Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming
Date: 2006-12-06
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: allocation of land, consumer protection, cultivation system, environmental risk prevention, genetically modified organism, national agricultural policy, organic farming

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/11

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament Report on the implementation of national measures on the
coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(2007/C 57/03)

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
— Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified crops
with conventional and organic farming (COM(2006) 104 final),

Having regard to the European Commission's decision of 2 December 2005 to consult it on this matter,
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to its Bureau's decision of 25 April 2006 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Devel-
opment to draw up an opinion on this subject,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1),

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the Euro-
pean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (2),

Having regard to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001
on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council
Directive 90/220/EEC (3),

Having regard to Resolution 2003/2098 (INI) of the European Parliament on coexistence between geneti-
cally modified crops and conventional and organic crops,

Having regard to the European Commission's Recommendation 2003/556/EC of 23 July 2003 on guide-
lines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically
modified crops with conventional and organic farming,

the European Economic and Social Committee of
Having regard to the own-initiative opinion of
16 December 2004 on the coexistence between genetically modified crops, and conventional and organic
crops (4),

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 149/2006 rev. 2) adopted on 6 October 2006 by its Commission
for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr Marrazzo, President of the Lazio Region (IT/PES)),

1.

Whereas:

1.1

1.2

Generally speaking, the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament — Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically
modified crops with conventional and organic farming COM(2006) 104 final (hereinafter ‘the report’)
distinguishes between, on the one hand, the environmental and health aspects and, on the other, the
economic aspects of coexistence between GM, conventional and organic farming.

Ascertaining the lack of risks to human health and the environment is merely one stage in the proce-
dure envisaged for authorising a GM product under Directive 2001/18/EC. Specific mandatory
measures on coexistence are also part of the same procedure.

(1) OJ L 268 of 18.10.2003.
(2) OJ L 31 of 1.2.2002.
(3) OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001.
(4) CESE 1656/2004.

C 57/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

The present opinion seeks to bring the debate on coexistence, focused only on the economic aspects,
back to the issues of care imposed by the precautionary principle. Conventional and organic crops,
too, are part of the environment and are therefore to be protected under the precautionary principle.
Now that the European moratorium on GMOs has expired (in 2004), authorisations of GM products
in the European Union will in reality increase and for this reason irreversible consequences and specu-
lation must be averted.

Correct implementation of coexistence requires reconciling health and environmental aspects with
economic ones. If ‘coexistence’ between types of farming — in other words, guaranteeing the viability
of each type (conventional, organic and GMO) — is to be implemented, it must safeguard each of
these methods. Every form of agriculture — conventional, organic and GMO — must be accorded
equal respect for its intrinsic rather than economic value, otherwise the very concept of ‘coexistence’
would be negated.

At the Vienna conference on 4-6 April 2006, the EU chose not to adopt a firm stance on coexistence
and to leave farmers free to choose for themselves between traditional, organic or GM farming. The
reasons were twofold: firstly, the territorial diversity of individual Member States and, secondly, the
inconsistent results from the very few trials carried out so far.

The market is thus left to find its own dynamics, aided by the choice of consumers, who remain free
to choose whether or not to purchase GM products.

The national competent authorities on the matter took part in a technical meeting on 19 June 2006
and in a meeting of national competent authorities within the terms of Directive 2001/18/EC on
3 July 2006; the next meeting is scheduled for January 2007 to continue the discussion and address
potato, maize Bt11 and maize 1570.

The stances emerging from these meetings have displayed a continuing concern for health and envir-
onmental protection aspects: seven out of eight Member States have restated the crucial role of the
precautionary principle; eight out of nine countries have made comments concerning Bt11 maize
which the European Food Safety Authority has ignored; eight out of nine countries have lamented the
insufficient scientific data on the environmental effects of maize 1570; critical comments made in
seven out of nine cases on monitoring plans have not been considered by the EFSA.

1.9

European legislation consistently aims to impose constant vigilance regarding the potential risk to
human health and the environment, and so an approach which bases the method of coexistence
exclusively on economic aspects appears contradictory.

The following illustrates the point:

1.10

The precautionary principle, as defined in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, provides the
basis for an operational analysis of risk, and can be invoked when danger threatens and scientific
knowledge is insufficient for a full a priori safety assessment to be made. (Judgment of the European
Court of Justice of 9 September 2003, case C-236/01.)

1.11

The precautionary principle has its origins in that of sustainable development.

1.12

The sustainable development principle can be defined as the interaction between human activity and
the global biophysical context; this relationship must be managed in such a way as to allow, on the
one hand, human progress and, on the other, the preservation of the global biophysical balance,
maintaining a proper equilibrium between the two.

1.13

It is worth briefly restating the definitions of these two principles, as they are essential to correct
implementation of coexistence between agricultural systems.

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/13

1.14

Taken together, the regulation on unique identifiers (5), the decision on registers (6), and the regulation
implementing Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provide for the correct empirical application of the
criterion of coexistence of agricultural systems and ensure transparency and traceability.

1.15

This legislation is complemented by the requirement of labelling and traceability of food and feed
which contain quantities of GMOs above the tolerance level as a result of technically unavoidable
contamination.

1.16 A precautionary approach, which is to include a careful assessment and monitoring of risks, is thus

to be taken before products obtained using GMOs are researched, produced and marketed.

1.17

The risk to human and animal health, as well as to the environment, is mentioned systematically in
the recitals of each piece of Community legislation.

1.18

The risks of accidental genetic contamination in agriculture and the economic impact of mixing of
GM and non-GM crops must be addressed and taken on board if new genetically modified products
are to be marketed in the Union.

1.19

To date, the Union has authorised and provided for the introduction of a small number of GMO vari-
eties in the Member States.

1.20

This has, in effect, lent legitimacy to the incremental entry of genetically modified crops into Europe
and provoked sharp criticism on the grounds that such crops are incompatible with other crops and
there is no proof that they are innocuous for the environment and the very varied genetic heritage
that it represents, and for human health.

1.21 Community legislation reflects concern at the risk of accidental contamination: the adventitious intro-
duction of GMOs into organic or conventional crops has been recognised as ‘technically unavoidable’,
in effect discounting the possibility of attaining zero tolerance.

1.22 Accidental contamination incurs additional costs for conventional and organic farmers in taking
appropriate measures to avoid contamination and the loss of organic status, the very essence of
which is purity of cultivation method and result.

1.23

The principle that every farmer is free to exercise economic initiative must be upheld, which includes
not only the freedom to choose the most economically viable system of production, but also the
need to keep the crops he chooses to produce separate in order to avoid mutual contamination.

1.24 At the same time, consumer choice must also be protected with regard to the product purchased,
whose integrity must be maintained not only when it is put on the market, but also in the preceding
phase of cultivation, by ensuring traceability and freedom from contamination in the systems of agri-
cultural production.

1.25 GMOs can only be grown or placed on the market in the Union if they are authorised and if health
and environmental aspects comply with Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the envir-
onment of genetically modified organisms and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modi-
fied food and feed.

1.26 Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC, as inserted via the amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003,
states that Member States may take appropriate national coexistence measures to prevent the unin-
tended presence of GMOs in other products, but does not make this compulsory.

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 65/2004 of 14 January 2004 establishing a system for the development and assignment

of unique identifiers for genetically modified organisms, OJ L 10 of 16.1.2004.

(6) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001.

C 57/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

1.27 Article 22 of the same directive prevents Member States from prohibiting, restricting or impeding the

placing on the market of authorised GMOs.

1.28

In its Recommendation 2003/556/EC of 23 July 2003, the Commission provides crucially important
guidelines. The recommendation's recitals:

a) specify that ‘Specific coexistence measures to protect the environment and the human health, if
needed, are included in the final consent of the authorisation procedure in accordance with Direc-
tive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, with a legal obligation for their
implementation’;

b) express misgivings about the risks involved in not implementing coexistence correctly, the poten-
tial economic loss, and the impact of admixture of GM and non-GM crops, and highlights the
value of adopting the most appropriate management measures to minimise admixture;

c) recommends that every Member State adopt ‘national strategies and best practices’ in line with the

specific agronomic characteristics of the areas concerned.

1.29

The ‘zero tolerance’ option is thus ruled out because it is not practicable; nevertheless, coexistence
must be implemented with due care, using ‘best practices’ in order to prevent ‘irreversible conse-
quences’.

adopted the following opinion at its 67th plenary session, held on 6 and 7 December 2006 (meeting
of 6 December):

2. The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

c. calls for a different monitoring system throughout product
introduction and marketing, with a dual monitoring proce-
dure and a reduction in the number of cases where the
‘simplified’ procedure under Directive 2001/18/EC is used.

2.1 Preliminary questions

Highlights the following issues which it considers preliminary
to a correct implementation of coexistence of farming systems
and protection of agricultural biodiversity:

2.1.1 Inadequate monitor ing

a. considers the current system of monitoring inadequate and
notes the outcome of the policy debate held in the Council
on 9 March 2006, during which the greater part of the
Member States called for improvement of
the system of
scientific assessment performed by EFSA in the procedures
for GMO authorisation, regretting the limited nature of EFSA
actions and the fact that its decisions often ignore the scien-
tific assessments of the Member States.

2.1.3 Inadequate seed discipline

a. maintains that setting a threshold for seeds is a crucial issue
in the debate and that coexistence of systems cannot work if
the seeds used are not pure;

b. at the same time, characterises coexistence as the method
which allows every type of farming to be respected and
which would be invalidated ab origine if impure seeds were
allowed to be introduced into cultivation.

2.1.4 Inadequate protection for

conventional

organic
threshold

farmin g

afforded

by

the

and
0.9 %

2.1.2 Inadequate r isk-assessment procedure

a. maintains that the 0.9 % reduces the purity of the organic

method;

a. stresses that the risk assessment provided for by Directive
2001/18/EC is carried out by the entity which wishes to
market the GM product, while the competent authorities of
the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) merely assess the accuracy of the data submitted;

b. calls for the procedure for amending or withdrawing author-
isation where risks arise to be made simpler and more
rigorous in order to prevent continuing deliberate release for
business or contained use while awaiting the withdrawal or
amendment of authorisation;

b. maintains, therefore, that if implementing zero tolerance is
impossible,
the percentage threshold for organic farming
must be very close to zero, reducing the presence of GMOs
to the level of the technically unavoidable by adopting appro-
priate measures to prevent accidental contamination;

c. considers that the 0.9 % threshold is also too high for
conventional
farming, since recurrent contamination year
after year can very quickly result in high pollution levels in
the environment and in the food production chain.

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/15

2.1.5 Inadequacy of the safeguard clause as the sole
remedial method in the event of r isks to health
or the environment:

considers that the only way of conducting a truly in-
2.2.9
depth and independent assessment of risks involved in culti-
vating a particular GMO is at local level and through specific
studies;

a. recalls that in Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC, European
legislation provides a safeguard clause as a preventive
method for directly applying the precautionary principle,
based on recitals 4, 5, 6, 8, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 56 of the
Directive's preamble;

b. regrets that the procedure is overly complicated and hopes
that the possibility of invoking the safeguard clause presently
enjoyed only by Member States can also be extended, using
domestic legislation, to local and regional authorities through
decentralisation or delegation;

c. points out that Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty would permit
further safeguard measures and regrets the Commission's
restrictive decision-making on measures taken by Member
States under this provision.

2.2 General comments on the Commission Communication

2.2.1
the Member States and the exchange of
pertaining to coexistence;

stresses the importance of close cooperation between
research findings

2.2.10
stresses the fact that many local and regional autho-
rities have come out against the growing of GM crops in their
territory, proclaimed themselves GMO-free areas and come
together to form networks, e.g. the network of 40 GMO-free
Individual regional authorities
regions and local authorities.
have even attempted to have their status as GMO-free areas
enshrined in law. The legality of such a step is currently the
subject of a dispute at the European Court of Justice between
the European Commission and the Land of Upper Austria.

2.3 Building on existing segregation methods/practices

2.3.1
lights the ‘limited practical experience with GM crops’;

the Commission's communication high-

notes that

stresses,

therefore,

2.3.2
there are no practices and
that
methods of segregation that have been approved without reser-
vation and which could be followed to ensure risk-free coexis-
tence.

2.2.2
considers it vital that coexistence measures maintain
the diversity of types and methods of agricultural production
and hence the freedom of choice for farmers and consumers;

2.4 Proportionality

2.2.3
stresses the need to provide full, objective information
regarding GMOs and coexistence to interested parties and the
public;

2.2.4
crops in the EU is very limited;

stresses the fact that experience of genetically modified

2.2.5
supports the Commission's intention to find out more
about national systems of responsibility and the bearing they
have on coexistence standards;

2.2.6
stresses the fact that in four Member States, regions
are also responsible for legislating on coexistence, while in other
cases regional and/or local authorities bear responsibility for
implementing coexistence measures;

recalls and endorses the view of

2.2.7
the European
Economic and Social Committee in its opinion on coexistence,
which stated that measures to protect nature conservation areas
in line with Directive 92/43/EEC on habitats, flora and fauna
and Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of birds, and other
ecologically sensitive areas, should be regulated at national and
local level;

out

points

2.4.1
that Commission Recommendation
2003/556/EC introduced the criterion of proportionality as a
principle under which coexistence measures must be efficient,
cost-effective and proportionate;

2.4.2
points out, however, that the purpose of the tolerance
thresholds imposed by legislation for ‘technically unavoidable’
contamination is merely to determine the point at which label-
ling becomes compulsory and not to establish a limit for coexis-
tence.

2.5 Appropriate scale

notes that, according to the report, the Member States'
2.5.1
approaches to coexistence have tended not to apply it at the
regional level, but on the smallest possible scale and, at most,
spanning neighbouring farms;

2.5.2
considers, therefore, that any idea of implementing
coexistence on the basis of measures that have not yet been
tested on a large scale or over an extended period is a distant
prospect;

2.2.8
stresses that public studies carried out in parts of
Lazio involved in GMO trials have shown that GMOs may
remain in the soil, especially in certain pedoclimatic conditions,
and may seep from the soil into water;

2.5.3
stresses that, in the light of current scientific knowl-
edge and the existing legislative framework, it is not the indivi-
dual farm but rather the region or local authority which is the
most appropriate level for the implementation of coexistence.

C 57/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

2.6 Liability rules

2.9 Seed purity standards

notes the Commission's

2.6.1
in many
Member States, the economic loss that may result from acci-
dental contamination by GMOs falls within the scope of civil
liability laws;

statement

that

stresses, nonetheless,

the only
2.6.2
approach they can take, as the recommendation gives each and
every Member State freedom of choice; and that criminal or
administrative sanctions can also be invoked;

is not

that

this

2.6.3
also notes that Directive 2001/18/EC stipulates that its
provisions are without prejudice to national legislation in the
field of environmental liability.

2.7 Monitoring and evaluation

2.7.1
highlights the fact that the Commission's recommen-
dation stated that the management measures and instruments
adopted on coexistence should be subject to ongoing moni-
toring and evaluation, and called on Member States to establish
adequate control and inspection systems;

2.7.2
notes that, as the Commission points out, given the
paucity of GM cultivation, many Member States have yet to put
together monitoring and evaluation programmes;

2.7.3
notes with some concern that in Member States where
there is a difference in market value between GM and non-GM
feed and/or where products protected on the grounds of their
typically local nature or origin are a source of national pride
and added value, the identification of GM and non-GM markets
would lead to a drop in consumer interest and hence in market
price, with possible adverse economic effects.

2.8 Organic crops

2.8.1
notes but disagrees with the fact that the thresholds
of adventitious presence enshrined in Community legislation
governing products containing GMOs are equally applicable to
conventional and organic produce;

2.8.2
stresses that a ban on using GMOs in organic farming
is implicit in the regulation on organic production and that, for
this reason, materials, including seeds, whose label indicates the
presence of GMOs cannot be used in the production process;

2.8.3
production;

adds that the Commission says nothing about organic

2.8.4
possible to zero tolerance in the case of organic production.

asserts the need to apply a threshold as close as

2.9.1
observes that seeds are a medium which, intentionally
or otherwise, spreads biotechnological innovation among crops
and in the environment and for this reason they are a key vari-
able in coexistence;

notes the position expressed by the European Parlia-
2.9.2
ment in Resolution 2003/2098 (INI) that information on the
presence of GMOs in seed is essential for proper implementa-
tion of Directive 2001/18/EC, particularly as regards monitoring
of the adverse effects of GMOs on human health and the envir-
onment, traceability and emergency measures.

2.10 Choice of measures

2.10.1
supports the need to identify the most appropriate
measures to ensure coexistence in which the risk is infinitesimal
or as low as possible;

2.10.2
separate cultivation which ontologically respect coexistence;

stresses that ‘best practices’ means those methods of

agrees with the observation that

2.10.3
there is limited
scientific knowledge and practical experience regarding identi-
fying and applying best practices and measures and that for this
reason measures should be limited and selective;

highlights the Commission's precise indication of the
2.10.4
measures to be adopted to prevent frustration of the precau-
tionary principle in implementing coexistence and infers that
the detailed action required could impede the implementation of
coexistence or make it so arduous and costly as to become
uneconomic;

2.10.5
recalls that in its abovementioned opinion on coexis-
tence, the European Economic and Social Committee recom-
mended that the growing of GM crops be banned when it
makes traditional production of plants of the same or related
cultures impossible or unduly difficult;

2.10.6
shares the position taken by the European Parliament
in Resolution 2003/2098 (INI), which states that a voluntary or
regionally restricted renunciation of GMO cultivation may be
the most effective and least costly measure for guaranteeing
coexistence;

considers the Commission's approach reticent when
2.10.7
compared with Recommendation 2003/556/EC, especially as
scientific research has produced very few new findings since
2003 and the body of evidence remains
therefore
considers it necessary to wait for more telling scientific results
in the medium and long term, since trials in many Member
States have stopped;

small;

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/17

underscores, in this context, the need for the Euro-
2.10.8
pean Commission to define special
instruments for funding
research in order to make it possible to assess the socio-
economic impact of GMOs at regional and local level;

supports the need for measures

to protect nature
3.2
conservation areas and other ecologically sensitive areas to be
regulated at national and local level, as stated by the European
Economic and Social Committee in its opinion on coexistence
(CESE 1656/2004);

2.10.9
stresses that, as homogeneous administrative areas,
local and regional authorities are the most appropriate level for
assessing the impact of the introduction of GM crops in each
territorial context, for devising coexistence measures compatible
with the principle of sustainable development and for recon-
ciling local interests and managing possible solutions.

2.11 Risk management

notes that, while authorised GMO products can only
2.11.1
be banned in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of
Directive 2001/18/EC or Article 95(4) and (5) of the EC Treaty,
they have to comply with the precautionary principles which
must guide the safe application of coexistence;

2.11.2
points out that when an environmental or health
risk is discovered after authorisation has been granted, a proce-
dure for withdrawing the authorisation or for modifying the
conditions for its issue can be initiated; and stresses that, given
the continuous progress in scientific research,
risk profiles
which are not scientifically proven today could be identified in
the future;

considers that the procedure for amending or with-
2.11.3
drawing authorisation where risks arise is
too long and
complex, and that the monitoring system in force is inadequate;
notes the dangers of continuing deliberate release for business
or contained use while awaiting the withdrawal or amendment
of authorisation;

highlights the tendency among some countries which
2.11.4
have been growing GM crops for a number of years to review
their positions with a view to restoring certain environments
and crops, which have been jeopardised by the presence of para-
sites displaying forms of resistance to genetic modifications.

3. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

3.1
requests that first and foremost, remedies be found to
the preliminary questions raised in point 2.1. The following
should be addressed as a first step towards correct implementa-
tion of coexistence between systems: new monitoring proce-
dures, risk assessment for health and the environment, seed
purity, extending the right to invoke the safeguard clause, the
that emerge from the
possibility of applying ‘best practices’
scientific research in the medium and long term, and the redefi-
nition of the percentage tolerance thresholds; until such time as
the abovementioned remedies come into effect,
the existing
bans on the use of particular GMO products, imposed by the
Member States in pursuance of the precautionary principle, will
remain in force;

3.3
considers that closer collaboration on coexistence is
needed between the EFSA and the relevant national authorities,
and asks the Commission to pursue the course it has already
embarked upon in this matter;

3.4
affirms the need for regional and local authorities to
play an active part in the consultation process on coexistence,
and asks the Commission to take greater and more systematic
account of the regional and local dimension in the report on
coexistence which it is to present in 2008;

3.5
requests to be involved in the drafting of Community
legislation that helps to address preliminary questions for coex-
istence implementation in order to arrive at independent but
coordinated standpoints and avoid the kind of glaring inconsis-
tency that can trigger abnormal flows of investment capital to
places where legislation is more permissive;

3.6
calls on Member States to draw up appropriate moni-
toring and evaluation programmes on management measures
and instruments to be adopted;

calls for the introduction of GMOs in a given area to be
3.7
preceded by concrete studies and invites the Commission and
the Member States to set out programmes and resources with a
view to giving the utmost technical and financial support to
scientific research, including at regional and local level;

3.8
underlines the need for national and regional legislation
on coexistence to refer explicitly to the precautionary principle;

requests the Commission, when drafting its own propo-

3.9
sals for legislation, to take appropriate account of:

a) the need to harmonise national or

indicators on
minimum segregation distances between systems, while
respecting the subsidiarity principle;

local

b) Community regulation of border areas and cross-border
imports, in keeping with the provisions of the Carthagena
Protocol;

c) the Community definition of uniform thresholds for conven-
tional farming below 0.9 % and as close as possible to zero
tolerance. For seeds and organic farming,
the threshold
should equate to zero;

and

economic

d) the fact that drawing up good practices and assessment of
scientific
segregation
data
measures and the production of crops and seed could be an
insurmountable obstacle — empirical rather than ideological
— to implementing coexistence of the different agricultural
systems: in certain conditions, coexistence is in fact unfea-
sible or uneconomic;

concerning

C 57/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

e) the fact that there are homogeneous administrative bodies
which have binding legislative powers throughout their own
territory and whose legislative autonomy is recognised either
by national law or constitutionally and that, by virtue of the
subsidiarity principle, the impossibility of their adhering to
safeguard measures and best practices should be recognised
and the possibility of achieving a GMO-free status must be
provided;

calls on the Member States and regions to ensure
3.10
cross-border cooperation with neighbouring areas to guarantee
the efficient
functioning of co-existence measures in border
parts;

in this context, recommends that the Commission set
3.11
up a website containing links to the existing national location
registers in Europe.

Brussels, 6 December 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The role of rural municipalities in the development of
Europe's regions

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(2007/C 57/04)

Having regard to its Bureau's decision of 25 April 2006, to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Devel-
opment (DEVE) to draw up an own-initiative opinion under the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community on ‘The role of rural municipalities in the development of Europe's
regions’,

Having regard to the 2006 work programme of the Commission for Sustainable Development (1), which
emphasises the role played by rural municipalities in maintaining a regional balance, diversifying economic
activities and ensuring public services, and which calls for particular attention to be paid to relations
between town and country,

Having regard to the Council of Europe's European Landscape Convention (2),

Having regard to the European Parliament's report on multifunctional farming and CAP reform of 22 May
2003 (3),

Having regard to the Salzburg Conference of November 2003,

Having regard to its opinion of 23 February 2005 on the Council's draft regulation on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005, on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (4),

Having regard to the Council's decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural
development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (2006/144/EC),

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Bridging the Broadband
Gap (5),

(1) CdR 54/2006.
(2) Florence, 20.10.2000, CETS No 176.
(3) EP 322.192 A5-0189/2003.
(4) CdR 255/2004.
(5) COM(2006) 129 final.