Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Action Plan for a Maritime Strategy in the Atlantic Area — Delivering Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
Date: 2017-12-01
Institutions: Commission for Natural Resources, European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU programme, coastal region, common fisheries policy, exploitation of the seas, regional cooperation, regional development, regional integration, shipping policy, sustainable development








C_2018164EN.01007701.xml










8.5.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/77





Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions — Action Plan for a Maritime Strategy in the Atlantic Area — Delivering Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
(2018/C 164/13)












Rapporteur:



Jerry LUNDY (IE/ALDE), Member of Sligo County Council





Reference document:



Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Action Plan for a Maritime Strategy in the Atlantic area — Delivering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
COM(2013) 279 final









POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS








1.


Welcomes the mid-term review of the Action Plan for the Atlantic Strategy as proposed by the European Commission to be completed before the end of 2017 and that the Committee was consulted by the European Commission with a request to adopt an opinion on the mid-term review, which will feed into the overall review to be discussed by Member States and regions;












2.


Notes the Committee’s previous work on topics relating to the Blue Economy (including, NAT-VI-018; NAT-VI-019; NAT-V-21, NAT-V-44 and COTER-VI-022) (1);












3.


Notes that the challenges facing the Atlantic regions and nations can be dealt with more efficiently and deliver more concrete results under the umbrella of an action plan and Member States and regions can achieve more concrete results by closer cooperation;












4.


Recognises that the Action Plan can ensure that different EU policies and funding instruments can have a greater impact when more closely aligned but notes that when EU funding instruments are implemented through national instruments and or regional programmes, the role of the national and regional decision makers is pivotal;












5.


Notes the fragile nature of many coastal communities in the Atlantic area and the necessity to do more to attract investment and private sector activity especially in the blue economy in order to contribute to the sustainable development of these areas;












6.


Considers the effective use of EU Structural and Investment funds (ESIF) as crucial to achieving the objectives of the strategy but notes with concern that no proper mechanism currently exists to measure the impact of the blue economy in these areas (2);












7.


Recognises that in adopting an ecosystem approach and in adopting the Marine Spatial Planning Directive, authorities must now take full account of all activities when allocating space in their waters but notes that the relevant plans may not be finally adopted until March 2021. The greatest contribution this requirement has made to date has been to facilitate offshore wind production. Moreover, the Committee notes the contribution that various Interreg Programmes have made to this process and the support given by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to cross-border projects between 2014-2016 to assist in the maritime planning process;












8.


Notes the actions taken under the European Commission’s Leadership 2020 initiative to match available skills to labour market demand especially in shipbuilding, offshore renewables and new innovative maritime skills are beginning to bear fruit. Notes also that in addition, the innovation and partnership angle is being tackled by Horizon 2020 but supports the call by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) to increase the budget for the EMFF call for Blue Careers in Europe projects which considers the training needs across Europe’s sea basins, especially for occupations connected with the maritime and fisheries sector, which are suffering a serious generational renewal problem;












9.


Agrees with the view expressed in the Commission document ‘Report of the Blue Growth Strategy — Towards more sustainable growth and jobs in the blue economy SWD(2017) 128 Final’ that Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KIC) have the potential to allow innovative products and services to be developed but notes that there is, as yet, no KIC specifically dealing with maritime and marine issues. Therefore reiterates its call for the creation of a specific KIC for the Blue Economy as a further measure for the development of skills and the transfer of ideas from marine research to the private sector (3);












10.


Emphasises the potential for marine technology to provide new jobs and additional income streams and the capacity of the sector to grow in areas such as renewable energy and demonstration of marine technologies but equally recognises the potential risk involved with this type of investment and the fact that the lack of knowledge and relevant data make entry to this sector more difficult. The Committee supports the prioritisation under Horizon 2020 of calls specifically targeted at blue growth but recognises that greater efforts have to be made to facilitate access to finance for innovative businesses and initiatives in this area;












11.


Points to the importance of recognising the fact that maritime and fisheries activities in the Atlantic continue to safeguard economic and social potential, of recognising their importance, and of recognising that catch-related activities are progressively adapting to environmental sustainability. Similarly, emphasises that they can contribute to redistributing wealth and creating social cohesion, and to the industry’s potential to process and market marine products in order to obtain added value and maintain their key role in supplying high-quality foodstuffs;












12.


Is concerned that the management measures taken to maintain vulnerable ecosystems by the EU, especially deep-sea fisheries, have had a mixed result to date and that the deadline for reporting good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is approaching;












13.


Recognises the progress that has been made in responding to threats and emergencies, especially the adoption of the Copernicus Programme in 2014, which has provided more stable data for measuring surface ocean temperature and also a more effective operational baseline ocean forecasting service. In addition, seabed mapping has been the most concrete cooperation outcome arising to date from the 2013 Galway Statement’s launch of a Transatlantic Ocean Research Alliance between the EU, USA and Canada;





The importance of data for the methodological development of the Blue Economy at the local and regional level









14.


Notes that the impact of the blue economy at the regional and local level has not been measured to its full extent so far, as a system of indicators based on reliable data, measuring the precise effect of activities directly or indirectly relying on the sea, has yet to be developed; this will require significant cooperation between the European Commission and the various Member States (4). In this respect, the CoR notes the work of the COTER Commission in relation to the proposed amendments to the NUTS Regulation, specifically in calling for future territorial typologies to include ‘coastal’ and ‘island’ types. This would facilitate developing appropriate indicators (beyond GDP) for measuring blue economic activity;












15.


Recommends, due to the complexity and extent of resources required to methodologically develop the blue economy at local and regional level, that existing regional strategies for smart specialisation should be used as the basis by which to identify further opportunities in the Blue Economy sectors. Together with targeted impact exercises, such strategies would help LRAs identify the most suitable sectors to pursue;





Smarter Deployment of Funding Instruments









16.


Invites Member States to continue to integrate the objectives of the AAP in their respective ERDF Operational Programmes; the success of the Atlantic Strategy and Action Plan depend entirely on the commitment of the Atlantic Member States to coordinate their efforts for the areas of cooperation defined in the Action Plan;












17.


Agrees with the following observation in the Commission Staff Working Document ‘Report on the Blue Growth Strategy Towards more sustainable growth and jobs in the blue economy’ SWD(2017) 128 final:
‘it generally seems that relatively little funding has been specifically earmarked for the priorities of the Atlantic Strategy in the different Operational Programmes of these funds, while considerable funding might potentially be available for actions and priorities that are not specific to the maritime sector. Herein lies a major challenge for national and regional Managing Authorities. In contrast funding from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund has been targeted at the objective of the Atlantic Strategy’;












18.


Argues that, for credibility, a common strategy for the development of Europe’s Atlantic Ocean area and the Atlantic regions merits a dedicated funding instrument; the provision of an adequate fund to enable implementation of the Action Plan should be part of the discussion on the multi-annual financial framework which will be the basis for the implementation of the objectives of the EU beyond 2020; the integration of the objectives of the Atlantic Action Plan and strategy in the MFF is particularly relevant having regard to the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and the negative impact this will have on the overall EU budget;












19.


In this context echoes the COR’s Opinion on the Future of Cohesion Policy beyond 2020 in noting that macro-regional and maritime strategies for the participating regions and those who live there constitute significant added value, provided that existing and future funding tools can be used for the strategies in a coordinated way;












20.


Restates the proposal made in opinion NAT-VI/019 to establish regional or inter-regional blue economy platforms and points out that several Atlantic regions could be good candidates for setting up such a platform, which would provide a mechanism for identifying projects, providing support for their implementation, and mobilising local, national and European financial tools. Such platforms would be managed by the regions and their selected projects would be financed under the Juncker Plan 2.0;












21.


Calls upon the European Commission and the Member States to pursue further improvement of coordination, monitoring and support for projects and exchange of best practices taking into account the successful examples delivered so far by the Atlantic Strategy;












22.


Reiterates that Cohesion Policy, through the ERDF and the ESF, has been the most important investment tool in the EU in the current programming period, and that maximising the use of these resources together with available funding opportunities through the EMFF and EAFRD will be essential for the future success of projects under the umbrella of the Atlantic Strategy; further simplification of the management and administration of ESI Funds will further boost the capacity of local communities to avail of funding for local projects;












23.


Notes that in the current programming period many of the related Operational Programmes experienced significant launching delays; the CoR calls upon the Member States and the European Commission to develop their proposals for post-2020 as early as possible in order to allow a smooth transition between programming periods;












24.


Calls for interregional, national and transnational projects that are consistent with the sea basin strategies and the S3 to be eligible for financing through the pooling of regional, national and European funds within a simplified framework and to qualify for a community bonus, without the need for new calls for projects;












25.


Calls upon the European Commission and Member States to develop and deploy, particularly where not already the case, appropriate place-based and bottom-up strategies for regional smart specialisation; such strategies should build the foundations for future spending and focus on the strengths and the specific attributes of each region; the successful implementation of regional smart specialisation strategies, reflecting economic realities on the ground, would serve to increase the absorption rate of available funding in the regions;












26.


In view of the fact that both national and European funding represent public expenditure, calls upon the Member States and the Commission to jointly improve the quality of reporting and feedback on the projects under the umbrella of the Action Plan and to develop the Assistance Mechanism as a tool providing a transparent overview of successful initiatives and available funding opportunities;












27.


With regard to regional smart specialisation, calls upon the Commission and Member States to further improve the thematic component of the deployed policies (as opposed to geographic), as a means to strengthen common European values and goals;





Community-led local development (CLLD)









28.


Underlines the importance of maintaining and expanding the community-led local development approach (CLLD) as this instrument of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) can be shown to represent one of the most effective ways for communities to obtain EU funding for their own local projects. CLLD support is particularly important for more remote and peripheral regions, including smaller coastal communities, regions and islands with limited alternative access to finance;












29.


Suggests that the local communities of islands and coastal regions should be able to make use of all EU funds, including the EMFF, to finance their maritime development strategies within a single framework, based on the model of the Leader programme and of CLLD;












30.


Appeals to the budgetary authority to use existing flexibility in ESI funding to provide for gradual increases of available CLLD funding within the EMFF for the benefit of European coastal communities;





The Assistance Mechanism for the Atlantic Strategy and Action Plan









31.


Notes that the structure of the assistance mechanism (5), with national units and a central office in Brussels, is well-adjusted to the communication needs of the Atlantic Action Plan, although the task of disseminating and publicising the Plan will need to be supported, as will its function in terms of providing advice, coordination and assistance;












32.


Supports the continuation of the assistance mechanism for the Atlantic Strategy as currently it is the only dedicated budget line provided for the oversight and implementation of the Atlantic Action Plan;












33.


Requests the European Commission to assure a longer-term solution for the assistance mechanism to ensure continuity in its operations;












34.


Encourages the national units to work as closely as possible with national and regional Managing Authorities to ensure the opportunities available under the various funding instruments are clearly explained to potential beneficiaries;





The consequences of the decision, following the referendum of 23 June 2016, of the UK to invoke Article 50 of the TEU and to leave the EU on funding opportunities and structure of the MFF beyond 2020









35.


Notes that, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations with the United Kingdom, the EU is losing one of its five Atlantic Member States, a major maritime nation and one of the countries with the biggest level of investments in the fields of marine economy and research; moreover, the UK is one of the EU’s leading exporters of seafood;












36.


Notes that the United Kingdom is one of the key contributors to the EU budget, and its disappearance from the balance sheet of the EU will require the detailed examination of all available options regarding the future financing of Cohesion Policy;












37.


Underlines that the practical impacts of ‘Brexit’ may coincide with the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) as of 2021, and asks the budgetary authority to consider the allocation of adequate financial means for policies that are currently not regarded as first priority such as the development of the blue economy;












38.


Reiterates its call as presented in the opinion on The Future of Cohesion Policy beyond 2020 for the UK and the EU to agree that UK regions and local authorities be allowed to continue in European territorial Cooperation and other EU wide programmes similar to the participation of non–EU Member States such as Norway and Iceland;












39.


The outcome of the Brexit negotiations will need to be considered and addressed as regards the potential impact on the future of the Atlantic Maritime Strategy and Action Plan. Emphasises that, in the context of Brexit, it now becomes more important for remaining EU Atlantic Member States to prioritise closer cooperation and integration of activities in the maritime domain in order to overcome the resulting gap in science and innovation, surveillance, defence, ocean energy and maritime investments in general that the loss of the UK through Brexit may entail;












40.


Is alarmed at the potential consequences for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the UK exit especially in access to UK waters with a particular impact on the fishing sectors of neighbouring countries. This could lead to reduced catches with a consequent reduction in employment in an already fragile sector in addition to distorted competition in areas such as quotas, discard bans, maximum days at sea, state aid rules for the sector and the maintenance of biodiversity (6);





Territorial Cooperation Programmes









41.


Notes the important role that territorial cooperation programmes can play in furthering the objectives of the Atlantic Strategy which includes a focus on cooperation between regions to further enhance the Atlantic space in line with the terms of the strategy;












42.


Considers that the points 27-30 made in Opinion NAT-V-021 (2012) still remain relevant especially the role that the ten Programmes that operate in the functional area can potentially play;












43.


Notes, in particular, the potential crucial role of the Atlantic Area Cooperation programme given its focus on maritime issues and its geographical spread across the Atlantic space;












44.


Agrees with the points raised by the Atlantic Arc Commission of CPMR in its final declaration at its 2017 General Assembly in Les Sables d’Olonne (3 March 2017), especially relating to simplification measures as part of the midterm review and more flexible finance rates (5 % bonus) to encourage projects addressing issues relevant to the Atlantic Strategy;





Brussels, 1 December 2017.


The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ




(1)  Previous opinions by the COR:
CDR 6621/2016 NAT-VI-018 ‘International Ocean Governance, an agenda for the future of our oceans’;
CDR 6622/2016 NAT-VI-019 ‘A new stage in the European Policy on Blue Growth’;

OJ C 391, 18.12.2012, p. 1, NAT-V-21 ‘Developing a Maritime strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area;

OJ C 19, 21.1.2015, p. 24, NAT-V-44 ‘Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth’
CDR 0019/2017 COTER-VI-22 Entrepreneurship on Islands: contributing towards territorial cohesion

(2)  The Marnet project funded under the Atlantic Area Interreg Programme 2007-14 developed a suite of marine related socioeconomic comparable indicators to measure the impact of coastal/marine activity in the 5-Member States.

(3)  NAT-V-44

(4)  The Marnet project which has developed a suite of marine socio- economic data across the Atlantic regions may be a useful addition to this process.

(5)  Funding allocated to a service provider to provide guidance to public and private organisations, research institutions and universities, institutional and private investors as well as promoters and other stakeholders wishing to put forward and develop projects to implement the Atlantic Action Plan.

(6)  CPMR Technical note for Atlantic Arc regions February 2017.