls for support to be given to the decentrali-
sation reforms and steps under way to make local and regional
fully-
authorities
fledged players in local governance, at the same time ensuring
that there is greater involvement in centralised cooperation by
elected bodies rather than dealing primarily with decentralised
authorities and State officials;

emphasises the need to provide for a new legal basis
2.15
for the support of
town-twinning schemes, which are an
intrinsic element of the partnership; recalls in this regard that
at their meeting in Crete (26-27 May 2003) the Euro-Mediterra-
nean ministers for foreign affairs asserted that ‘the local and
regional authorities could also contribute significantly to the
dialogue between cultures and civilizations through a decentra-
lized cooperation and through town-twinning actions, and, in
this context, be closely involved in this mission which consti-
tutes an essential part of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership’;

2.16
stresses that, in the free trade area, the aim should be
to build on territorial and environmental diversity and differ-
ences in identity so that trade flows (North-South, South-North
and South-South) are based on complementarity, in line with
the principles of sustainable development;

2.17
reiterates the request made above for a study to be
conducted on the socio-economic and environmental impact of
the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean free trade area by 2010;

(2) For example, the Wilayas (governorships or prefectures) which exist

in most countries on the southern side of the Mediterranean.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/25

2.18
believes that immigration policy must be based on
social inclusion and cultural integration. Immigrants in the EU
could constitute a natural ''bridge'' for the approval and devel-
opment of the planned cooperation initiatives;

proposes that 2008 be designated ‘Neighbourhood
2.19
Year’. With this in mind,
it calls for the establishment of
programmes run by local and regional authorities and invol-
ving NGOs, civil society and citizens from both the EU and the
surrounding countries. The initiatives could reach out to a
wider section of the population through cultural events that
would showcase the new cultural and economic dimensions in
and around Europe. Prior to exhibitions, a series of themed

conferences could be organised by local and regional adminis-
trations, which could involve the wider public;

supports the activities of local and regional bodies such
2.20
as the IRMEDD in Montpellier, the LEM Foundation in Livorno,
the Three Cultures of the Mediterranean Foundation in Seville,
the Mediterranean Laboratory Foundation in Naples,
the
Catalan Institute of Mediterranean Studies and Cooperation in
Barcelona, the Institute of the Mediterranean in Marseille, the
Mediterranean Institute of European Studies in Valencia, MedCi-
ties in Barcelona, etc; strongly encourages the role they play in
research, exchanges of experiences and cultural dissemination,
with a view to their participation in the initiatives of the Euro-
Mediterranean Foundation set up at the Naples conference.

Brussels, 21 April 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Imple-
menting the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of
goods and services’

(2004/C 121/06)

The Committee of the Regions,

Having regard to the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Implementing the principle of equal treatment
between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services’ (COM(2003) 657 final – SEC
2003/1213 – 2003/0265 (CNS)),

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2003 to consult it on this
subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the decision of its President of 7 May 2002 to instruct its Commission for Economic and
Social Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject,

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 19/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 2 March 2004 by the Commission for
Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Ms Norrman, Member of Jämtland County Council (S/PES),

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 54th plenary session on 21-22 April 2004 (session of 22
April).

1. Committee of the Regions' viewpoints

sions made to various interest groups with regard to the scope
of the proposed directive.

1.1
The Committee of the Regions would express its disap-
pointment at the limited scope of the proposal. The Committee
notes that the Commission has been unable to fulfil the task
entrusted to it by the Heads of State and Government in Nice
in the year 2000, viz. submitting a proposal for a directive to
promote equality outside the workplace, based on Article 13 of
the Treaty on European Union. The CoR regrets the conces-

1.2
The CoR wishes to work to remove shortcomings in
equal opportunities between men and women and actively
promote equality by, inter alia, supporting the EU Treaty, the
Nice Treaty and the framework strategy in the Fifth Action
Programme (2001-2005), where the two-pronged approach
involves mainstreaming equality issues in all policies and
specific measures focusing on women.