Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 2006 enlargement package — Integration capacity
Date: 2007-06-06
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: European integration, accession to the European Union, democratisation, enlargement of the Union, institutional reform, pre-accession strategy

24.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/7

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 2006 enlargement package — Integration capacity

(2007/C 197/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— considers that integration capacity is a condition to be taken into account in determining the pace of
the enlargement process, but not a pretext to block accession or an additional criterion; viewing it
rather as a vital factor for transparency affecting first of all the EU and subsequently the candidate
countries;

— believes that enlarging the EU primarily means sharing a common political project, based on values
and principles, as well as on common policies and institutions, and that integration capacity should
be seen as a means of upholding these principles and values, its policies and the way the Community
institutions work. So as not to water down the common political project, this project should be
strengthened by means of successive enlargements;

— recalls that as the EU becomes larger,

it must be able to retain its capacity for action and
decision-making by implementing effective common policies; it must therefore tie its enlargement
policy to its capacity to maintain its specific institutional, financial and political structure. Enlargement
must not cause this structure to be weakened, and its initial purpose and scope must not be endan-
gered;

— points out that in every single enlargement process — none of which are likely to go ahead against a
backdrop of the current Treaties (and in particular unless the Treaty of Nice is amended) or unchan-
ging financial perspectives — all the European institutions and bodies should be required to contri-
bute to the assessment of any modifications;

— considers it a positive step to bring it into the reform of the EU funding system, which is due to take
place in conjunction with the institutional reform process, and which cannot be detached from the
Union's enlargement policy. In this connection,
it restates its conviction that it is impossible to
achieve ‘more Europe’ with less resources, and reiterates that for the future financial structure it is
particularly important for resources to be concentrated on areas which create European added value.

C 197/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.8.2007

I. Policy recommendations

Communication from the Commission to the European Parlia-
ment and the Council — Enlargement Strategy and Main Chal-
lenges 2006 — 2007. Including annexed special report on the
EU's capacity to integrate new members

COM(2006) 649 final

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Integration capacity and regional and local authorities

1.
considers that integration capacity is a condition to be
taken into account in determining the pace of the enlargement
process, but not a pretext to block accession or an additional
criterion; viewing it rather as a vital factor for transparency,
affecting first of all the EU and subsequently the candidate coun-
tries;

2.
therefore agrees with the conclusions of the December
2006 European Council which sees integration capacity as one
of the keys to generating a renewed consensus among citizens
in favour of enlargement policy;

3.
recalls that the European Union's capacity to integrate new
Member States is reflected in particular in the Union's financial
capacity to implement its policies, especially the CAP and cohe-
sion policy or in the labour market's capacity to absorb new
workers from new Member States, and in the ability of the
Union's institutions to work effectively with a larger number of
Member States, as indicated by the Copenhagen European
Council;

4.
recalls that as the EU becomes larger, it must be able to
retain its capacity for action and decision-making by imple-
it must therefore tie its
menting effective common policies;
enlargement policy to its capacity to maintain its specific institu-
tional, financial and political structure. Enlargement must not
cause this structure to be weakened, and its initial purpose and
scope must not be endangered;

5.
believes that enlarging the EU primarily means sharing a
common political project, based on values and principles, as
well as on common policies and institutions, and that integra-
tion capacity should be seen as a means of upholding these
principles and values, its policies and the way the Community
institutions operate. So as not to water down the common poli-
tical project, this project should be strengthened by means of
successive enlargements;

6.
considers the current debate on integration capacity to
have come late in the day: it ought to have taken place during
the negotiations on Agenda 2000 and thereafter
in the
immediate run-up to each subsequent enlargement, as well as
during the negotiations on the financial perspective 2007-2013;

7.
notes the lack of balance in the way the Commission
document presents the debate on integration capacity, seeing it
as more of a responsibility for the applicant countries than for
the EU itself;

8.
points out that in every single enlargement process —
none of which are likely to go ahead against a backdrop of the
current Treaties (and in particular unless the Treaty of Nice is
amended) or unchanging financial perspectives — all the Euro-
pean institutions and bodies should be required to contribute to
the assessment of any modifications (in the area, for example, of
single market rules, the EU budget and finances or its institu-
tional arrangements)
that are needed to ensure its success.
Regional and local authorities, alongside national parliaments
and civil society, have an important role to play in this assess-
ment, in terms of social acceptance (society's capacity for inte-
grating new European citizens sharing the same values, produ-
cing a shared identity and common citizenship, aimed at
achieving an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe);

considers that the EU should be in a position to check
9.
whether or not integration capacity condition is being complied
with during the negotiations with a given applicant country,
and that this should take place in parallel with the monitoring
of compliance with the Copenhagen criteria for each individual
applicant country, and endorses the criticism levelled by the
European Parliament, which judged the Commission's response
to be inadequate as it fails to provide details of the current
negotiations from the integration capacity point of view, and
does not state the principles which should underpin such a defi-
nition.

expects the Commission, during the phase preceding the
10.
next enlargements, to analyse the impact of enlargement on the
different policies concerned and their financing, together with
the institutional structure of the Union; this exercise should also
contain an analysis of the various reform processes under way
in the applicant countries, concentrating especially on greater
public involvement in the accession process and on administra-
tive decentralisation;

11.
suggests that the institutions promote measures enabling
the public and the associations representing them publicly to
state and exchange their views on the integration process,

12.
against this backdrop, feels that a particular analysis of
the future of Cohesion Policy is essential, and emphasises the
value of providing simulations reflecting the various possible
enlargement scenarios; an integration capacity exercise of this
kind concerning one of Europe's most important policies from
the economic and political points of view, and in terms of the
visibility of European added value for citizens, must be carried
out in cooperation with it;

24.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/9

13.
is however aware of the difficulty of measuring integra-
tion capacity since is it by nature changing, since the means
provided by the Union to achieve its aims can change over the
years; asks therefore for a clearer definition of integration capa-
city and how it is to be measured;

enlargement policy. In this connection, it restates its conviction
that it is impossible to achieve ‘more Europe’ with less resources,
and reiterates that for the future financial structure it is particu-
larly important for resources to be concentrated on areas which
create European added value;

emphasises that regional and local authorities should be
14.
directly involved in assessing the impact of the individual poli-
cies which affect them whenever they are amended as a result of
enlargement. This is especially important for regions bordering
on candidate countries;

15.
backs the European Parliament's call to be allowed to
give its own assent, not only at the end of the negotiations, but
also before they commence;

recalls its decision to set up working groups (Western
16.
Balkans, Croatia and Turkey) as a practical means of assisting
regional and local authorities in the candidate countries with
their capacity-building efforts and of carrying forward the neces-
sary political dialogue between the EU and these countries; it
they will develop into Joint Consultative
also hopes
Committees, where envisaged in the various association agree-
ments, becoming a relay for the views of candidate country
regional and local authorities throughout the negotiating phase;

that

17.
emphasises that the integration capacity debate should
also serve to discuss and identify alternative ways ahead in the
event of a decision not to extend enlargement to a given candi-
date country or to other countries who have applied but whose
applications have been rejected, such as stepping up the Euro-
pean Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) or implementing a functional
approach (free trade or territorial cooperation,
for example)
potentially leading to differentiated forms of integration and/or
special partnerships. This does not concern the countries which
have currently been given the status of candidate and potential
candidate countries;

Institutional and financial reform

18.
agrees with the conclusions of the December 2006 Euro-
pean Council, and emphasises for its part that the institutional
issues must be resolved prior to any further enlargement and
before the European Parliament elections in 2009; it once again
calls for the reform process to find ways of making the EU's
decision-making procedures more efficient and, at the same
time, to boost participation by citizens and local and regional
authorities in the European legislative process, recognising the
potential of multi-level governance in an enlarged Europe;

considers it a positive step to bring the Committee of the
19.
Regions into the reform of the EU funding system, which is due
to take place in conjunction with the institutional
reform
process, and which cannot be detached from the Union's

Transparency and communication for public consensus

20.
welcomes the Commission's proposals on transparency
of accession negotiations with the applicant countries in order
the enlargement
to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of
process and to narrow the gap between the public and their
political leaders who are engaged in making choices on acces-
sion and enlargement, and considers it appropriate — with a
view to achieving this aim, and to enhancing the quality of the
negotiations — that civil society and the regional and local
authorities of
should be actively
involved in the various stages of the accession process, and that
the Committee of
the Regions should be involved in the
screening process for the chapters regarding cohesion policy
and decentralisation;

the candidate countries

points out that, in the interests of consistency with its
21.
approach of transparency and openness towards citizens, the
Commission should provide the text of its annual report on the
EU candidate and potential candidate countries in the languages
spoken by the people of these countries, thereby enhancing the
quality of the accession process by enabling citizens to take part
in the national debate on entry to the EU;

22.
in its
underlines moreover that the accession process,
present form, is generally imposed from above and is not neces-
sarily subject to the democratic control of the parliaments or
regional and local authorities of
the candidate countries,
the accession process, and that neither does it
throughout
directly involve citizens, political parties, civil society or local
and regional authorities. This state of affairs means that:

a) The quicker pace of modernisation and democratisation
imposed on candidate countries has not always been
matched by full support on the part of public opinion.

b) The changes have not always gone hand-in-hand with a
process of administrative decentralisation, which however
acts as a catalyst for generating both democratisation and
consensus.

c) The internal political and social reforms required by enlarge-
ment policy are applied to administrative structures, both
national and regional or local, which are generally weak, and
which should be able to benefit from the know-how of other
European administrations, and respect
for diversity and
subsidiarity;

C 197/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.8.2007

believes therefore that it is helpful to propose a more
23.
in part through twinning, which has
participatory approach,
proved crucial
in getting populations to know one another,
helping applicant country authorities to implement anti-corrup-
tion measures in their public administrations, and prompting
local, regional and national governments to carry out the neces-
sary administrative and judicial reforms;

supports

the approach underlined by the European
24.
Parliament and the European Commission concerning the role
played by regional and local authorities in communication, a
policy which should be more fully decentralised and opened up
to contributions from civil society in order to generate a public
opinion consensus in both the Member States and applicant
countries, by striving to help boost transparency and responsi-

bility in the enlargement process, making this process a shared
one as far as possible; it therefore endorses the Commission's
proposals, at the same time feeling that the Commission should
not shed its political responsibilities towards the communication
policy on enlargement. It therefore calls upon the Commission
to urge regional and local authorities to adopt the tools they
need to make a success of this joint effort;

calls upon the EU budget authority to make a financial
25.
contribution to the efforts that the regional and local authorities
of EU applicant countries will have to make, providing funds for
information campaigns on enlargement at regional and local
level, and to give support to the regional and local authorities
of the Member States and applicant countries in conveying the
European message.

Brussels, 6 June 2007.

II. Procedure

Title

References

Legal basis

Procedural basis

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council — Enlargement Strategy and
Main Challenges 2006-2007 Including annexed special
report on the EU's capacity to integrate new members

COM(2006) 649 final

First paragraph of Article 265 of the EC Treaty

Date of Commission referral

8.11.2006

Date of Bureau decision

25.4.2006

Commission responsible

Commission for External Relations and Decentralised Coo-
peration (RELEX)

Rapporteur

Mr Isidoro Gottardo (IT/EPP), Member of the municipal
council of Sacile (PN)

Explanatory memorandum

Discussed in commission

7.12.2006

25.1.2007

Date adopted by commission

29.3.2007

24.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/11

Result of the vote in commission

Adopted by a majority

Date adopted in plenary

6.6.2007

Previous Committee opinions

(1) OJ C 51, 6.3.2007, p. 16.
(2) OJ C 206, 29.8.2006, p. 23.
(3) OJ C 81, 4.4.2006, p. 42.
(4) OJ C 31, 7.2.2006, p. 11.

CdR 115/2006 fin (1), Opinion on the Communication
from the Commission: The Western Balkans on the road to
the
prosperity,
stability
COM(2006) 27 final. Rapporteur: Mr Schausberger
(AT/EPP), adopted in CoR Plenary 11.10.2006

consolidating

raising

EU:

and

CdR 50/2006 fin (2), Opinion on the Communication from
the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of
the Regions on Civil Society Dialogue between the EU and
Candidate Countries, COM(2005) 290 final. Rapporteur:
Mr Gottardo (IT/EPP), adopted in CoR Plenary 27.4.2006

CdR 499/2004 fin (3), Opinion on the Proposal for a Council
Decision on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in
the European Partnership with Croatia, COM(2004) 275 final.
Rapporteur: Mr Gottardo (IT/EPP), adopted in CoR Plenary
13.10.2005

CdR 495/2004 fin (4), Opinion on the Recommendation of
the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession,
COM(2004) 656 final. Rapporteur: Ms Lund (DK/PES),
adopted in CoR Plenary 6.7.2005