Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — new European Neighbourhood Policy
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Commission for Citizenship, Governance, Institutional and External Affairs, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, European neighbourhood policy, Mediterranean third countries, democracy, economic development, economic reform, political reform, regional and local authorities, regional cooperation








C_2015313EN.01002501.xml










22.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/25





Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — new European Neighbourhood Policy
(2015/C 313/07)












Rapporteur-General:



Nikolaos CHIOTAKIS (Greece/EPP), Member of Kifissia Municipal Council





Reference document:



Joint consultation paper ‘Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy’
JOIN(2015) 6 final








I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Preliminary remarks









1.


recalls that European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was developed in 2003 (1) to strengthen relations between the EU and its neighbouring countries. A cornerstone of this policy is progressive integration through the implementation of political, economic and institutional reforms, bearing in mind the commitment to shared values, foremost among those being democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, non-discrimination and gender equality;












2.


notes that, to date, ENP has revolved around three main pillars: (a) building democracy, (b) promoting economic development; and (c) strengthening the neighbourhood’s two regional dimensions (the Union for the Mediterranean (2) and the Eastern Partnership (3)). The multiannual implementation of ENP has made a positive contribution to promoting the objectives set. The EU’s relations with the ENP partners have developed significantly although to very different degrees. It is therefore essential to continue adapting the policy to the constantly changing international environment, so as to respond to the new needs that are continually arising;












3.


notes that, whilst the outermost regions (ORs) form the EU’s most remote sea borders, and the European Commission itself recognises their role as ‘outposts’ of Europe in other continents, the ENP has from the outset been designed in such a way which ignores this fact, reflecting it neither in its initial design nor in its subsequent updates;





General comments









4.


takes as a starting point the observation that although at first glance ENP may seem to fall almost exclusively within the competence of national governments, local and regional authorities (LRAs) and their cooperation networks (associations and networks of cities, European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation) do play an important role in this area. Consequently, ENP cannot simply be a process between governments and EU institutions, but should also provide for the participation of other players from the partner countries, and LRAs in particular. It also draws particular attention to city diplomacy as a mechanism for supporting dialogue between local and regional bodies on the international stage that contributes to creating a common area of stability, security and prosperity;












5.


would stress that LRAs need to be involved in all phases of ENP: in setting priorities, evaluating outcomes, and auditing the content of government policies. There are a number of reasons for which ENP cannot be based solely on cooperation with ENP partner governments:






—


partner countries in the east and the south do not necessarily have governments committed to EU values and standards,










—


governments from these countries are not always sufficiently stable, and continuity could be jeopardised by frequent changes in the composition of those in power,










—


in order for the process of helping these countries assimilate EU values to succeed (including real progress in deepening democracy and developing effective regional partnerships within ENP), a significant part of society must have ownership of it;
















6.


argues that it is very important to include local and regional levels of government in the EU’s actions with regard to the ENP region, since democracy-building and democratic transition begin first and foremost at grassroots level and cannot be imposed from above. For democracy to be stable and deeply rooted, it is vital that it be embraced by the local community as a whole. This task should involve all layers of governance, in a transparent manner, starting with municipalities and local authorities;












7.


believes that civil society institutions, business and researchers should also be involved in implementing ENP. The participation of these entities has a significant impact on identifying local needs, building strong partnerships and achieving common objectives;












8.


welcomes the EU’s efforts to support the establishment of lasting political and administrative structures and considers that these efforts should include supporting local institution-building by providing for effective technical assistance and training for local and regional administrations, with a view to making efficient use of humanitarian aid and existing and future financial instruments for fostering social, economic and territorial development;












9.


points out that the CoR is investing a lot of effort and resources in the development of the local and regional dimension of ENP. In 2010 it established the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), and in 2011 it set up the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (Corleap). The purpose of these institutions is first to disseminate the concepts that will bring the ENP partner countries closer to the EU and second to foster internal reform and capacity building at local and regional level;





Priorities









10.


deems it essential that the EU continue to be the primary strategic partner for the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean and Eastern Partnership countries. The EU must be capable of helping its neighbouring countries to set a clear path towards a prosperous future and to lay the foundations for better governance, whilst respecting their national sovereignty;












11.


considers the European Commission’s intention to promote sub-regional cooperation as a means of developing economic links to be very welcome and important, as this in itself would help significantly to increase prosperity in these regions. Both ARLEM and Corleap are initiatives that bring the EU into contact with the southern and eastern partners respectively, and thus help to improve regional cooperation;





Flexibility and adaptability









12.


notes that it is widely agreed that the most successful neighbourhood policy has been enlargement policy. By offering ‘everything including institutions’ to countries in central and eastern Europe, the EU acted as a catalyst for change and a setter of standards. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the prospect of EU membership is not open to the Mediterranean partner countries of ENP;












13.


would stress that EU enlargement and ENP are two distinct policies with different objectives and should not be confused. Nevertheless, European countries that are ENP partners can seek membership providing they fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 49 of the EU Treaty;












14.


in this sense, believes it would be useful to begin a debate on relationship formats that would go beyond those currently offered by the ENP;












15.


considers that the principle of conditionality and, in particular, the ‘more for more’ principle, although emphasising the EU’s commitment to its core values, have not always made a positive contribution to creating the conditions for evenly balanced relations between the EU and its ENP partners. Furthermore, in many cases they have not helped to provide incentives for reform in the EU’s neighbourhood. As a result, a more flexible approach would facilitate not only the more effective implementation of ENP, but ultimately the promotion of the EU’s fundamental principles among ENP partners;












16.


considers that, in order for ENP to be more effective, the approach taken should be tailored to the specific nature of each partner country. Each ENP partner is distinct and should be treated as such, i.e. applying the principle of differentiation. The new ENP, without violating the general principles of the EU, should have the necessary flexibility to maximise the benefits of its implementation. Every partner country should be given the possibility to develop its relations with the EU it its own way, in accordance with its own needs and capacities. This does not imply the adoption of double standards, nor does it negate the unified nature of ENP, by which means the EU has succeeded in taking a coherent approach to all its ENP partners. This variable geometry approach to relations between the EU and its neighbours should be applied to ORs in a way that guarantees effective cooperation between these regions and their neighbours;












17.


recommends systematic analysis of EU visa policy which should make the visa process easier for citizens of ENP countries while taking into account the individual situations of the countries concerned. Flexible European visa policy will facilitate dialogue between societies and lay the groundwork for strong partnerships and developing different levels of cooperation in different areas;












18.


welcomes the idea of focusing the areas of cooperation set in the Action Plans to the ones with the strongest common interest in order to be more effective;





Objectives and areas of cooperation









19.


considers that the new ENP should set specific objectives and offer its partners a clear time-frame for implementation of its policies. The new ENP will have little or no impact if there are no concrete benefits for particular stakeholders or if those benefits are only likely to emerge in the distant future;












20.


considers close cooperation on energy issues to be a significant part of the EU’s relations with its neighbours. Many ENP partners are significant suppliers of energy sources in the EU Member States. This cooperation should be established and encouraged still further to serve the mutual interests of all parties;












21.


considers that a better transport connectivity of these countries with the EU and among them could help the economic development of the whole region;












22.


is of the opinion that the development and support of independent civil society structures should be a key part of the ENP. Cooperation with partners such as the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum or the European Endowment for Democracy provide important instruments to also promote democratic civil society forces at local and regional level in the future;












23.


considers an important area of ENP to be close coordination of the measures taken by the EU and its neighbours on migration issues. When it takes place in an organised manner and is favourable to the younger generations, the mobility of students, workers and public officials alike from non-EU States to EU Member States has a positive impact, not only in areas such as education and cultural exchanges, but also on the public administration. On the other hand, irregular migratory flows, which have increased sharply in recent times, present new challenges and opportunities, which must be properly managed;












24.


considers it of great importance to increase the engagement of young people and empowerment of women as key factors to develop these countries;












25.


notes that the EU’s engagement with its neighbours on security is of paramount importance. Joining forces to counter terrorism and other asymmetric threats is essential in order to consolidate mutual trust and create an environment of peace and stability;












26.


considers public administration reform, with a view to creating a transparent system free from more or less hidden forms of corruption, to be a very important aspect of cooperation between local and regional bodies and ENP partners;












27.


in the context of the abovementioned areas of cooperation between the EU and its neighbours, believes that the special role of EU border regions on the sensitive southern and eastern borders of the EU should be strengthened and recommends that they receive special support under ENP;












28.


emphasises that supporting democratic processes, respecting human and civil rights, the rule of law and the process of systemic/economic transformation in individual countries is an important area for ENP. The CoR welcomes the support that EU regions have so far provided to countries covered by ENP and calls for further work to be carried out in this field;





The regional dimension of European Neighbourhood Policy









29.


considers that the process of constitutional and public administration reform under way in ENP partner countries could pave the way for the gradual development of democracy, based on a legislative framework that recognises democratic principles, standards and values. This process should lead to decentralisation with a view to guaranteeing effective and appropriate governance to respond to local challenges and specific circumstances in the light of the principle of subsidiarity. The CoR therefore believes it to be particularly important that the ENP supports decentralisation processes actively and serves as a useful tool for promoting reform processes;












30.


to this end, it would be worthwhile providing for a detailed assessment to be made of the feasibility of incorporating the methodologies, concepts and instruments of European cohesion policy into the new ENP, and of including Mediterranean countries in European structural policies and programmes on a progressive basis following the example of what is being carried out for the Eastern Partnership countries. Initiatives such as the AMICI (the Southern Mediterranean Investment Coordination initiative) for Mediterranean countries and the Covenant of Mayors — East for Eastern Partnership countries will certainly contribute positively towards development and investment cooperation and for that reason it is crucial that it be made a priority;












31.


notes that as a complement to cohesion policy, it would be equally worthwhile applying to the Mediterranean basin the macro-regional approach that the EU has successfully implemented in other regions that share a common geography, such as the Baltic and Danube macro-regions, or that it is implementing in the Adriatic-Ionian region. This approach could be introduced gradually, through three separate macro-regions for the Mediterranean, including the Adriatic-Ionian strategy, a western Mediterranean strategy and an eastern Mediterranean strategy. An alternative approach would be to encourage the gradual involvement of the countries and territories of the whole area within one growing macro-region. This approach would avoid fragmentation of the region into sub-regions. The task of coordinating such a project could be given to European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation operating in the Mediterranean region, which are the optimum resource available for ensuring stable, long-term cooperation between local and regional authorities in EU and non-EU countries;












32.


considers that it could and should play a decisive role in the context of certain regional initiatives involving Russia and Turkey. The challenge for the Committee would be to push for tangible results that citizens could see. Practical and project-based involvement of Russia and Turkey in cross-border cooperation would make a major contribution to the ENP; in this sense, the review of the Black Sea Synergy initiative could also include LRAs;












33.


strongly believes that the local border traffic (LBT) mechanism provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council has been an effective tool for developing cooperation between the EU and its neighbouring countries and contributes positively to achieving the pursued objectives, such as bringing partners closer in economic, social and civic life. In light of the above, the LBT mechanism should be used on a greater scale to achieve the ENP objectives in the future;












34.


would underline that many of the challenges that need to be tackled by the EU and its neighbours together cannot be addressed without taking into account, or in some cases cooperating with, the neighbours of the neighbours. However, the EU’s relations with its ENP partners must not be adversely affected those countries’ relations with their neighbours;





The role of local and regional authorities









35.


shows its surprise that the paper (4) makes no reference to the role of cities and regions in the neighbourhood policy;












36.


stresses that LRAs are crucial to the success of the ENP and especially in the case of border regions, the role of which should be recognised. Consequently, the inclusion of the concepts of decentralisation and the territorial dimension within the new ENP will make it more attractive and increase its effectiveness;












37.


points out that the role of LRAs in the action plans developed in the framework of the bilateral component of the southern and eastern ENP should be strengthened, in order to promote, within those national action plans, the distribution of assistance on the basis not only of a sectorial approach, but also a territorial approach;












38.


considers that regional ENP programmes and territorial cooperation should be reinforced and that LRAs should be given genuine opportunities to implement the programmes and priorities defined jointly with ARLEM and Corleap, and to participate in their planning and management;












39.


welcomes the reference in the Joint Declaration of the Eastern Partnership Summit (21-22 May 2015, Riga) to steps taken by Corleap at local and regional level and the appeal to the European Commission to ensure appropriate, targeted support to local and regional authorities to support their role in promoting Eastern Partnership objectives;












40.


is of the opinion that, as a rule, in the EU neighbourhood countries, LRAs do not play key roles in local decision-making or service delivery and do not have significant autonomy from central government powers. Nonetheless, they contribute additional knowledge, resources and expertise to central governments’ activities. LRAs can act as catalysts for change, conflict prevention, decentralisation and confidence-building in external relations. In this light, efforts should focus on a specific number of topics that are of real practical interest to cities and regions across the whole neighbourhood and then on ways to develop practical initiatives with authorities to take them forward;





The role of the Committee of the Regions









41.


would stress that as a political institution, the CoR should facilitate and promote confidence-building and low-profile cooperation at grassroots level with politicians who share European values and respect freedom of speech and the rule of law. This is equally true in the east and the south;












42.


considers that against this backdrop, efforts should be made to link up and twin with cities and regions whose representatives are involved in ARLEM and, in future, in Corleap. It would also be worthwhile for the European Commission to cooperate jointly with ARLEM and Corleap and support their work, not least in terms of financing. To this end, the CoR would recommend extending twinning and TAIEX (Technical Assistance and Information Exchange Programme) projects between LRAs in the EU and ENP states. This is of profound importance not only for improving governance across the ENP states, but also as a good way of inculcating a sense of the importance of EU multilevel governance structures in the ENP countries. Underlines the importance of the institutional reinforcement of local authorities, reiterating the call to the European Commission to extend the scope of the Local Administration Facility (LAF) to the neighbourhood;












43.


would stress that special attention must be given to improving the administrative capacity of government within ENP countries, placing a special emphasis on the local and regional dimensions. The CoR, its members and its associated authorities, along with national associations, are prepared to play a role in the comprehensive institution-building programme which is proposed by the European Commission and Member States to help build up local and regional administrative capacity within ENP countries;












44.


considers that the EU’s efforts to support the establishment of lasting political and administrative structures should include supporting local institution-building by providing for effective technical assistance and training for local and regional administrations, focusing particularly on new generations, with a view to making efficient use of existing and future financial instruments to foster social, economic and territorial development;












45.


as a practical measure, calls on the European External Action Service to strengthen cooperation efforts between, on the one hand EU delegations in the ENP countries, and on the other hand the existing and future public structures in the EU and partner countries, such as the national contact points and branch offices of the cross-border cooperation programmes, the experience of which should be optimised and expanded. Enhanced cooperation will facilitate the information process for territorial organisations and local and regional authorities in the EU and ENP countries on the one hand as regards the role of the ENP and how it works, and on the other with regard to funding opportunities. Moreover, those involved could also help to transmit important CoR messages to the relevant counterparts in the ENP countries;












46.


highlights the fact, lastly, that the CoR also has an important political mission as an observer of local and regional elections in the partner countries. The CoR is the only EU body that observes local and regional elections on a regular basis. Consequently, an enhanced role for the CoR in the new ENP is needed in order to promote the principles of democracy that are the cornerstone of our shared European values.





Brussels, 9 July 2015


The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Markku MARKKULA




(1)  COM(2003) 104 final, 11.3.2003.

(2)  Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia.

(3)  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine.

(4)  Joint consultation paper ‘Towards a new European Neighbourhood Policy’ JOIN (2015) 6 final.