COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis report on the results of the Communication on the outermost regions consultation activities Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions
Date: 2022-05-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission
Subjects: Azores, Canary Islands, EU regional policy, French overseas department and region, Madeira, coronavirus disease, epidemic, peripheral region, regional aid, regional cooperation, regional development, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 3.5.2022  SWD(2022) 134 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Synopsis report on the results of the Communication on the outermost regions consultation activities Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions {COM(2022) 198 final} - {SWD(2022) 133 final}  
 
 
Synopsis report on the results of the Communication on the 
outermost regions consultation activities  

1.  INTRODUCTION  

1.1.  Consultation Strategy 

In the context of the 2022 Commission Work Programme (CWP) and its aim to deliver 
on a European economy that works for people1, the Commission carried out consultation 
activities (both open consultation and targeted consultations) on  a new Communication 
on  a  strategic  approach  with  and  for  the  outermost  regions  (OR).  The  objective  of  the 
consultation  on  the  roadmap2,  announcing  the  Commission’s  intention  for  a  new 
Communication regarding the OR, as well as the public and targeted consultations, was 
to allow stakeholders to share their views, concerns and ideas for action in preparation of 
the  new  Communication,  which  is  to  replace  the  2017  Communication  on  “A  stronger 
and renewed strategic partnership with the EU’s outermost regions”3. 

This  report  presents  the  outcome  of  the  consultation  activities  and  aims  to  inform 
stakeholders on how their input was analysed in the development of the Communication. 
The  consultation  strategy  was  designed  to  ensure  participation  from  citizens  and 
stakeholders  in  order  to  gauge  their  views  on  the  development  challenges  and 
opportunities  in  ORs  and  priorities  for  EU  policies  to  help  address  them.  Namely,  the 
digital and green transition in the OR; the COVID-19 pandemic impact on these regions; 
new specific opportunities for the OR under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-
2027;  means  to  improve  the  dialogue  with  the  OR;  as  well  as  mainstreaming  of  OR 
specificities across EU policies. The process included the following elements: 

Figure 1. Consultation streams for the Communication on the OR 

12 May 2021-
9 June 2021     
Roadmap Consultation 

17 June 2021     
Thematic Consultation 
Meeting
Social affairs and public 
administration

8 July 2021            

Public Consultation
Start 

28 September 2021 
Thematic Consultation 
Meeting
Maritime and agricultural 
policies

26 October 2021 
Thematic Consultation 
Meeting
Social, education and 
health

4 November 2021 
Public Consultation 
End

16 December 2021 
Thematic Consultation 
Meeting
Sustainable tourism, 
transport and connectivity

February-April 2022 
Bilateral 
consultation 
meetings

1 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar%3A9fb5131e-30e9-11ec-bd8e-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF  

2  Roadmap: Outermost regions - update of Commission’s strategic partnership with these regions (europa.eu)  
3 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/themes/outermost-
regions/pdf/rup_2017/com_rup_partner_en.pdf  

1 

 
 
                                                 
These  consultation  steps  reached  the  stakeholders  such  as  the  regional  governments/ 
administrations  of  the  OR;  national  governments  of  Member  States  with  OR  (France, 
Portugal  and  Spain);  regional,  local  and  municipal  authorities;  research  and  academia; 
trade,  business,  and  professional  associations,  businesses,  trade  unions,  agricultural 
federations,  non-governmental  organisations  and  citizens,  as  well  as  relevant 
international  partners,  neighbouring  countries  and  territories.  The  consultations  took 
place against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

1.2.  Consultation activities 

a.  Consultation on the Commission roadmap  

responses),  non-governmental  organisations 

The roadmap consultation was open for feedback from 12 May to 9 June 2021. Overall, 
14  responses  were  provided  by  different  stakeholders,  including  individual  citizens 
(29%;  4 
responses), 
companies/business  organisations  (14%;  2  responses),  business  associations  (14%;  2 
responses) and public authorities (7%; 1 response). Approximately 21% of respondents 
self-identified  in  the  category  of  other  (e.g.  anonymous  respondents,  agricultural 
federation, and inter-regional organisation).  

(14%;  2 

The largest number of replies came from Spain (36%; 5 responses), followed by Portugal 
(21%; 3 responses), France and Austria (14% each; 2 responses each). The majority of 
replies addressed the content of the initiative, not the roadmap itself4. The stakeholders’ 
contributions for this exercise have been accounted for during the analysis of outcomes 
of the public and targeted consultation activities.  

b.  Public Consultation 

The public consultation, open from 8 July to 4 November 2021, collected 57 responses 
from 10 Member States. The Commission analysed these responses quantitatively and 
qualitatively  to  identify  challenges,  opportunities  and  priorities  for  action.  The  public 
consultation  combined  a  mix  of  closed  questions  (where  respondents  replied  to  a  pre-
determined selection of answers) and open questions (where they were free to draft their 
response).  

14 out of the 57 respondents to the public consultation also provided attachments. Out of 
the 14 attachments received, 8 were direct contributions to the public consultation. Such 
contributions  outline  a  priority  concern  and  corresponding  proposals  to  address  the 
issues  presented.  The  remaining  attachments  were  accompanying  documents,  not 
directly  responding  to  the  public  consultation,  but  with  relevant  information  about  the 
respective  respondents  and  their  priority  areas  of  concern.  The  attachments  received 
were  provided  by  all  categories  of  respondents,  the  most  common  being  public 
authorities (provided 3 out of 14 attachments) and business associations (provided 2 out 
of 14 attachments). 

4 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13018-Outermost-regions-update-
of-Commission%E2%80%99s-strategic-partnership-with-these-regions_en  

2 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Figure 2. Number of respondents by country of origin 

10

6

29

n
i
g
i
r
o
f
o

y
r
t
n
u
o
C

France
Portugal
Spain
Réunion
Martinique
Netherlands
Guadeloupe
Germany
French Guiana
Belgium

3
3

2

1
1
1
1

0

5

10

15
Number of responses

20

25

30

In terms of distribution by country of origin, the majority of replies (29 out of 57 replies; 
51%) came from France, followed by Portugal (10 out of 57 replies; 18%) and Spain (6 
out of 57 replies; 11%). When looking at the categories of stakeholders, 26 out of the 57 
replies  came  from  EU  citizens  (46%).  EU  citizens  follow  a  similar  distribution  by 
country of origin – when compared to the overall distribution – with almost half of EU 
citizens replies coming from France (12 out of 26 replies; 46%),  followed by Portugal (4 
out of 26 replies; 15%) and Spain (4 out of 26 replies; 15%). 

addition,  public 

authorities  provided 

replies5; 
In 
companies/business  organisations  9%;  non-governmental  organisations  another  9%; 
business  associations  7%;  academic  and  research  institutions  4%  and  trade  unions  4%. 
Approximately  11%  of  respondents  self-identified  as  other  (e.g.  sub-entities  of  public 
authorities,  agricultural  federation,  research  consortium,  interest  representation  and 
consulting agency, and a publisher). 

approximately  12%  of 

For  stakeholders  identifying  as  an  organisation  (approximately  54%  of  responses,  all 
categories  excluding  EU  citizens),  the  majority  were  micro-organisations6  (35%)  and 
large organisations7 (31%). Small and medium-sized organisations8 jointly made up 31% 
of the responses from organisations. The majority of these organisations listed France as 
their country of origin (55% of organisations), followed by Portugal (19%), Martinique 
(7%), Spain (7%) and the Netherlands (7%).  

When observing categorisation by region or territory, French organisations identify their 
region or territory as the  group of 6 French OR (41%), a specific French OR (41%) or 
(metropolitan)  France  (18%).  Alternatively,  the  majority  of  Portuguese  organisations 
identify  their  region  or  territory  as  a  specific  Portuguese  OR  (83%),  and  a  minority  of 
organisations  as  the  group  of  Portuguese  OR  (17%).  Spanish  organisations  have 

5  The  public  authorities  participating  in  the  consultation  were  either  French  or  Portuguese.  Namely,  the 
Direction de l'Environnement, de l'Aménagement et du Logement de la République Française; Chambre de 
Commerce et d’Industrie des Outre-Mer; Conseil économique, social et environnementale de la République 
Française;  Conseil  économique,  social  et  environnemental  de  la  République  Française,  Délégation  aux 
Outre-mer;  Direção  Regional  do  Arquivo  e  Biblioteca  da  Madeira;  Direção  Regional  do  Ambiente  e 
Alterações Climáticas; and Instituto para a Qualificação IP RAM.  

6  Micro-sized organisations have nine or less employees.  
7  Large-sized organisations have 250 or more employees. 
8 

Small-sized  organisations  have  10  to  49  employees,  and  medium-sized  organisations  have  50  to  249 
employees. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
exclusively  listed  their  region  or  territory  as  a  Spanish  OR  (i.e.  the  Canary  Islands). 
Comparatively,  EU  citizens  all  identified  their  region  or  territory  as  a  specific  French, 
Portuguese or Spanish region or territory. 

c.  Targeted consultations 

The Commission services organised two kinds of targeted consultations.  

The  first  set  consisted  of  thematic  consultation  meetings  with  the  administrations  of 
the  OR  and  their  respective  Member  States,  including  experts  on  the  themes  of  the 
targeted consultation session.  

The second set consisted of bilateral consultation meetings with the administrations of 
the OR, and also with the administrations of France, Portugal and Spain. These meetings 
aimed to identify the key priorities and areas for action, investments and reforms, as well 
as key concerns and areas for support for each OR.  

2.  PUBLIC CONSULTATION  

After  quantitatively  and  qualitatively  analysing  the  results  of  the  public  consultation 
process  listed  above,  it  is  possible  to  categorise  input  by  the  questionnaire  sections. 
Namely, (2.1) thematic areas, (2.2) green and digital  transitions,  (2.3) opportunities  for 
the  OR  in  EU  funds  and  programmes,  (2.4)  COVID-19  impacts  on  the  OR  and  (2.5) 
dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  the  OR.  Importantly,  analysis  on  the  14 
attachments has been integrated into the questionnaire sections mentioned above.  

2.1.  Thematic areas 

The  2017  Communication  listed  four  main  objectives,  namely,  (i)  a  new  governance 
based on a strong partnership, (ii) building on the OR’s assets, (iii) enabling growth 
and job creation and, (iv) scaling up cooperation with neighbouring countries. This 
section  of  the  questionnaire  reflected  on  current  and  future  thematic  areas  of  the  2017 
Communication and the 2022 Communication.  

When asked which areas should continue to be prioritised in the  2022 Communication, 
stakeholders were homogenous in expressing a strong preference for priority areas under 
objectives (ii) and (iii) of the 2017 Communication. In particular, most of the top voted 
areas  fall  under  objective  (ii)  i.e.  biodiversity  and  environment,  blue  economy,  climate 
change  and  circular  economy.  Employment,  education  and  training  also  figured 
prominently  as  the  second  most  popular  area  to  retain  as  a  priority.    Areas  relating  to 
objectives (i) and (iv) figured in the bottom five of respondents’ selections. In particular, 
less than 25 out of 57 respondents (44%) voted on migration as well as  on governance 
and partnership.  

4 

 
 
Figure 3. Which of the areas of the 2017 Communication would you like to see kept in a 
new Communication?  

s
a
e
r
A

Biodiversity & environment
Employment, education & training
Blue economy
Climate change
Circular economy
Research & innovation
Digital accessibility
Agriculture & rural development
Transport & mobility
International cooperation
Energy
Competitiveness, entrepreneurship & single market
Governance & partnership
Migration

Number of replies

40

37
36
36
35

32
32

30
29
28

26
25

23

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

When discussing which policy areas should be added to the 2022 Communication, a 
majority  of  respondents  expressed  a  clear  preference  for  cooperation  between  the  OR 
and  other  EU  countries/regions  (39  out  of  57  respondents;  68%),  water  and  waste 
management (33 out of 57 respondents; 58%), as well as cohesion policy (26 out of 57 
respondents;  46%).  Other  noteworthy  areas  include  health  (23  out  of  57  respondents; 
40%), economic recovery (22 out of 57 respondents; 39%) and social policy (21 out of 
57 respondents; 37%). Less than 20 respondents selected tourism, culture, and taxation. 
Finally,  less  than  10  respondents  selected  trade  and  other  categories.  Under  other 
category,  respondents  referred  to  diversity;  industry;  health  infrastructure;  creative 
industries; social economy; cybersecurity; and diplomacy.  

Figure 4. Which should be the top five areas of the new Communication? 

Employment, education & training
Cooperation between OR and other EU…

s
a
e
r
A

Climate change
Culture
Biodiversity & environment
Circular economy
Research & innovation
Competitiveness, entrepreneurship & single market
Cohesion policy
Blue economy
Agriculture & rural development
Transport & mobility
Health
Digital accessibility
Water and waste management
Economic recovery
Energy
International cooperation
Tourism
Trade
Taxation
Social policy
Governance & partnership
Other (mentions industrial development)
Migration

27

23

22

18
18

16

12
12
12
12
12

11
11
11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4
4

3

5

1

0

0

5 

10
15
20
Number of replies

25

30

 
 
When asked which should be the five main priority areas of the 2022 Communication, 
no  single  area  was  preferred  by  a  majority  of  respondents  (over  50%  of  respondents). 
Nevertheless,  the  least  voted  areas,  namely  migration,  governance  and  partnership, 
taxation  and  trade  consistently  appear  in  the  bottom  five  priority  areas,  with  less  than 
five  votes  each  (less  than  9%  of  respondents,  each).  The  same  applies  to  the  top  five 
voted  areas,  which  have  each  been  voted  for  by  at  least  one  third  of  the  respondents 
(less than 33% of respondents). These were in particular, employment, education and 
training, cooperation between OR and other EU regions/countries, climate change, 
culture and biodiversity and environment.  

In  addition,  a  few  priority  areas  of  previous  questions  –  for  instance,  social  policy, 
tourism and water and waste management – received 10 votes or less under this question, 
signalling  that  such  areas  may  be  important  to  include  in  the  strategy,  but  may  not  be 
headline  or  priority  areas.  Importantly,  even  if  not  in  the  top  five  areas,  several  areas 
have been consistently voted for across the questionnaire – expressly, areas with 11 to 15 
votes in Figure 4.  

Looking  more  closely  at  priority  areas  by  type  of  respondent,  EU  citizens  and 
companies/business  organisations  overlap  in  their  priority  areas.  Even  if  in  a  slightly 
different  order,  employment,  education,  and  training,  international  cooperation, 
climate change, biodiversity and environment, and circular economy, all feature in 
the top five areas of these respondents.  

employment, 

Public authorities and business associations also overlap in their priority areas. In this 
case, 
innovation, 
competitiveness,  entrepreneurship,  and  single  market  are  priority  areas  for  both 
types of respondents.  

education,  and 

research  and 

training, 

Overall, the areas of employment, education, and training (with votes from all types 
of  respondents)  are  the  most  common  selections  across  the  board.  In  addition,  the 
written contributions to the questionnaire reflect these quantitative results. When asked 
about  specific  actions  that  should  be  added  in  the  2022  Communication,  the  most 
referenced  areas  include:  employment;  education  and  training;  development  of 
basic  infrastructures;  the  sustainable  recovery  of  important  sectors  such  as 
tourism,  blue  economy  and  culture;  cooperation  between  the  OR  and  their 
corresponding  Member  States.  In 
the  socio-economic  and 
environmental dimensions were consistently prioritised by respondents.  

these  responses, 

When asked about other issues that should also be addressed by EU policy for the OR, 
respondents mentioned a range of themes, including: improved accessibility and quality 
of  higher-education;  improved  response  in  the  OR  to  health  emergencies;  further 
investment  in  basic infrastructures, for instance  waste management facilities;  improved 
response  to  migratory  pressures  in  relevant  ORs;  and  implementation  of  strategies  to 
combat discrimination.  

2.2.  Green and digital transitions  

This  section  of the questionnaire  sought  to  understand how the OR can contribute to 
fostering a green and digital transition. First, OR are viewed as ‘strategic territories’, 
‘open  air  laboratories’  or  ‘experimental  regions’  for  both  the  green  and  digital 
transitions.  Respondents  described  the  OR’s  unique  assets  and  characteristics  (i.e. 
remote, geographically smaller, rich biodiversity, etc.) and expressed that these could be 
ideal locations to test good practices in the fields of green and digital.  

6 

 
 
Second, there was a strong emphasis across all categories of respondents on the potential 
contribution of the OR to research and innovation, in particular, in poles of research on 
climate  change,  biodiversity  and  the  environment,  forest  protection  and  renewable 
energies.  Respondents  encouraged  structural  projects  in  the  fields  of  agriculture, 
transport  and  mobility,  as  well  as  energy  in  the  OR.  Respondents  argued  that  the  OR 
could  contribute  to  the  twin  transition  (i.e.  the  green  and  digital  transition)  with 
sustainable  and  self-sufficient  production/  consumption  models  that  could  be  tested  in 
the OR and later incorporated across the EU continent.    

Finally,  there  was  a  stronger  focus  on  the  green  transition  rather  than  on  the  digital 
transition. When discussing digitalisation, respondents emphasised the need to establish 
and maintain basic infrastructures for improved connectivity, as well as the importance 
of  digital  skills  in  education  and  training.  Comparatively,  the  green  transition  received 
more attention from  respondents  in  the form  of a broader  range of ideas  and concerns, 
for instance, climate change; biodiversity and the environment; forest protection; marine 
protection; blue economy; renewable energies; and sustainability in agriculture. 

This  section  also  looked  at  the  constraints  faced  by  the  OR  in  fostering  the  twin 
transition. In a similar manner, the second question of this section reflected uniformity 
across all categories of respondents, including by country and region of origin. Some of 
the listed constraints include: 

  The  geographical  characteristics  of  the  OR,  such  as  remoteness,  insularity  and 

vulnerability to natural catastrophes and extreme climate events;  

  The  socio-economic  characteristics  of  the  OR,  such  as  low  Gross  Domestic 
Product  (GDP)  per  capita,  lack  of  economies  of  scale,  additional  costs, 
dependency on vulnerable sectors and their relatively small market size; 

  High imports in areas such as agriculture and energy, and high exports in waste 

management (i.e. dependence on shipping to the continent); 

  Lack  of  investment  and  infrastructure  for  essential  services,  renewable  energy 
production and distribution, waste management, connection to broadband or fast 
fibre;  

  Lack of education and professional training in green and digital areas; 
  Burdensome administrative requirements in access to funding; 
  Lack of administrative capacity and skills in public administration. 

Finally,  this  section  sought  to  understand  how  each  governance  level  (Commission, 
Member States, and regional/local authorities) can support the OR in fostering the 
twin  transition.  Respondents  did  not  always  clearly  attribute  actions  to  a  specific 
governance level; however, certain patterns can be observed.  As in Figure 5 , demands 
for  the  Commission  generally  focused  on  issues  of  access  to  adequate  funding, 
regulation  of  essential  services,  and  engagement  with  relevant  stakeholders  across  the 
EU population (e.g. youth in the OR). Interestingly, the demands for Member States and 
regional  and/or  local  authorities  tended  to  overlap,  with  an  overall  focus  on  ensuring 
adequate education and training, assisting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in 
the  twin  transition,  and  investing  in  basic  infrastructure  for  essential  services  linked  to 
the twin transition, among others.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  5.  How  can  each  governance  level  (Commission,  Member  States,  and 
regional/local authorities) support the OR in fostering the twin transitions? 

Commission 

Member States

• Continue to provide funds 
and expertise through 
relevant programmes;
• Reduce the administrative 
burden for access to funding;
• Connect stakeholders from 
different regions and to the 
continent;
• Engage with the youth on 
policy making;
• Monitor distribution of funds 
in the OR;
• Consider OR specificities 
when regulating essential 
services (i.e. energy or 
connectivity).

• Focus on education and 
training on green and digital 
transitions;
• Facilitate SMEs' applications 
in access to EU funding 
through training and 
assistance; 
• Invest in basic infrastructure 
for essential services (i.e. 
waste, energy, connectivity, 
health and transport);
• Consider the competitive 
disadvantages of the OR 
compared to the continent 
and steer implementation of 
EU and national policies 
adequately.

Regional and/or local 
authorities 

• Provide education and 
training opportunitites in EU 
policies for local authorities; 
• Increase awareness of the 
twin transition in local 
populations; 
• Create programmes for 
assisting SMEs in the twin 
transition;
• Strengthen public 
procurement, in particular, 
for provision of basic 
infrastructure for essential 
services; 
• Introduce payment of green 
supplementary fees in tourist 
packages. 

2.3.  Opportunities for the OR in EU funds and programmes 

The EU funds and programmes for 2021-2027 provide unprecedented opportunities for 
the OR, with specific provisions for these regions in more than 20 pieces of legislation. 
This section of the questionnaire examined respondent awareness of such opportunities, 
reflected  on  adequate  communication  channels,  and  probed  the  existing  constraints 
currently encountered in the OR, when accessing funds and/or programmes.  

When  considering  respondents’  awareness  of  EU  funds  and/or  programmes  for  2021-
2027, 25 out 57 respondents (approximately 44%) claimed to be aware of opportunities 
for the OR under such funds and/or programmes. From the perspective of categories of 
respondent, there is a disparity in awareness levels between categories. As demonstrated 
in  Figure  6,  all  respondents  in  the  categories  of  academic/research  institutes  (2 
respondents),  business  associations  (4  respondents)  and  trade  unions  (2  respondents) 
claim  to  be aware of such opportunities.  In contrast,  all  respondents in  the category  of 
non-governmental organisations (5 respondents), claim to be unaware or unsure of such 
opportunities for the OR. Interestingly, EU citizens (9 out of 26 respondents; 32%) score 
higher than public authorities (1 out of 7 respondents; 14%) in awareness. 

8 

 
 
 
Figure 6. Are you aware of opportunities for the OR in the EU funds and programmes 
for 2021-2027? (by category of respondent) 

t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

f
o

y
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Trade Union

Public Authority

Other

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

EU citizen

Company/business organisation

Business association

Academic/research institute

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Awareness (in percentage)

Aware

Not aware

When  asked  what  would  be  the  best  communication  channels  to  raise  awareness  of 
funding  and  programming  opportunities  for  the  OR,  replies  differed  by  category  of 
respondent.  A  recurring  theme,  in  most  respondents’  replies  was  the  need  for  a  more 
“local dimension” for communication channels to raise awareness9.  

EU  citizens  responding  to  the  questionnaire  repeatedly  mentioned  easily  accessible 
communication  channels  such  as  social  media,  television  and  radio,  as  well  as  public 
events in local universities. Several EU citizens also expressed the need for paper-based 
dissemination,  in  particular  for  the  French  and  Spanish  OR.  In  contrast,  trade  unions, 
companies/business  organisations  and  business  associations  expressed  that  European 
institutions  should  target  companies  directly  and  rely  on  local  authorities  (e.g.  local 
chambers  of  commerce),  social  partners,  local  business  organisations  and  professional 
federations. Public authorities tended to agree with the latter, adding the creation of local 
information.  Non-governmental 
bodies  and  digital  platforms 
to  disseminate 
organisations  pointed 
the  organisation  of 
towards  paper-based  publicity,  and 
information,  clarification  and  outreach  activities  aiming  towards  direct  contact  at  the 
local,  regional  and  national  level.  Finally,  when  outlining  the  existing  constraints  for 
funding  and  programming  in  the  OR,  respondents  across  all  categories,  countries  and 
regions  consistently  expressed  a  need 
transparent  and  accessible 
communication  of  opportunities  for  the  OR  under  the  EU  funds  and/or  programmes. 
Several  argued  that  despite  their  existence,  awareness  or  understanding  of  such 
opportunities is verifiably low (only 25 out 57 respondents; 44%).  

for  more 

Respondents  called  for  more  flexibility  and  an  overall  simplification  of the  application 
process for EU funds and/or programmes. Several maintained the existence of ‘red tape’ 
that  privileges  larger  companies/business  organisations  with  sufficient  human  and 
financial  resources  to  overcome  the  administrative  burden,  and  restricts  very  small 
enterprises  (VSEs)  and  SMEs.  Respondents  also  highlighted  the  need  for  more 

9  The Commission has promoted the presence of Europe Direct Centres in the OR, which provide information 

about EU programmes. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
(administrative)  support  measures  from,  for  instance,  managing  authorities  or  local 
chambers.    

In  order  to  tackle  some  of  these  issues,  respondents  suggested  that  regional  and  local 
authorities in the OR are trained to better understand EU funds and/or programmes, with 
an aim to  support VSEs and SMEs in  the application process.  In addition, respondents 
recommended  the  establishment  of  support  and  advice  points  in  professional  and 
business  associations,  with  direct  access  to  companies  and/or  business  organisations. 
Due to the specificities of the OR – including their remoteness – respondents advocated 
for a more decentralised and tailor-made management of EU funds and/or programmes. 
This  would  entail  accounting  for  language  barriers,  lack  of  human  and  financial 
resources  and  the  specificities  of  most  companies/business  organisations  in  the  OR. 
Several  respondents  sustained  that  tailoring  the  award  criteria  of  such  funds  and/or 
programmes  to  OR  specificities  would  be  useful  to  maximise  access  across  these 
regions.  

2.4.  COVID-19 impacts on the OR 

The following section of the questionnaire surveyed respondents on their outlook on the 
impacts of the global health crisis in the OR. In particular, it asked respondents how they 
themselves,  their  communities  or  their  organisation  had  been  affected  by  the 
COVID-19  pandemic,  and  what  actions  are  needed  at  each  governance  level  to 
mitigate these impacts. 

In terms of impacts, respondents outlined the overall fragility of the healthcare systems 
in  the  OR  and  their  vaccination  efforts.  Importantly,  in  all  French  OR  the  vaccination 
rate is lower than in metropolitan France, while in the Azores, Madeira and the Canary 
Islands,  vaccination  has  progressed  well.  Respondents  across  different  countries  and 
regions  emphasised  that  all  the  OR  had  experienced  lockdowns  and  closure  of  non-
essential  services,  which  undoubtedly  resulted  in  socio-economic  repercussions  for 
companies/business  organisations  and  civil  society.  Many  respondents  pointed  towards 
the  disproportionate  connectivity  and  socio-economic  impact  of  border  closures  in  the 
OR, due to their remoteness (i.e. dependence on imported goods) and high-dependence 
on the tourism sector. Across all categories of respondents, EU citizens focused most on 
unemployment, social security, social isolation and mental health. 

levels 

In  terms  of  suggested  response  strategies,  respondents  listed  a  diverse  range  of 
possible  solutions.  EU  citizens  expressed  appreciation  for  the  support  from  all 
towards  vulnerable  sectors  and  citizens.  Companies/business 
governance 
organisations and business associations focused on the need to ensure financial support 
mechanisms  for  companies/business  organisations  to  remain  operational  and  recover 
from  the  socio-economic  impacts  of  the  crisis.  In  particular,  respondents  called  for  the 
EU  funds  and/or  programmes  to  be  delivered  as  rapidly  as  possible  to  ensure  a 
sustainable  recovery  from  the  crisis.  Furthermore,  these  categories  of  respondents 
encouraged  further  subsidised  education  and  professional  training,  particularly  in  the 
context of the twin transition.  

Many  respondents  from  different  categories,  countries  and  regions,  advocated  an 
acceleration  and/or  completion  of  the  vaccination  campaign  in  the  OR,  through 
awareness  campaigns  and  increased  accessibility  to  vaccine  centres  in  remote  or  rural 
areas  (i.e.  transportation).  Respondents  also  called  for  further  strengthening  of  health 
systems in the most impacted ORs, including in the field of mental health. Lastly, there 

10 

 
 
was  clear  agreement  on  the  need  to  encourage  and  support  the  safe  reopening  of  the 
tourism sector in the OR, given its importance for cultural, economic and social stability.  

2.5.  Dialogue between the Commission and the OR 

The  final  section  questioned  respondents  on  their  views  on  current  dialogue  and 
partnership between the Commission and the OR. Respondents were asked to indicate – 
from a list of five possibilities – which are the best ways to strengthen the dialogue and 
partnership with the OR.  

On  average,  all  five  possibilities  received  votes  from  at  least  19  out  of 57  respondents 
(33%  of  respondents).  Overall,  thematic  workshops  and  meetings  with  regional/local 
authorities each received votes from 29 out of 57 respondents (23% of total votes, each). 
Meetings with citizens followed closely (28 out of 57 respondents; 22% of total votes), 
followed  by  conferences  (21  out  of  57  respondents;  17%  of  total  votes)  and  public 
consultations (19 out of 57 respondents; 15% of total votes). 

When analysing these results by category of respondent, it is unsurprising that 21 out of 
26  EU  citizens  (81%)  advocate  for  further  meetings  with  citizens,  and  that  4  out  of  6 
public  authorities  (67%)  prefer  meetings  with  local/regional  authorities.  Business 
institutions  and  non-governmental  organisations 
organisations,  academic/research 
(NGOs)  appreciate 
the  most,  while  companies/business 
organisations  side  with  public  authorities  in  their  preference  for  meetings  with 
regional/local authorities.  

thematic  workshops 

Figure  7.  What  are  the  best  ways  to  strengthen  further  the  dialogue  and  partnership 
between the Commission and OR? 

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
s
p
e
r

f
o

s
e
i
r
o
g
e
t
a
C

Trade Union

Public authority

NGO

EU citizen

Company/business organisation

Business association

Academic/research institution

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of respondents

Meetings with regional and local authorities Meetings with citizens

Conferences

Thematic workshops

Public consultations

When considering improvement of existing dialogue and cooperation tools, only public 
authorities were  asked to  comment.  As such, 7  out  of 57 respondents  (12%) replied to 
the questionnaire. The replies indicate that respondents are satisfied with the existing 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
dialogue  and  cooperation  tools  mentioned  in  the  questionnaire.  A  couple  of 
respondents  maintained  that  while  at  political  level  dialogue  is  strong,  further 
cooperation is welcomed at technical level for research and innovation.  

Finally, respondents were asked about their suggested means to strengthen the dialogue 
and partnership between the Commission and the OR. Four main areas were highlighted: 

Figure 8. Which other means could strengthen the dialogue and partnership between the 
Commission and the OR? 

Presence of the 
Commission in the 
outermost regions

OR presence in the 
Member States

• All respondents called for an increased presence of the Commission in the 

OR. In particular, through the creation of a dedicated Commission service for 
the OR, the establishment of a European Comission office in each of the nine 
OR, and regular meetings with citizens in the OR. 

• Respondents (public authorities) advocated for the Commission to support 

increased dialogue with the OR and Member States. In particular, through the 
creation of regular forums between stakeholders in the OR and their 
counterparts on the continent. 

Stakeholder participation 
in decision-making

• Respondents (companies/business organisations and business associations) 

maintained that stakeholders should be further involved in decision-making at 
all governance levels. In particular, suggesting the creation of task forces with 
Commission representatives and different stakeholders on different themes. 

Interactive platform

• Respondents emphasized the importance of decreasing barriers of access to 
EU policy and legislation, suggesting the creation of an interactive platform 
for discussion and exchanges on accessible and simplified explanations of EU 
policy work.

3.  TARGETED CONSULTATIONS 

The  targeted  consultations  consisted  of  thematic  consultation  meetings  with  the 
administrations  of  the  OR  and  their  respective  Member  States,  as  well  as  bilateral 
consultation  meetings  with  the  administrations  of  the  OR,  and  also  with  the 
administrations of France, Portugal and Spain.  

3.1.  Thematic consultation meetings  

The  thematic  consultation  meetings  addressed  four  main  themes:  (a)  social  affairs  and 
public  administration;  (b)  maritime  and  agricultural  policies;  (c)  social,  education  and 
health;  and  (d)  sustainable  tourism,  transport  and  connectivity.  These  themes  were 
selected according to potential priorities of the 2022 Communication and upon request of 
the  OR  authorities.  At  each  targeted  consultation,  relevant  Commission  services 
presented,  on  each  respective  theme,  existing  legislation,  policy  initiatives,  as  well  as 
funds and programmes, with a focus on the specific opportunities and provisions for the 
OR. The Commission and representatives from the OR and Member States participated 
in  all  meetings  and  were  given  the  opportunity  to  present  their  priorities  and  raise 
questions on various EU  matters.  The bilateral  meetings addressed questions  related to 
each region’s development strategies, areas for support and important obstacles.  

12 

 
 
3.1.1.  Social affairs and public administration  

The  thematic  consultation  meeting  on  social  affairs  and  public  administration  took 
place  virtually  on  17  June  2021.  The  discussion  aimed  at  understanding  current  OR 
concerns on the social dimension. 

The  French  OR  focused  on  two  major  issues,  namely  access  to  social  rights  and 
support  for  education  and  training  opportunities.  Representatives  of  two  French 
regions called for putting priority on education, training and lifelong learning in the 2022 
Communication, in particular for women and the youth. Three other regions highlighted 
the  social  issues  linked  to  rapid  population  growth  (e.g.  youth  unemployment,  high 
demand  for  social  supports,  increasing  vulnerability  of  the  elderly),  and  the  need  for 
mobility in the labour market.  

The Portuguese OR emphasised that OR specificities perpetuate certain socio-economic 
difficulties. One of the regions called for additional support in four main areas: education 
and  vocational  training;  employment  (labour  mobility  and  entrepreneurship);  social 
(ageing  population  and  access  to  health  care);  and  State  aid  (further  support  under  the 
COVID-19  temporary  framework).  A  representative  of  another  region  echoed  these 
concerns,  adding  that  further  social  support  will  be  needed  for  full  socio-economic 
recovery in the most vulnerable sectors (e.g. tourism). 

Finally,  the  Spanish  OR  echoed  comments  from  the  other  regions  and  reported  that 
further  accessible  funding  and  support  is  needed  to  implement  the  European  Pillar  of 
Social Rights in the OR. This region also mentioned the growing issue of migration and 
echoed the French OR in calling for an ambitious strategy on migration and asylum, in 
particular for unaccompanied minors.   

3.1.2.  Maritime and agricultural policies  

The second thematic consultation meeting, on maritime and agricultural policies, took 
place virtually on 28 September 2021. This consultation focused on outlining the current 
priorities for the OR regarding maritime and agricultural policies.  

Maritime policies 

The French OR mentioned a range of concerns and priorities. First, they expressed the 
need  for  further  assistance  for  the  renewal  of  the  fishing  fleet  for  small-scale  coastal 
fishing. The French OR also emphasised the strengthening of the blue economy (through 
investment on aquaculture, renewable marine energies, etc.), including improvements on 
data  collection  on  blue  economy 
research 
centres/observatories).  One  of  the  regions  specifically  mentioned  the  importance  of 
maritime  spatial  planning  (through  better  port  infrastructure  and  landing  sites),  and 
echoed  comments  on  the  need  to  continue  fighting  against  illegal,  unreported  and 
unregulated  fishing.  Another  region  added  that  combatting  marine  hazards  (such  as 
invasive species, plastic pollution, etc.) should also be prioritised.  

(through  more 

investment 

in 

The Portuguese OR stressed the importance of fisheries as a traditional sector and blue 
economy  strategies  in  the  coming  years,  and  expressed  the  need  for  improving  data 
collection  on  blue  economy  and  for  further  support  for  promising  blue  sectors  (e.g. 
biotechnologies and desalination).  

Lastly,  the  Spanish  OR  underlined  the  need  to  coordinate  action  across  sectors  in 
implementing their blue economy strategy, to improve the fishing fleet, and to consider 
13 

 
 
the  adoption  of  implementing  acts  for  the  entry/exist  scheme  of  Article  23  of  the 
Common Fisheries Policy. 

Agricultural policies 

The French OR focused on the persistent issues of lack of equipment and infrastructure, 
despite support at European, national and regional level. One of the regions in particular 
highlighted  the  need  for  EU  support  to  finance  surveillance  systems  in  agricultural 
holdings.  

The Portuguese OR stressed four main priorities in agricultural policy. First, the need to 
increase the POSEI budget to account for specific challenges in the agricultural sector of 
the OR. Second, the need to increase the maximum thresholds for State aid measures and 
eligibility rules in agriculture policy. Third, the  need to consider the specificities of the 
OR  in  the  context  of  animal  transport  and  finally,  the  need  to  take  into  account  the 
structural difficulties faced by the OR in view of the ‘Fit for 55’ package.  

The  Spanish  OR  also  stressed  obstacles  in  its  agricultural  sector.  Namely,  the  low 
production  standards  from  third  countries  with  similar  agricultural  goods,  the  lack  of 
indexation  of  the  POSEI  budget,  and  the  inclusion  of  the  Spanish  OR  in  the  national 
Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan.  

3.1.3.  Social, education and health  

The third thematic consultation meeting, on social, education and health policies, took 
place  virtually  on  26  October  2021.  This  consultation  focused  on  outlining  the  current 
priorities for OR in social, education and health policy.  

Social and Education policy 

The OR raised issues on a number of social and education gaps in the OR, in particular, 
in the areas of digital skills, soft skills and vocational education and training (VET). In 
addition,  the  inclusion  of  cross-cutting  issues  such  as  the  need  to  include  green  and 
digital  issues  in  curricula  was  emphasised  as  a  priority,  in  particular  in  cases  where 
sectors  require  internationally-recognised  certifications.  Finally,  the  OR  expressed  the 
need  for  increased  investments  in  school  infrastructure  and  facilities,  digital  resources 
and mobility. The French OR focused on improving opportunities for exchanges under 
the Erasmus+ programme, including with neighbouring countries. The Portuguese and 
the  Spanish  OR  raised  the  need  to  reduce  school  dropout  rates  and  asked  for  further 
support  on  VET,  including  the  digitalisation  of  curricula.  OR  also  raised  the  lack  of 
uptake in technology and digitalisation by smaller enterprises.  

Health policy 

Across  the  board,  the  fragilities  of  the  health  systems  in  the  OR  were  stressed.  The 
French OR raised questions of eligibility in the EU4Health Programme and emphasised 
significant shortages of medical staff. The Spanish OR stressed that they are particularly 
vulnerable  to  diseases  and  natural  disasters,  and  advocated  for  further  investment  on 
local protection and prevention measures against these hazards.  

14 

 
 
3.1.4.  Sustainable tourism, transport and connectivity 

The  final  thematic  consultation  meeting,  on  sustainable  tourism,  transport  and 
connectivity,  took  place  virtually  on  16  December  2021.  This  consultation  focused  on 
outlining the current priorities for OR in these policy areas.  

Sustainable tourism  

Across the board, OR representatives stressed that the recovery of the tourism sector will 
be crucial for the socio-economic recovery of these regions. In the specific context of the 
global health pandemic and the issue of the volcanic eruption on La Palma, the Spanish 
OR  called  for  further  consideration  of  OR  specificities  in  EU  legislation  (e.g. 
exemptions  from  emission  reduction  schemes).  The  Portuguese  OR  echoed  these 
comments and underlined that ensuring direct and stable transport is  imperative for the 
recovery of the sector.  

Transport 

The  OR  recalled  that  the  current  state  of  transport  and  mobility  in  several  of  the  nine 
regions is below EU standards. In line with the conclusions of the  2021 Conference of 
Presidents  of  the  Outermost  Regions,  calls  for  improvements  in  land,  air  and  maritime 
transport  were  expressed  by  the  OR  representatives.  The  Spanish  OR  stressed  the 
importance  of  transport  and  mobility  for  tourism  and  underlined  that  sustainable  and 
smart transport infrastructure is essential for the recovery of this sector.    

Connectivity  

The OR outlined the current gaps in connectivity when compared to their Member States 
on the continent, specifying that broadband coverage is not satisfactory for several of the 
OR.  The  Spanish  OR  explained  that  these  differences  also  exist  between  regions  and 
within  regions,  with  a  particularly  acute  disparity  in  connectivity  between  urban  and 
rural  settings.  The  Portuguese  OR  recalled  that  the  submarine  cables  that  ensure 
connectivity between them and the European continent would need to be renewed.  

3.2.  Bilateral consultation meetings with the OR 

The  Commission  services  organised  bilateral  consultation  meetings  with 
the 
administrations  of  the  OR  to  consult  them  individually  on  key  priorities  and  areas  for 
action, investments and reforms, as well as key concerns and areas for support for each 
OR.  Eight bilateral consultation meetings took place in  February and March 2022  and 
one written contribution was provided to the Commission in April 202210. The following 
key priorities and concerns were raised.  

3.2.1.  Key priorities and areas for action, investments and reforms  

Social  dimension:  the  OR  underlined  their  commitment  to  measures  in  the  areas  of 
education  and  training,  health,  and  employment  as  priority  areas  for  action, 
investments  and  reforms.  The  OR  highlighted  the  positive  impact  of  investments  in 

10  On  11  February  2022  with  the  Azores  and  Madeira  respectively,  on  16  February  2022  with  the  Canary 
Islands, on 17 February 2022 with French Guiana, on 28 February 2022 with Guadeloupe, on 9 March 2022 
with  Réunion  and  Martinique,  and  on  10  March  2022  with  Mayotte.  Saint-Martin  provided  a  written 
contribution in April 2022.  

15 

 
 
                                                 
basic  infrastructure,  access  to  essential  services  (e.g.  education,  health,  transport, 
water management, waste management, energy, etc.) and poverty reduction.  

Economic recovery and resilience: the OR emphasised on-going efforts to strengthen 
their regional economies to reduce current divergences with national socio-economic 
indicators  (e.g.  GDP,  (youth)  unemployment  rates  and  poverty).  The  OR  continue 
diversifying and formalising their economies, and investing  in the sectors hardest hit 
by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. tourism).  

Environment and climate change: most OR underlined the importance of preserving 
and  optimising  regional  natural  resources  (i.e.  air,  sea  and  land)  for  sustainable 
exploitation  of 
tropical  climate,  rich 
biodiversity). The OR underlined the importance of investing in basic infrastructure to 
better adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change.  

their  assets  (e.g.  geographic 

location, 

Optimisation of regional assets: the OR underscored their commitment to investing 
in  sectors  that  optimise  regional  assets  and  diversify  their  regional  economies  (e.g. 
tourism,  blue  economy,  circular  economy,  renewable  energies).  This  includes 
improving  the  competitiveness  of  their  business  sectors,  attracting  investment  into 
regional areas of speciality as well as research and innovation.   

3.2.2.  Key concerns and areas for support 

Structural  unemployment,  poverty  and  social  exclusion:  the  OR  prioritised  the 
social  dimension,  stressing  challenges  such  as  (youth)  unemployment,  poverty  and 
social  exclusion.  Most  French  OR  in  particular  asked  for  further  support  for  basic 
infrastructure and essential services,  in particular, for vulnerable populations  such as 
the youth and the elderly. The OR are particularly concerned about the persistent high 
rates of youth unemployment and secondary school drop-out.  

Connectivity:  the  OR  asked  for  further  support  in  ensuring  regular,  reliable  and 
affordable  connectivity  between  the  OR  and  mainland  EU.  There  was  particular 
emphasis in the areas of digital connectivity, energy and transport. The OR asked for 
support  in  ensuring  that  their  specificities  are  adequately  considered  in  relevant  EU 
legislative proposals (e.g. ‘Fit for 55’ package).  

Administrative and technical capacity: the OR asked for support in further building 
their  administrative  and  technical  capacities,  in  particular  as  regards  managing  EU 
funds and preparing applications for competitive EU programmes (e.g. the Connecting 
Europe  Facility  and  the  LIFE  Programme).  The  OR  also  expressed  the  need  for 
technical expertise in preparing calls for proposals/requests for funding, especially for 
complex infrastructural projects.   

Migration: some OR are facing acute migratory pressures and expressed concern that 
regional  migratory  trends  exceed  their  capacities  (including  unaccompanied  minors). 
The  OR  requested  technical  and  financial  support  in  particular  for  adequate  housing 
and care for incoming asylum seekers and their adequate distribution across the EU.   

3.3.  Bilateral consultation meetings with the Member States 

At the bilateral meetings with France, Portugal and Spain, which took place on 1-4 April 
2022,  these  Member  States  raised  the  following  main  issues.  Improving  the  social 
situation in their respective OR e.g. implementing the European Pillar of Social rights, in 
particular reducing poverty, supporting job creation and improving access to healthcare 
16 

 
 
and education, is a priority for the three Member States. Economic recovery is also part 
of these Member States’ priorities and the need to focus on key sectors such as tourism 
was raised. In addition, digital connectivity, mobility and the possible impact of climate 
related  regulations  on  transport  prices  are  shared  concerns.    The  three  Member  States 
raised  the  need  to  reflect  the  OR  specificities  across  policies  and  in  proposals  for  EU 
legislation in line with Article 349 TFEU.   

Key  challenges  raised  include  the  important  needs  in  terms  of  basic  infrastructure  in 
some OR (e.g. water and waste management infrastructure), OR vulnerability to extreme 
weather  events,  demographic  challenges,  the  strong  migration  challenges  that  affect 
some OR, and the impact of the war in Ukraine e.g. on energy prices. 

4.  INPUT  BY  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE  ADVISORY  BODIES,  THE  OR  AND  THEIR 

MEMBER STATES 

The  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  on  the  OR11  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  also  adopted  an  opinion 
each12.  

In November 2021, the Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions endorsed a 
declaration and an annex presenting proposals for the new Communication. 

In  addition,  in  January  2022,  the  Conference  of  Presidents  of  the  Outermost  Regions, 
together  with  France,  Portugal  and  Spain  endorsed  a  joint  position  paper13  presenting 
proposals for future EU action in the context of shaping the new Communication.  

11  Towards  a  stronger  partnership  with  the  EU  outermost  regions  –  European  Parliament  resolution  of  14 

September 2021 towards a stronger partnership with EU outermost regions (2020/2120(INI)) 

12  Opinion  of  the  European  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  European  Commission  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  renewed  strategic  partnership  with  the  EU’s  outermost  regions  –  2021/C  37/10 
Official Journal of the European Union; Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the 
benefits of the outermost regions for the EU (exploratory opinion) ECO/567-EESC-2021 

13  Document de position commune aux 3 États membres et aux 9 Régions Ultrapériphériques 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.  CONCLUSIONS  

The consultation activities outlined in this synopsis report aimed to provide stakeholders 
with a wide range of opportunities to share their views, concerns and ideas for action in 
the context of the preparation of the Communication. Overall, the following conclusions 
can be taken from this report: 

 

In  the  context  of  addressing  the  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic, 
stakeholders  emphasised  the  following  key  priorities  and  areas  for  action, 
investments  and  reforms:  the  social  dimension  (e.g.  employment,  education, 
training  and  healthcare);  economic  recovery  and  resilience  (in  particular  of  the 
sectors  hardest  hit  by  the  crisis);  environment  and  climate  change  (e.g. 
biodiversity,  preparedness  and  mitigation  of  natural  disasters,  circular  economy), 
the optimisation of regional  assets (e.g. tourism), and  cooperation between the 
OR and other EU regions/Member States.  

  Stakeholders  stressed  that  structural  unemployment,  poverty  and  social 

exclusion are key concerns and areas where EU support is needed.  

 

Improving  basic  infrastructure  and  essential  services,  ensuring  connectivity, 
and  tackling  region-specific  issues  such  as  migration,  were  amongst  the  most 
important concerns raised by stakeholders.  

  The  need  for  support  in  building  administrative  and  technical  capacity  to 
benefit from EU funds and programmes was another recurring concern expressed. 

  Stakeholders  emphasised  the potential contribution of the OR to  fostering the 
green and digital transition, e.g. through research on climate change, and action 
on renewable energies, circular economy, digital infrastructure and digital skills.  

  Stakeholders  underlined  the  need  for  accessible  information  on  opportunities 
under the EU policies, funds and programmes, and more in general for stronger 
dialogue and support for the OR.  

All  input  provided  was  analysed  and  taken  into  account  in  the  shaping  of  the  2022 
Communication. 

18