5.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 33/1

—

having regard to Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (2),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and services (Access Directive) (5),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (6),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (7),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office (8),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (9),

—

having regard to the public consultation launched on 2 March 2010 by the Commission on future universal service principles in the area of electronic communications networks and services,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 20 September 2010 entitled ‘European Broadband: investing in digitally driven growth’ (COM(2010)0472),

—

having regard to the Commission Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the first radio spectrum policy programme (COM(2010)0471),

—

having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 20 September 2010 on regulated access to Next Generation Access Networks (NGA),

—

having regard to the Working Document of the Commission’s Communications Committee on ‘Broadband access in the EU: situation at 1 July 2010’,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 25 August 2010 entitled ‘Progress report on the Single European Electronic Communications Market 2009 (15th Report) SEC(2010)0630’ (COM(2010)0253),

—

having regard to the 4th edition of the ‘Consumer Markets Scoreboard - Making markets work for consumers’ published in October 2010,

—

having regard to Council Decision 91/396/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the introduction of a single European emergency call number (10),

—

having regard to the Commission Recommendation on the processing of caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose of location-enhanced emergency call services,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC (11),

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratified by the EU on 23 December 2010,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and especially Articles 2 (Right to life), 3 (Right to the integrity of the person), 6 (Right to liberty and security), 26 (Integration of persons with disabilities) and 35 (Health care),

—

having regard to the survey entitled ‘The European Emergency Number 112’ (Flash Eurobarometer 314),

—

having regard to the Working Document of the Commission’s Communications Committee on ‘Implementation of the European emergency number 112 – Results of the fourth data-gathering round’ (10 February 2011),

—

having regard to its Declaration of 25 September 2007 on the European emergency call number 112 (12),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0220/2011),

A.

whereas the Universal Service Directive (USD) prevents social exclusion by ensuring that citizens in rural and remote areas or low-income households have affordable access to basic and essential telecoms services,

B.

whereas particular attention must be paid to ensure that vulnerable groups are not left behind and special effective measures should always be implemented to guarantee their social inclusion and access to services on an equal footing with all other citizens,

C.

whereas evolving technology, especially affordable mobile telephony, contributes to providing the majority of citizens with access to basic telecom services,

D.

whereas the universal service is defined as the ‘minimum set of services of specified quality to which all end-users have access, at an affordable price in the light of specific national conditions, without distorting competition’,

E.

whereas universal service should provide all citizens with access to services essential for their participation in society, in the event that market forces alone are not able to do this,

F.

whereas basic broadband coverage for 100% of EU citizens by 2013 is one of the Digital Agenda’s key performance targets; considering nevertheless that where broadband connections are already available the average take-up approximates to 50% of households,

G.

whereas it is not yet possible to assess implementation of the revised Universal Services and Users’ Rights Directive given that the transposition deadline is 25 May 2011 and the three-year period required before an evaluation of the correct and comprehensive implementation of all provisions in the Directive has only just begun,

H.

whereas although existing legislation delivers positive results for citizens this is not an end in itself and it is also necessary to maximise the benefits derived from new measures through continuous monitoring by Member States and efforts to improve the quality, completeness and visibility of information,

I.

whereas the Single Market can never be truly considered as complete and should continually be reassessed to reflect social protection guarantees, societal needs, technological progress and the emergence of innovative solutions; whereas, furthermore, measures to promote growth and jobs are key to ensuring that the Single Market and the Single Digital Market are enabled and realised without delay, for the benefit of European citizens, consumers and businesses,

J.

whereas striving for progress constitutes the driving force and the delivery vehicle for the vision and objectives set by the European legislators; whereas proposals for new or amending legislation must take into account actual experiences and implementation capabilities; whereas legislative adaptations must benefit from clear political support underpinned, furthermore, by an objective cost-benefit and socio-economic evaluation as the decisive factor,

K.

whereas the European emergency number 112, created in 1991 by a Council decision to enable citizens to access all emergency services (such as fire, police and medical services), is the only emergency number that can be accessed in all the Member States of the European Union and whereas a large majority of Europeans are still unaware of it, with no progresses observed since 2000,

L.

whereas its Declaration of 11 March 2008 on early warning for citizens in major emergencies (13) was signed by 432 MEPs,

M.

whereas efforts are still needed to assess and ensure the quality of service when dialling 112, both as regards the telecommunications and emergency services’ performance and the coordination aspects which depend on multiple factors, and whereas a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the real state of implementation of the 112 service in the EU as experienced by citizens, notably evaluating accessibility, interoperability and intervention times, has not been carried out,

N.

whereas several recent disasters have shown that alerting citizens and giving them early warning in the event of imminent or developing major emergencies and disasters is necessary if suffering and the loss of life are to be reduced,

1.

Underlines the importance of Universal Service Obligations (USOs) as a safety net for social inclusiveness where market forces alone have failed to provide citizens and businesses with basic services;

2.

Supports the regular re-evaluation, as part of the Universal Services and Users’ Rights Directive, of how appropriate existing EU legislative provisions are for universal service in the light of social, economic and technological developments, in order to identify and introduce appropriate definitions which reflect evolving real needs and citizens’ demands and improve the quality of services;

3.

Calls on the Commission to provide guidelines on how best to implement and enforce the revised USD, avoiding market distortions and, at the same time, allowing Member States to adopt the provisions that best suit their national circumstances;

4.

Supports the Digital Agenda’s ‘Broadband for all’ objectives and is convinced that universal access to broadband helps citizens and businesses to reap the full benefits of the Digital Single Market, in particular by improving social inclusion, creating new opportunities for socially and environmentally innovative businesses driving jobs, growth and more opportunities for cross-border trade; supports, to this end, the promotion of digital literacy;

5.

Calls on the Commission to give more financial support to local projects which provide digital access and to all communities which help disadvantaged groups to access technological devices by providing connections in public buildings offering free Internet access;

6.

Underlines that a combination of policies and technologies (such as wired, cable, fibre, mobile, and satellite networks) can foster the development by businesses and public bodies of new online services and applications, such as e-governance, e-health and e-education, driving demand for faster Internet connections, making investments in open broadband networks more profitable, thereby encouraging public-private partnerships and developing the digital single market while improving the inclusion of marginalised citizens;

7.

Emphasises the importance of the EU public procurement rules and considers it of utmost importance, in the context of the broad review of these rules, that both local and regional authorities benefit from measures to encourage their participation in communication technology investments, and in pre-commercial procurement (as a tool to bring the benefits of research to market), and that e-procurement is widely rolled out;

8.

Calls for effective transposition of the telecoms framework, in particular its net neutrality provisions, in such a way that end-users can access the services and content, and run the applications of their choice on the Internet;

9.

Stresses that universal service is not the only nor the key driver for achieving the ‘broadband for all’ objective, given the high investment costs required without necessarily being able to provide significantly improved services to consumers; notes, however, that Article 15 of the USD states that there shall be a periodical review of the scope of universal service and stresses that this review should take into account the evaluation of the implementation of the Directive’s provisions and the findings of the ongoing impact assessment, in particular as regards the extent to which broadband networks are deployed and the actual take-up by households;

10.

Considers that making broadband availability obligatory will not automatically result in higher take-up; calls therefore on the Commission and the Member States to reinforce measures to drive demand and stimulate take-up, rather than just ensuring a connection; considers furthermore that universal service obligations might eventually, possibly as a medium-term target, become an additional incentive in the development of broadband, but that properly designed national programmes should achieve universal broadband objectives;

11.

Considers that efficient radio spectrum policy, which enables harmonised use of the ‘digital dividend’, and investment-friendly regulation are also important instruments in increasing broadband coverage;

12.

Calls on the Commission to complete the ongoing impact assessment and provide legislators with sound data on the existing take-up, the expected demand for and improvement of USOs through broadband, and finally, an analysis of the most effective financing mechanism for Member States, consumers and undertakings for rolling out USOs while avoiding inefficient costs and excessive burdens;

13.

Calls on the Commission, in parallel and in collaboration with the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs), to monitor markets carefully to ensure that those Member States which are already able to, or wish to, provide USOs across the range of broadband technologies and speeds, are able to do so in cases of market failure without actually causing distortions in the market;

14.

Welcomes the Commission’s decision to carry out an in-depth study on Internet service provision following publication of the 4th Consumer Markets Scoreboard;

15.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States, with the contribution of the NRAs, to examine the options for an even application of USOs and users’ rights provisions which would assure accessibility for vulnerable groups, and especially for people with disabilities, not only through the introduction of special terminal equipment and affordable tariffs, but also through the availability of adequate information and a real choice for consumers of available services and after-sales services;

16.

Considers nevertheless that the basic provision for funding universal service, ensuring it is handled in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner, should remain in EU legislation and should be extended to cover data as well as voice obligations;

17.

Stresses that the European 112 emergency number can be a life saving number and increases EU citizens’ protection by serving as a major support system for citizens and consumers living within the Single Market; underlines the importance of ensuring the smooth operation of the 112 number throughout the Union; considers that the Commission should ensure that every segment of society has access to this service, including persons with disabilities (hearing impairments, speech impediments, etc.) and other vulnerable groups;

18.

Regrets however that the European 112 emergency number is far from having reached its full potential; considers accordingly that basic steps still need to be taken with regard to its recognition by citizens, along with other issues relevant to technology and better coordination;

19.

Points out that, according to the Eurobarometer survey published in February 2011, only 26% of EU citizens can spontaneously identify 112 as the number to call for emergency services in the EU and 58% of EU citizens still disagree with the statement that people in their country are adequately informed about the existence of the 112 emergency number (14);

20.

Urges the European Commission and the Member States to jointly intensify their efforts to increase public awareness of the existence and use of the 112 number, namely through the development of a targeted and far-reaching communication strategy which addresses the preoccupations and queries that citizens have with regard to the mechanics of the system;

21.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further step up their information work so that the emergency number 112 reaches all EU citizens and travellers through the media, particularly the print and audiovisual media, by means of information campaigns such as the ‘EU-wide’ emergency number, and to organise and support promotional activities to raise public awareness and events held each year on 11 February, which has been established as ‘European 112 Day’; points out that special attention should be paid to practical information, such as stressing that 112 is the European emergency number, reachable from fixed and mobile phones free of charge everywhere in the EU;

22.

Notes considerable disparities among the Member States as regards knowledge of the European emergency number 112 and calls on the Member States to share their experiences and exchange best practices in order to achieve by 2020 at least 80% spontaneous identification by EU citizens of the 112 emergency number as the number to use to call emergency services anywhere in the European Union;

23.

Calls on Member States to make use of the best points for disseminating information on the 112 emergency number through which a great number of households can be easily informed, in particular doctors surgeries and pharmacies, hospitals and clinics, educational establishments such as schools and universities, and airports, ports and train stations, given that the 112 number is particularly useful to travellers, as well as the information portals of the national emergency services;

24.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States also to promote 112 as the EU-wide emergency number online and on radio, two of the most common media for young people and people who travel often; highlights that only 16% of people aware of the 112 number heard of it via radio and only 11% via the Internet;

25.

Calls on all Member States to ensure that the 112 number is displayed prominantly on all emergency vehicles including police cars, ambulances, fire engines and vehicles belonging to other services;

26.

Notes however that Member States have existing and longstanding emergency numbers and emphasises that, where they intend to maintain those national numbers, it is important not to compromise awareness or cause confusion over which number to dial;

27.

Regrets that Member States do not yet ensure that timely, accurate and reliable location information is provided to the 112 services; calls accordingly on the Commission, in close cooperation with the Member States, to improve significantly and as soon as possible the accuracy and reliability of caller location information under the new EU telecoms rules and to upgrade technology with the ultimate goal of mandatory automatic localisation for all 112 calls, including those from roaming customers, within a few seconds in order to provide dispatchers and first responders with this crucial information, thereby proving invaluable to citizens; calls on the Commission to envisage taking action against Member States that do not fulfil their obligations in this respect;

28.

Requests that the Member States and the Commission roll out measures improving access to finance to support research projects so as to ensure that the best possible technologies for identifying caller location, including via VOIP, are developed and supports accordingly the development of next generation standards and regulations; asks for the ICT-PSP funds indicated in the EU Budget 2009, 2010 and 2011 to be allocated to support the testing and implementation of innovative services (based on VoIP and IP-access to 112) that could be initiated through network-independent applications in anticipation of the establishment of a Next Generation 112 system in the EU; calls on the Commission to examine also the implementation of Next Generation 112 applications such as texting, video and social networks and how such applications, which are currently available to citizens, can be implemented in emergency communications to improve access to 112 as well as to enhance citizen-initiated emergency response;

29.

Believes that, through regulation, eCall should be deployed as a mandatory service;

30.

Highlights the importance of better coordination between emergency bodies both at national and cross-border/European Union level to achieve the highest level of effectiveness and, to this end, calls on the Commission to support and coordinate with Member State administrations to explore ways of improving interoperability between their systems;

31.

Calls on the Commission, in close cooperation with the Member States, to set reliability and quality requirements as soon as possible for the whole 112 service chain, and to establish performance indicators and guidelines pertaining to the quality of the 112 service as experienced by citizens, taking into account the need for accessibility, for interoperability between emergency services, for multilingualism and for timely and qualitative interventions by emergency services;

32.

Recommends, with a view to improving the efficiency of the 112 emergency service in the EU, the establishment of an action programme to support experience sharing and exchange of best practices between the NRAs, emergency services and civil society organisations in the Member States, extending this exchange to organisations in EU candidate and neighbouring countries; suggests that, to this end, a network of experts could be set up; recommends specifically the exchange of best practices between Member States as regards the handling of 112 calls, in particular on operator training, the use of a single operator to handle a call and the use of online and interpretation services that could help those who do not speak the language of the country in which they are using the emergency services;

33.

Calls on the Member States to take the measures needed to reduce the number of unsuccessful emergency-call attempts, shorten call set-up and response times and reduce the number of hoax/false calls; calls on the Member States to exchange best practices regarding blocking of calls from SIM-less mobile phones;

34.

Emphasises the need to guarantee the accessibility of the 112 number for people with different types of disability and vulnerable groups, and urges that accessibility be standardised for 112 for these groups in particular, possibly via the provision of special terminal devices for hearing- or visually-impaired users, text relay or sign language services, or other specific equipment; calls also on the Commission and the Member States to step up their efforts to heighten awareness among these people of the 112 number through the use of means of communication specially adapted to their needs;

35.

Calls on the Commission to carry out a study on the 112 emergency number services’ performances to date, on cooperation between the relevant bodies aimed at improving the service, and on the individual measures taken so far by the Member States; calls furthermore on the Commission to consider the possibility of extending the 112 service from voice calls to SMS so that texting ‘112’ triggers an emergency response;

36.

Calls on the Commission to evaluate, by independent bodies and by the end of 2012 at the latest, the real state of implementation of the 112 number throughout the EU as experienced by citizens, assessing notably accessibility, interoperability and intervention times. In this respect, the Commission is also invited to provide by the same date an overview of legally binding and practically implemented intervention times in the EU and to extend the impact study prepared in the framework of eCall to the human and financial consequences of the functioning of the 112 number;

37.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission, given that the technology already exists, to promote the establishment of a ‘reverse 112 system’, i.e. an EU-wide, universal, multilingual, accessible, simplified and efficient interconnected system for warning and alerting citizens in case of imminent or developing natural and/or man-made major emergencies and disasters of any type; considers that such a system should be implemented without hindering privacy and in combination with appropriate information and training campaigns for citizens;

38.

Calls on the Commission to examine the feasibility of a future 116 service similar to the 112 service for citizens in emotional distress, suffering from depression or other mental health problems;

39.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

5.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 33/9

—

having regard to the Commission report of 5 July 2010 entitled ‘Retail market monitoring report – Towards more efficient and fairer retail services in the internal market for 2020’ (COM(2010)0355), and the accompanying Commission staff working document on retail services in the internal market (SEC(2010)0807),

—

having regard to the responses to the Commission’s public consultation on the retail market monitoring report (held from 5 July to 10 September 2010),

—

having regard to the Roundtable on a more efficient and fairer retail market for business and consumers held by its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on 25 January 2011,

—

having regard to the European Economic and Social Committee’s opinion of 20 January 2011 on the ‘Retail market monitoring report – Towards more efficient and fairer retail services in the internal market for 2020’,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 13 April 2011 entitled ‘Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence - “Working together to create new growth” ’ (COM(2011)0206),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 27 October 2010 entitled ‘Towards a Single Market Act – For a highly competitive social market economy: 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another’ (COM(2010)0608),

—

having regard to Professor Mario Monti’s report of 9 May 2010 entitled ‘A New Strategy for the Single Market’,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 10 December 2010 on the Single Market Act,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 8 October 2010 on ‘Smart Regulation in the European Union’ (COM(2010)0543),

—

having regard to the fourth edition of ‘The Consumer Markets Scoreboard – Making Markets Work For Consumers’ (autumn edition – October 2010), and the fifth edition of the ‘Consumer Conditions Scoreboard – Consumers at home in the single market’ (spring edition – March 2011),

—

having regard to the 21st edition of the Internal Market Scoreboard published on 23 September 2010,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 28 October 2009 on a better functioning supply chain in Europe (COM(2009)0591),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 25 June 2008 entitled ‘ “Think Small First” – A “Small Business Act” for Europe’ (COM(2008)0394),

—

having regard to Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC (2),

—

having regard to the Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (3),

—

having regard to the Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (5),

—

having regard to its position of 23 June 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on governance and partnership in the single market (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on a single market for enterprises and growth (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on a single market for Europeans (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2010 on the future of European standardisation (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 September 2010 on completing the internal market for e-commerce (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2010 on fair revenues for farmers: a better functioning food supply chain in Europe (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2010 on consumer protection (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2010 on the Internal Market Scoreboard (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2010 on SOLVIT (16),

—

having regard to its declaration of 19 February 2008 on investigating and remedying abuse of power by large supermarkets operating in the European Union (17),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0217/2011),

A.

whereas the wind of protectionism blowing across Europe is alarming,

B.

whereas the real economy must be put back at the centre of the political agenda to unleash the full potential of the Single Market,

C.

whereas the retail market is a crucial component of our commitment to relaunch the Single Market,

D.

whereas the retail market, as a major energy user and waste producer, can make a key contribution to sustainability, including the EU 20-20-20 energy targets,

E.

whereas the business potential for cross-border online trade is failing to materialise sufficiently because of various obstacles, such as language barriers, insecurity in the system, inadequate and insufficient information and lack of administrative coordination and cooperation, which make consumers reluctant to purchase online from retailers in other Member States and retailers reluctant to sell online across borders,

1.

Stresses that the retail sector is a driver for growth, competitiveness and jobs in Europe and plays a key role in reaching the goals of the EU2020 strategy;

2.

Highlights that retailers are offering diverse and modern ways of purchasing and selling goods and services and contribute to wider consumer choice as well as flexible and decent employment opportunities, in particular for youth;

3.

Calls on the EU institutions to give the highest political prominence to the retail sector as a pillar of the Single Market Act and a vehicle for restoring public confidence in the single market;

4.

Calls on the Commission to reinforce cross-policy coordination and to take a holistic, long-term approach to the retail sector;

5.

Regrets that serious obstacles still hinder the retail sector from achieving its full potential online and offline; stresses the need to address them without delay;

6.

Underlines that retailers and suppliers have a shared responsibility in achieving a more efficient, transparent and fairer retail market;

7.

Considers that the primary focus must be on the effective enforcement of Treaty principles, existing internal market rules and instruments, and self-regulation, before considering a regulatory approach, if appropriate;

8.

Is concerned that restrictive national rules, divergent interpretations and inadequate enforcement impede free movement of goods and services in the EU; stresses that requirements for extra tests and registrations, non-recognition of certificates and standards, territorial supply constraints and similar measures create extra costs for consumers and retailers, in particular SMEs, thus limiting the potential usefulness of the single market to European citizens and the business world;

9.

Recognises the need for the Commission to further analyse the reasons for price differences in the EU, based on adequate statistical tools, in order to ensure greater price transparency and comparability for consumers, without prejudice to European and national fiscal and labour market rules, thereby promoting more enlightened choices and greater confidence in cross-border trade; recalls the need for active cooperation between national statistical agencies to this effect;

10.

Urges Member States to fully and correctly implement the internal market rules and legislation, notably the Goods Package, the Services Directive, the Late Payments Directive, the E-Commerce Directive, the Small Business Act and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive; also asks the Member States to remove overlaps and reduce administrative burdens and regulatory barriers that may limit growth and job creation;

11.

Asks the Commission to monitor Member States more closely in order to reduce transposition deficit and ensure effective mutual recognition of goods and services; asks the Commission to ensure also simplification of existing rules;

12.

Notes the difficulties faced by Europe’s independent retailers, and considers that retail market legislation should be more thoroughly evidence-based, particularly as regards the need to adequately examine and understand the impact of legislation on small businesses;

13.

Encourages business federations and consumer associations, supported by the Commission, to provide more information, training and legal advice to stakeholders on their rights and the problem-solving instruments at their disposal, such as SOLVIT, and to support the exchange of best practice among themselves;

14.

Stresses that a fragmented payment system is an obstacle to trade; calls on the Commission to improve SEPA in order to develop a basic payment service available for all cards, foster competition between payment means by removing barriers, increase transparency in transaction costs and remove unjustified interchange fees; calls also on the Commission to ensure faster bank transfers within the EU; points out, moreover, that SEPA can be regarded as a useful tool to combat the informal economy;

15.

Draws attention to the concern expressed by parts of civil society and SMEs about the increase in shopping centres and the decrease in local shops and markets in remote areas and town centres;

16.

Stresses that retail planning should provide a structural framework for companies to compete, enhance consumers’ freedom of choice and allow access to goods and services, especially in less accessible and sparsely populated regions or when consumers’ mobility is reduced; insists furthermore on the social, cultural and environmental role played by local shops and markets in the revitalisation of rural and urban areas; urges therefore Member States to encourage sustainable local communities by fostering innovation and growth of SMEs;

17.

Stresses that SMEs constitute the backbone of the European economy and have a unique role to play in creating jobs, particularly in rural areas, as well as fostering innovation and growth in the retail sector in local communities across the EU;

18.

Considers that accessibility must be addressed in full respect of subsidiarity;

19.

Recognises that the Member States are responsible for their shop location policies and that sustainability, mobility, regional planning and core consolidation are major factors which must be taken into account in deciding on the admissibility of new shop locations;

20.

Takes the view that incentives to renovate the urban building stock, also by using the Structural Funds, could enable rents to be reduced (public-private partnership) and could facilitate the return of businesses, particularly local ones, which are instrumental to economic and social development;

21.

Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to draw up a survey of the impact and possible consequences of the creation of hypermarkets or shopping malls with regard to the employment market, SMEs and consumers;

22.

Notes the great concern expressed by itinerant street vendors operating in public areas over the possibility that Directive 2006/123/EC might be enforced in the Member States, extending the concept of ‘natural resource’ also to public land, which would result in trading concessions in public areas being limited in time; this would be highly detrimental to employment, to consumers’ freedom of choice and to the very existence of traditional local street markets;

23.

Emphasises that e-commerce is an important complement to offline trade and that appropriate action must be taken to develop its full potential, including improving access to the Internet in the European Union’s most remote areas; calls on the Commission to include in the upcoming communication on e-commerce measures to enhance confidence, in particular by simplifying registration of domains across borders, improving secure online payment, facilitating cross-border debt recovery and improving information to consumers on their rights, particularly concerning cancellations and opportunities to appeal;

24.

Regrets the significant number of obstacles to retailers’ freedom of establishment across the EU; is concerned, in particular, about certain national trade and tax laws, which have a de facto discriminatory effect against foreign retailers;

25.

Calls on the Commission to act more firmly with regard to any Member State infringing internal market principles, to speed up infringement procedures through a ‘fast-track approach’ and to report to the European Parliament yearly on resolved cases in the field of retail;

26.

Reaffirms that free and fair competition, freedom of contract and proper enforcement of relevant legislation are key to a well-functioning retail market;

27.

Recognises that companies have different market power, that they need to act in an economically sound way and that the EU needs economic champions to compete globally;

28.

Stresses, however, that there is widespread concern about market dominance by bigger actors, who are often perceived to impose unfair terms on weaker suppliers and retailers, for instance through unjustified mechanisms of selective distribution, geographical segmentation, price control, delisting without notice, and other restrictive practices, thereby distorting competition; underlines that the entire retail supply chain is affected by such practices; denounces practices that misuse power imbalance between economic actors and affect true freedom of contract; stresses that raising all actors’ awareness of their contractual rights, especially SMEs, would contribute to preventing these practices;

29.

Recognises that franchising is a good formula for independent retailers to survive in a highly competitive environment; notes with concern that the contracts for retailers to be part of a franchise are becoming more and more rigorous;

30.

Emphasises that private labels should be developed in such a way as to deliver improved consumer choice, notably in terms of transparency, quality of information and diversity, and to provide clear opportunities for SMEs to innovate and expand;

31.

Considers that ‘parasitic copying’, which can result, inter alia, from the retailer’s dual role as the customer and competitor of brand manufacturers, is an unacceptable practice that should be addressed without delay; welcomes the fact that the Commission is conducting an analysis to further clarify the legal frameworks and practices relating to trade secrets and ‘parasitic copying’ within the 27 EU Member States;

32.

Recognises the need for more balanced relations and transparency in the retail supply chain; stresses the need to move from confrontation to dialogue based on facts, in order to restore confidence and enable fairer negotiations and a level playing field for all, thus enabling all economic actors in supply chains to benefit from the added-value of their products and reap the full benefits from the Single Market;

33.

Urges the Commission and Member States to fully and coherently enforce competition law and, where applicable at national level, unfair competition and anti-trust law;

34.

Stresses that, to ensure proper implementation of competition rules and prevent abuse of a dominant position, it is first and foremost necessary to strengthen the local competition watchdog authorities and ensure continuous and uninterrupted lines of communication and cooperation between them and the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition;

35.

Supports the good work of the Experts Platform on B2B contractual practices of the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, in particular to define, list and assess what constitutes a manifestly unfair commercial practice, based on data and concrete examples; calls for strong support of initiatives for dialogue between parties on this issue; is concerned that the European Parliament is not formally involved in the work of the Platform and the High Level Forum; considers that the Parliament should urgently address this matter and should actively participate in the Forum’s work;

36.

Supports the need expressed by stakeholders to take a broader and horizontal approach, extending the scope beyond the agro-food industry; asks the Commission and the business federations, building on the ongoing work in the Experts Platform, to explore the possibilities for creating a new, open-ended forum focusing on retail as a whole;

37.

Strongly supports, at the same time, the intense work underway by retailers’ and suppliers’ federations to set up informal dialogue and regular consultation mechanisms in respect of competition law; welcomes their voluntary initiative to agree on a declaration on common principles of good trading practices across the retail supply chain;

38.

Also welcomes the Commission’s European food prices monitoring tool as well as similar initiatives taken by Member States to allow fair revenues along the food supply chain, with an analysis of costs, processes, added value, volumes, prices and margins across all sections of the food supply chain;

39.

Notes with concern that existing legal instruments are not being fully used, especially by SMEs, to uphold their rights, due to economic dependency and concern about losing business; asks the Commission, Member States and business federations to identify ways to restore confidence and facilitate access to judicial systems, including the possibility of anonymous complaints and the establishment of an EU Ombudsman in this area; is convinced moreover that it is necessary further to develop the conceptual framework so as to ensure fair competition in both vertical and horizontal B2B relations, thereby paving the way for a genuine level playing field for businesses;

40.

Asks the Commission to publish, by the end of 2011, a communication mapping national laws and tools in place to deal with commercial practices and contractual relations, and to assess thoroughly if these rules are being properly enforced and if further action is needed;

41.

Considers that alternative and informal dispute resolution and redress mechanisms should be explored and their effectiveness evaluated, as they could be a means of resolving disputes for retailers; calls on the Commission to propose measures on alternative dispute resolution by the end of 2011 in order to strengthen businesses’ and consumers’ confidence;

42.

Asks the Commission and operators in the retail supply chain to report to Parliament on a yearly basis on progress made in the existing platforms and informal dialogue mechanisms; suggests that the results should be debated at a yearly Retail Market Roundtable organised by its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection;

43.

Highlights the retail sector’s responsibility concerning sustainability; welcomes the fact that retailers and suppliers have been at the forefront for green responsibility, particularly regarding waste, energy consumption, transport and CO2 reduction; supports the commitments they have already taken towards sustainable consumption, but considers further efforts are necessary; considers that corporate responsibility should pay greater attention to social and environmental issues;

44.

Emphasises that retailers and suppliers are drivers of innovation, research and development; stresses that the whole sector needs to continue driving up the level of investment in innovative technologies and practices to further improve competitiveness throughout the supply chain, covering logistics and transport, energy efficiency, packaging, waste disposal and product recycling, and to exchange best practices;

45.

Calls on the Commission to develop a common assessment and labelling system, as indicated in its resolution on a single market for enterprises and growth, based on the product’s whole life cycle, particularly in order to simplify, harmonise and overcome the cost of fragmentation for business and consumers;

46.

Calls on stakeholders to take further initiatives to combat food waste;

47.

Welcomes the joint agreement by EuroCommerce and UNI-Europa, which illustrates that social dialogue is working well in commerce; recognises that more needs to be done to increase consumer information on the social responsibility of retailers, to match investments in new technologies with human capital, in particular through competence development, and to combat the informal economy;

48.

Recalls the importance of proper implementation of existing social and labour legislation; regrets the existence of a high degree of undeclared employment, which involves a high level of tax evasion and prevents a level playing field among traders in the internal market;

49.

Points out that improving working conditions, combating the informal economy and maintaining employment levels and competitiveness by better matching the needs of the retailers to the skills of the workers are among the main challenges in this sector; highlights, to this end, the need to invest in training and competence building as this will help the sector adapt quickly to new technologies;

50.

Asks the Commission to prepare, in consultation with the retail sector, a comprehensive European Action Plan for Retail in order to set out a strategy, building on achievements and addressing outstanding issues, with sector-specific recommendations; welcomes the fact that Parliament has supported this initiative in its resolution on a single market for enterprises and growth;

51.

Stresses that this Action Plan should take into account initiatives already developed by the Commission, such as the High Level Forum on the Better Functioning of the Food Supply Chain, initiatives on sustainability and climate change, and relevant proposals of the Single Market Act;

52.

Proposes that follow-up to the recommended actions in the Action Plan, including progress made in the dialogue among stakeholders, be presented and debated at the first Retail Market Roundtable;

53.

Expects that the further optimisation of purchasing and sales processes throughout the retail supply chain, from market research and product marketing to supplier relations, logistics and stock management, as well as the handling of faulty goods, consumer complaints and custom care, will improve competitiveness in the retail sector, drive down prices for consumers and improve service quality;

54.

Encourages retailers and suppliers to actively engage in an open, constructive and continued dialogue to reach pragmatic solutions; invites Member States and EU institutions to actively support this process;

55.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

5.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 33/17

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Articles 49, 56, 114, 167 and 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which deal with respect for and the promotion and protection of fundamental rights,

—

having regard to the Basic Law of Hungary, adopted on 18 April 2011 by the National Assembly of the Hungarian Republic that will enter into force on 1 January 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the new Constitution’),

—

having regard to Opinions Nos CDL(2011)016, CDL(2011)001 of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on the new Hungarian constitution and the three legal questions arising out of the process of drafting the new Hungarian constitution,

—

having regard to motion for resolution No 12490 on serious setbacks in the fields of the rule of law and human rights in Hungary tabled on 25 January 2011 in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,

—

having regard to the ruling No 30141/04 of the European Court of Human Rights (Schalk and Kopf vs. Austria), and particularly its obiter dicta,

—

having regard to the Oral Questions tabled in the European Parliament on the new Hungarian Constitution and to the Council and Commission statements on the revised Hungarian constitution and following the debate held on 8 June 2011,

—

having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the European Union is founded on the values of democracy and the rule of law, as stipulated in Article 2 TEU, on unequivocal respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the ECHR, and on the recognition of the legal value of said rights, freedoms and principles, which is further demonstrated by the EU’s forthcoming accession to the ECHR,

B.

whereas Hungary has signed the ECHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international legal instruments obliging it to respect and implement principles concerning the separation of powers, the implementation of institutional checks and balances and the promotion of democracy and human rights,

C.

whereas, while the drafting and the adoption of a new constitution falls within the remit of Member States’ competences, Member States, current and acceding, and the EU have a duty to ensure that the contents and processes are in conformity with EU values, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the ECHR, and that the letter and spirit of adopted constitutions do not contradict these values and instruments; whereas this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that a number of current EU Member States had to review and amend their constitutions to ensure accession to the EU or adapt their constitutions to subsequent EU treaty requirements, notably at the request of the Commission,

D.

whereas the constitution-making process lacked transparency and the drafting and adoption of the new Constitution was conducted in an exceptionally short time frame that did not allow sufficient time for a thorough and substantial public debate on the draft text; and whereas a successful and legitimate constitution should be based on the largest consensus possible,

E.

whereas the Constitution has been widely criticised by national, European and international NGOs and organisations, the Venice Commission and representatives of Member States’ governments, and was adopted exclusively with the votes of the MPs from the governing parties, so that no political or social consensus was achieved,

F.

whereas the European Parliament shares the concerns voiced by the Venice Commission, particularly regarding the transparency, openness and inclusiveness of and the time frame for the adoption process, and regarding the weakening of the system of checks and balances, in particular the provisions concerning the Constitutional Court and the courts and judges that may put the independence of the Hungarian judiciary at risk,

G.

whereas the new Constitution fails to explicitly lay down a number of principles which Hungary, stemming from its legally binding international obligations, is obliged to respect and promote, such as the ban on the death penalty and life imprisonment without parole, the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and the suspension or restriction of fundamental rights by means of special legal orders,

H.

whereas the new Constitution, through the values it enshrines and its unclear wording when defining basic notions such as ‘family’ and the right to life from the moment of conception, creates the risk of discrimination against certain groups in society, namely ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, single-parent families, people living in civil partnerships and women,

I.

whereas the unclear wording of the preamble, particularly the parts concerning the Hungarian state’s obligations towards ethnic Hungarians living abroad, may create a legal basis for actions that neighbouring countries would consider as interference in their internal affairs, which may lead to tensions in the region,

J.

whereas the new Constitution stipulates that its preamble has legal force, which may have legal and political implications and may lead to legal uncertainty,

K.

whereas the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union into the new Constitution may give rise to overlaps in competences between Hungarian and international courts, as pointed out in the opinion issued by the Venice Commission,

L.

whereas the new Constitution provides for the extensive use of cardinal laws, whose adoption is also subject to a two-thirds majority, which will cover a wide range of issues relating to Hungary’s institutional system, the exercise of fundamental rights and important arrangements in society; whereas in practice this makes their adoption part of the new Hungarian constitutional process,

M.

whereas, under the new Constitution, a number of issues, such as specific aspects of family law and the tax and pension systems, which normally fall within the sphere of competence of the government or are covered by the regular decision-making powers of the legislature, will also have to be regulated by cardinal laws, which means that future elections will have less significance and more scope will be created for a government with a two-thirds majority to cement its political preferences; whereas the process of enacting specific and detailed rules by means of cardinal laws can thus put the principle of democracy at risk,

N.

whereas, as underlined by the Venice Commission, cultural, religious, socio-economic and financial policies should not be set in stone by means of cardinal laws,

O.

whereas a non-parliamentary body, the Budget Council, with its limited democratic legitimacy, will have the power to veto the adoption of the general budget, in which case the Head of State can dissolve the National Assembly, severely restricting the scope for action of the democratically elected legislature,

P.

whereas the effective system of four parliamentary commissioners will be downgraded to one consisting of a general ombudsman and two deputies, which may not provide the same level of protection of rights and whose powers will not include those of the former Commissioner for Personal Data and Freedom of Information; whereas the latter’s powers will be transferred to an authority whose modus operandi is not specified,

Q.

whereas in parallel with the adoption of the new Constitution, the Hungarian Government and the governing parties made many new appointments to key positions, such as Attorney-General, President of the State Audit Office and President of the Budget Council; whereas more recently the Hungarian Parliament elected the judges who will sit on the new Hungarian Constitutional Court, as required by the new Constitution; whereas the nomination procedure and the election were not based on political consensus,

R.

whereas the new Constitution lays down very general rules governing the judicial system, and leaves it unclear as to whether the Supreme Court, under its new name, will continue with its current president,

S.

whereas the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has decided to prepare a report on the new Hungarian Constitution, based on the opinion of the Venice Commission,

T.

whereas the drafting and adoption of a new constitution was not mentioned in the electoral manifesto of the governing parties,

U.

whereas the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has stated that he would ‘appreciate it if the Hungarian Government were to seek advice and recommendations from within the country and from the Council of Europe or the United Nations’ and takes the view that Hungary, as an EU Member State, should ask the European institutions to give advice and review the new Constitution,

1.

Calls on the Hungarian authorities to address the issues and concerns raised by the Venice Commission and to implement its recommendations, either by amending the new Constitution or through future cardinal and ordinary laws, notably to:

2.

Calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough review and analysis of the new Constitution and of the cardinal laws to be adopted in the future in order to check that they are consistent with the acquis communautaire, and in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with the letter and spirit of the Treaties;

3.

Instructs its relevant committees to follow up the matter, in cooperation with the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe, and to assess whether and how the recommendations have been implemented;

4.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Council of Europe, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Fundamental Rights Agency, the OSCE and the UN Secretary General.

5.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 33/21

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy’ (COM(2010)0642) (hereinafter ‘the conclusions’),

—

having regard to the Commission's fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, entitled ‘Investing in Europe's future’, of 9 November 2010 (hereinafter ‘the fifth Cohesion Report’),

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Part III, Title XVIII thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (3),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (4),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a cohesion fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (5),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 April 2007 on the consequences of future enlargements on the effectiveness of cohesion policy (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion and the state of debate on the future reform of cohesion policy (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the contribution of the cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU 2020 objectives (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 September 2010 on the European strategy for the economic and social development of mountain regions, islands and sparsely populated areas (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 October 2010 on EU cohesion and regional policy after 2013 (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 October 2010 on the future of the European Social Fund (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds (14),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 26 May 2004 entitled ‘A stronger partnership for the outermost regions’ (COM (2004)0343) and the Commission communication of 17 October 2008 entitled ‘The outermost regions: an asset for Europe’ (COM(2008)0642),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 6 October 2010 entitled ‘Regional policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020’ (COM(2010)0553),

—

having regard to the Commission communication 26 January 2011 entitled ‘Regional policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020’ (COM(2011)0017),

—

having regard to the General Affairs Council's conclusions of 21 February 2011 on the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion (06762/2011),

—

having regard to the Committee of the Regions’ opinion of 1 April 2011 on the fifth Cohesion Report (15),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Budgetary Control and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0222/2011),

A.

whereas EU cohesion policy has contributed greatly to the increased productivity achieved by all regions of the Union during the previous and current funding periods; whereas it is striking that ex-post evaluations have also shown a significant reduction of economic, social and regional disparities; whereas these developments are having equally positive effects on social security and on investment in environmental protection,

B.

whereas cohesion policy was intended to be a counterpart to the single market and to foster the development of an innovative and protective Europe based on solidarity in the face of the challenges associated with globalisation, demographic change and resource conservation, and whereas the intrinsic potential of all regions should be exploited to boost growth and regional and social cohesion,

C.

whereas cohesion policy is an issue of genuine relevance to citizens, bringing Europe into people's daily lives and making it tangible and visible across the EU,

D.

whereas the cohesion and structural policies have proved flexible in crisis situations and have made a crucial contribution to various national economic stimulus and training programmes, and whereas it is important to maintain this flexibility,

E.

whereas European structural policy is making a major contribution towards overcoming the economic and financial crisis, as it tends to be oriented towards innovation and removing disparities, strongly encouraging European regions to upgrade infrastructure, increase regional innovation potential and boost environmentally sustainable development,

F.

whereas gearing the Structural Funds to the Lisbon Strategy objectives has proved effective, as is evident from the impressive commitment rates for the Convergence and Regional Competitiveness and Employment objectives, and whereas 20 % of European Territorial Cooperation projects are in keeping with the Lisbon aims,

G.

whereas territorial cooperation aims to help territories and regions work together in tackling their common challenges, reduce the physical, administrative and regulatory barriers to such cooperation and lessen the ‘border effect’,

H.

whereas the partial failure of the Lisbon Strategy is due not to inadequate implementation of cohesion policy but rather to the lack of multi-level governance and of ownership of this strategy by the regional and local levels, the effects of the financial crisis, imperfect implementation of the single market, slack budgetary discipline and inadequate macroeconomic framework conditions in individual Member States,

I.

whereas the error rates and misuse of funds has been significantly lower in the most recent funding periods; whereas, regrettably, structural policy nonetheless remains an area with a high level of irregularities in this respect, and some Member States still lack effective machinery for countering the misuse of funding and recovering money wrongly paid out; whereas irregularities may not be reported, either through negligence or deliberately, and whereas it must be noted that a significant part of the errors in the cohesion policy sphere may be attributed to legislative requirements outside cohesion policy, in areas such as public procurement, environment and state aids,

J.

whereas the existing system of cohesion and structural policy objectives (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), combined with a multi-level governance approach, horizontal objectives and security to plan on the basis of reliable funding and an agreed time frame (seven years), has, overall, proved its worth, but whereas there have been considerable delays in programme planning as a result of protracted financial and legislative negotiations in the EU decision-making process and substantial changes in the rules applying to cohesion policy,

K.

whereas sustained support for and development of the convergence regions has a positive impact on the demand for goods and services on their markets and thus has demonstrably beneficial effects on the wealthier EU Member States as well,

L.

whereas a comprehensive and well-funded EU cohesion policy in all European regions continues to be essential, given the imbalances between regional economies and in social terms and the geographical disadvantages of certain regions (particularly the outermost regions), as well as specific structural problems and the need to adapt to new challenges; whereas it is also a requirement under the Lisbon Treaty,

M.

whereas, given its strategic importance for the future, cohesion policy must not become an adjustment variable in future budget negotiations,

1.

Calls for cohesion and structural policy programmes to place more emphasis on European added value; deems such added value to be achieved where EU projects bring about a sustainable improvement in the economic, infrastructural, social and/or environmental status of disadvantaged, less-developed regions, and where that improvement would not have been achievable without the European stimulus;

2.

Recognises, too, that European funding adds value where projects supported at national, regional and local level contribute to the achievement of pan-European objectives in the fields of European integration, economic growth, research, environmental protection, culture, resource management, sport, demographic change, sustainability of energy supply, social cohesion or cross-border development and this would not have been achieved without the European stimulus;

3.

Sees the achievement of European objectives in accordance with a decentralised approach and the principle of multi-level governance and shared management as one of the major advantages of cohesion policy and thus as a form of added value in itself; considers multi-level governance with clearly-defined structures and responsibilities as an embodiment of the principle of subsidiarity as well as due recognition of the importance of regional authorities in implementing cohesion policy; calls for the partnership principle and the sense of ownership of the actors involved to be further strengthened by introducing detailed binding provisions in a Territorial Pact to be decided in each Member State, in order to ensure more result-oriented planning and implementation;

4.

Considers that transparency in respect of cohesion policy and its programming cycle, allocation of expenditure and access to information for potential beneficiaries of the Structural Funds are key prerequisites for achieving the overall objectives of cohesion policy, and that transparency should therefore be introduced as a guiding cross-sectoral principle in the cohesion programming and decision-making processes in the next funding period; underlines that disclosure of the list of beneficiaries should be continued, notably online, as it is an efficient means of improving transparency;

5.

Considers that the transparency provisions (obligation to disclose the final beneficiary) are a necessary instrument for experts, the public and policy-makers to evaluate whether structural funding has been used in accordance with the objectives set and lawfully; calls for the description to be supplied not only in the relevant national language but also in one of the three working languages (English, French or German) and recommends further harmonisation of the information required;

6.

Emphasises that, despite the trend towards a narrowing of inter-regional disparities, major imbalances still exist – and among/in some Member States are actually growing, inter alia as a result of the economic and financial crisis – and that cohesion policy must therefore continue to concentrate on reducing disparities and implementing harmonious and sustainable development for all regions of the Union, regardless of the Member State in which they are located;

7.

Recognises the special needs of regions particularly disadvantaged by virtue of their geographical situation or natural environment; reiterates its call to Member States and the Commission for special forms of preference to continue to apply – provided they are effective and bring European added value – in respect of the particularly disadvantaged types of region referred to in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (outermost regions, northernmost regions with a very low population density and island, mountain and cross-border regions);

8.

Recognises the special status and needs of certain regions stemming from their geographical situation, demographic change or specific constraints, such as their natural environment, while paying attention also to their potential; reiterates its call for special forms of preference, flexibility and special budget funding to continue to apply in respect of these types of regions, and in particular those referred to in Articles 349 and 174 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which are particularly disadvantaged (such as outermost regions, including the rural outermost areas, northernmost regions with a very low population density, which, inter alia suffer from long distances and northern conditions, and island, mountain and cross-border regions), with more favourable terms being provided for investment in these regions, by means of either direct assistance or tax exemptions; calls also for studies into the preservation or creation of certain preferences for these types of regions, with a view to ensuring that the use of cohesion policy instruments is adapted to their economies, with due regard for the importance of their small and medium-sized undertakings and the need for competitiveness and equal opportunities in order to make them an integral part of the EU internal market;

9.

Emphasises that the Union will be able to be competitive in the face of global competition only if its cohesion policy can fully exploit the development potential of all the regions, urban areas and cities and allow a sufficiently flexible regional response to be made to the challenges and bottlenecks identified by the Europe 2020 strategy; underlines in this connection that targeting Structural Fund resources in a broad territorial approach must also serve to compensate for structural weaknesses in the stronger regions; stresses, however, that cohesion policy is not merely an implementing tool for Europe 2020 and that a continued focus on the core principles of cohesion policy will have the added value of sustaining the achievements of Europe 2020 even after the strategy has come to an end;

10.

Emphasises that cohesion policy must continue to focus on territorial cohesion and points out that the Lisbon Treaty added the objective of territorial cohesion to those of economic and social cohesion; affirms that this aim remains indissociable from the challenges of economic and social cohesion and strengthens the European added value of cohesion policy; emphasises that ‘territorial cohesion’ is also relevant at the sub-regional level, particularly in urban areas (urban districts facing difficulties, uncontrolled urban sprawl), even within regions considered to be rich;

11.

Sees macroregional strategies – provided that regional authorities are involved in their governance – as affording a major opportunity to harness forms of supranational potential, improve cooperation between the different levels of governance and take a joint approach towards shared challenges such as environmental protection or the use of resources and development capacities, thus allowing more efficient, balanced and sustainable development; highlights the need to link territorial cooperation programmes more effectively with territorial strategies (such as regional development plans, local development strategies and local development plans); considers that better coordination of existing support mechanisms can create scope for more targeted use of the EU Structural Funds, without this entailing any increase in the resources earmarked for these fields of inter-regional cooperation; takes the view, moreover that no new instruments, financial resources or implementation structures should be created for these strategies and that the financial support provided to the regions for smaller scale development projects must not be affected; considers that the macroregional approach could be used to strengthen the links between cohesion policy and neighbourhood policy; encourages the Commission and Member States, in this context, to take greater account of the territorial dimension of the ESF, in particular with regard to access to employment;

12.

Doubts whether specific operational programmes for functional geographical entities such as groups of authorities including local areas, or sea or river basins will yield additional benefits, in particular in cases where there are no political authorities (including democratically elected authorities) with a sufficiently wide-ranging remit to implement them; calls instead for closer coordination of macroregional, metropolitan regional or environmental-geographic strategies at inter-governmental level and for appropriate consideration to be given to these functional geographical entities within national operational programmes in order to facilitate the use of EU funding for interregional development projects; considers that specific operational programmes should be an option for delivery in regions where sub-regional delivery provides added value vis-à-vis national and regional programmes and where partnerships have been formed by political bodies for implementation purposes; calls for cross-border groupings to be involved in devising the operational programmes for cross-border programmes, on the basis of the EGTC Regulation;

13.

Stresses the key role of urban areas and regions – including capital cities and their regions – in achieving the economic, environmental and social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; supports the dynamic process launched during the previous programming period for Integrated Urban Programmes and stresses the importance of the experiments currently under way; calls for support for ideas and projects which can serve as models, on the basis of integrated place-based development plans, and for the mutually beneficial upgrading of links between towns and cities and the rural areas functionally linked to them; considers that greater cohesion between these areas is of special importance in addressing problems of areas with disadvantaged communities; stresses, in this context, that the greatest socioeconomic differences often exist within cities and that cities with deprived areas and pockets of poverty are also to be found in wealthy regions;

14.

Stresses that towns and cities can make a key contribution, as growth centres and growth drivers, to a given region; points, at the same time, to the need for it to be made possible for rural settlements to participate in integrated solutions for a given functional geographical entity by means of the fostering of partnerships and networks; stresses that larger urban centres face specific challenges because of the complexity of their social, economic and environmental tasks; sees, in this context, the endogenous potential of rural and peri-urban areas as offering an opportunity for development, although not only around agglomerations and big cities; notes, furthermore, the opportunity for the economic development of particularly disadvantaged regions through appropriate exploitation of, and support for, the endogenous potential of rural areas, including their environmental and cultural assets; considers also, in the context of structural and cohesion policy, urban-rural partnerships more in terms of providing rural areas with the same conditions for development and quality of life with regard to social and economic factors; calls on the Member States, given the dynamic influence of towns and cities on economic development in the regions and in stimulating the economy in surrounding rural areas, to guarantee the resources needed to implement the urban and sub-urban projects required;

15.

Rejects the use of obligatory quotas, in particular for national allocations under ESF/ERDF programmes, for local and urban development, for rural areas and for other types of spatial agglomerations or functional areas, as this could ensure a larger critical mass of interventions; considers that the requirement to specify at operational programme level which urban and other areas are to be eligible for support is an option that should be prioritised wherever this method will ensure added value and concentration of aid intensity, and that this needs to be negotiated on the basis of the principles of multi-level governance; takes the view that the Member States and regions should to be given more responsibility to organise competitive and performance-based selection procedures in this respect as well;

16.

Emphasises that structural and cohesion policy must not be biased towards specific types of region; calls for urban-rural partnerships to be seen in their broader social, economic and environmental context;

17.

Emphasises that structural and cohesion funding should also take into account the educational, cultural and socio-political challenges of the Europe 2020 strategy, while remaining in line with the overarching EU objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion as enshrined in the Treaty and respecting the subsidiarity principle; takes the view, however, that across-the-board ‘Europeanisation’ of the relevant policy areas would fail on financial grounds; calls, therefore, for further place-based local development approaches that could serve as models to be introduced, while retaining existing national and regional competences;

18.

Stresses, likewise, that cohesion policy cannot become a vehicle or instrument serving sectoral issues such as policies on research and development, industrial innovation and the fight against climate change, as this would mean diluting its primary objective and placing constraints on its use to promote regions’ development potential, which is essential in order to bring the most disadvantaged regions closer to the most developed regions;

19.

Calls, in the light of the necessary shift towards renewable sources of energy and of the climate debate, for cohesion policy to make a greater contribution to the rapid development of environmental technology and renewables; considers that this should be one of the priorities if sufficient amounts are available in the programmes and a focus on renewables provides EU added value, based on plans for decentralised energy concepts involving effective energy storage technologies in the regions; is in favour of exploiting the regional economy's potential in this area;

20.

Sees scope under the Structural Funds for supporting investment in specific energy infrastructure, although such support must be available only in regions where political or geographical constraints significantly hamper the ability of the market to meet energy-supply needs; calls, too, for support from the structural funds to be linked in all cases to the strengthening of the internal energy market and the security of supply, as well as to the principle of multi-level governance in resource management;

21.

Also considers that cohesion policy has a responsibility to do what is needed to fill gaps and remove bottlenecks in a core TEN network of main routes of European significance, particularly in the border regions which have until now been badly neglected in this regard;

22.

Emphasises that the trans-European transport networks play a decisive role in the cohesion of European regions and that development of TEN infrastructure, Motorways of the Sea and designated E-roads must therefore be stepped up and access to them improved, especially in border regions and outermost regions; calls for all necessary measures to be taken to ensure sufficient financing and guarantee timely implementation of priority TEN-T projects; suggests that certain cross-border ‘infrastructure’ should be considered as priority projects eligible for Objective 1, 2 and 3 funding and calls for there to be an obligatory right for the initial proposal for this type of action to be made at regional level and for equal participation of the border regions and local authorities in the planning process;

23.

Encourages the application of the national resources, given the added value of such measures in strengthening regional convergence, territorial cohesion and development activities such as tourism, which are important for remote regions, such as island regions;

24.

Supports economic development and employment in SMEs and micro-enterprises; requests, therefore, that the fundamental principles of the Small Business Act for Europe (SBAE) – i.e. ‘think small first’ and ‘only once’ – be considered one of the bases of cohesion policy, and considers that these principles should be applied by Member States and regions in the definition of their operational programmes;

25.

Emphasises that the core components of the Europe 2020 strategy (innovation, education and training, energy, environment, employment, competitiveness, skills and combating poverty) are already integral to cohesion and structural policy; takes the view that the Europe 2020 challenges can be integrated very easily into the three objectives system (Convergence, Regional Competitiveness and Employment, and European Territorial Cooperation), which has proved its effectiveness;

26.

Emphasises that investment in innovation and education can promote growth; points out, however, that the relevant infrastructure (transport, broadband internet, energy) and appropriate institutions (a balanced mix of public investment and fiscal policy consolidation with macro-economic measures, e-government services and cross-border learning) must provide effective support;

27.

Takes the view that the development of basic infrastructure should also be regarded as compatible with Europe 2020, because only when they have competitive transport, energy and communications networks and waste-management infrastructure will the convergence regions be in a position to contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 objectives, which is precisely why the weakest and neediest regions must be given some flexibility to interpret those objectives;

28.

Stresses that the ESF is the most important instrument for the implementation of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy and that the fund can contribute significantly to the fulfilment of the central priorities of that strategy, namely employment, transition to a sustainable economy, a lower number of school drop-outs, fighting against poverty, discrimination and social exclusion and finding answers to the different social situations people find themselves in; stresses, in this context, that, alongside GDP, other social indicators would be useful in the SWOT analysis;

29.

Considers that the ESF is of crucial importance to cohesion policy and has the potential to enhance the latter's contribution towards meeting the Europe 2020 objectives, including in the area of sustainable growth through the provision of support to SMEs for the creation of green jobs;

30.

Considers the fight against discrimination in the labour market, whether related to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, age, disability or place of residence, to be crucial for the promotion of genuine equality of opportunity; notes that increasing the female employment rate is crucial for reaching the Europe 2020 employment target and that barriers to women's labour market participation must therefore be fully addressed;

31.

Takes the view that GDP must be retained as the key criterion in the definition of areas eligible for maximum support (those with a per capita GDP below 75 % of the EU average) and, where appropriate, cohesion countries (per capita GNI below 90 % of the EU average); considers that the competent national and regional authorities should be given scope for the use – at the appropriate decision-making level, for each objective and in a manner reflecting geographical concentrations – of additional indicators, to be agreed in the development and investment partnership contracts, with which to assess the social, economic, environmental, demographic and geographical challenges which they face;

32.

Calls for cohesion policy to continue, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, to target as a priority those regions that lag furthest behind; stresses that the neediest regions should be granted an appropriate share – commensurate with the seriousness of their development problems – of the funding available under Objective 1 (Convergence);

33.

Calls for a limit to be placed on eligibility periods for regions which prove unable to show any significant improvements in their economic, social and environmental situation after several programming periods, despite maximum support;

34.

Calls on the Commission to present a proposal for the duration of the next programming period that will ensure the provision of adjustable, robust and proportionate transitional assistance for regions no longer coming under the Convergence Objective, in order to address their specific situation, and for regions with per capita GDP between 75 % and 90 % of the EU average, in the form of an intermediate category, in order to avoid unequal treatment of regions in spite of their similar situations; considers that this specific arrangement must replace the current ‘phasing-out’ and ‘phasing-in’ systems, thus creating a fair system which better addressees the negative impacts of the economic and financial crisis on the regions, while strengthening justice and solidarity, which are fundamental values of cohesion policy; stresses that these transitional measures for the next programming period should not be established at the expense of the current Convergence (Objective 1) and Competitiveness (Objective 2) regions or the European Territorial Cooperation Objective (Objective 3);

35.

Calls for a strengthening of Objective 2 (Regional Competitiveness and Employment) through its horizontal nature to achieve results on a limited number of EU priorities, such as support for SMEs, green innovations, local economies, education and training, infrastructure, sustainable mobility, renewable energies and energy supply, resource efficiency and social inclusion; stresses that the proven system of ensuring that more developed regions are able to remove regional structural weaknesses, reduce territorial disparities, contribute to common European objectives and meet future challenges when using structures that can respond flexible to changing circumstance, including, inter alia, innovation clusters and competition for funding in these regions, must be retained and developed further; calls for additional measures for areas highly affected by structural change which can help to improve the socio-economic and infrastructure situation; points out in this context that strategies should be designed with sufficient flexibility to be able to cope with the problems and particularities of each individual region;

36.

Calls for action to ensure that more developed regions are able to modernise their social and economic capital and to address specific pockets of deprivation and inadequate economic development;

37.

Takes the unequivocal view that efforts under Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation) need to be stepped up at all EU internal borders and at all three levels of such cooperation (cross-border, inter-regional and trans-national), and calls for the relevant share of structural funds to be increased to 7 %; calls for the allocation of funding for each territorial cooperation programme to be based on harmonised criteria, in order to provide a strategic and integrated response to the needs and specificities of each geographical territory and area concerned; stresses the importance of the border regions in terms of achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives; considers that there is a need to improve coordination between the Trans-European Networks, particularly those concerned with transport and energy, and cross-border infrastructure, and to increase the subsidies for those networks in line with European priorities, and calls for a corresponding increase in funding for all border regions; calls for simplification of the implementing rules governing Objective 3 programmes, based on the principle of proportionality, as well as for the development of a common set of eligibility rules, all of which are preconditions for these programmes becoming more effective and more visible; stresses the need for local decision-makers to be closely involved, since programmes can be fleshed out only if this is guaranteed;

38.

Considers that EGTCs represent a unique, highly valuable territorial governance instrument which responds to the needs for structured cooperation and must be promoted as a means of setting up cross-border governance systems ensuring regional and local ownership of the different policies;

39.

Rejects absolutely all proposals to nationalise or sectoralise cohesion policy; takes the view that new thematic funds (for climate, energy and transport) would undermine the tried and tested principle of shared management and integrated development programmes and jeopardise the availability of synergies and the effectiveness of interventions, and thus the regions’ contribution to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives;

40.

Insists that the European Social Fund must remain part of cohesion policy, as only in this way can integrated strategies for resolving economic and social problems be developed and implemented;

41.

Supports the Commission in its aim to ensure a stronger, efficient and more visible ESF; calls, to this end, on the Commission and Member States to reach agreement in their negotiations on the necessary amount of ESF contribution within the Structural Funds;

42.

Takes the view that measures to improve the effectiveness of the ESF should be based primarily on incentives rather than penalties;

43.

Stresses that the economic crisis has further increased the urgency of the need for measures in the sectors covered by the ESF, in particular to promote employment, occupational redeployment, social inclusion and poverty reduction;

44.

Stresses the fact that the ESF provides crucial support for employment market policies such as preventive and local policies as well as those aimed at helping young people to enter the labour market and at combating unemployment; highlights the fact that the Member States should use the ESF for investment in new skills, education (including early childhood education), lifelong learning, retraining and occupational redeployment activities, and stresses that the fund plays an important part in boosting all dimensions of social inclusion, including for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups;

45.

Asks the Commission to step up ESF action aimed at promoting integration into the job market; encourages the Member States to invest in children from a very early age through education and later to set up in-school guidance based on local and regional job opportunities and lifelong training to help workers adapt their skills to the needs of the job market, while implementing measures to combat youth unemployment and to tackle the phenomenon of the ‘working poor’ and establishing tailor-made programmes to assist disadvantaged and vulnerable groups such as the Roma, migrants, persons with disabilities and early school-leavers, with a view to promoting effective and inclusive growth and a knowledge-based economy in Europe;

46.

Calls for better targeting and additional technical support to those entities that are affected by deep poverty and often tense co-existence of majority-minority cultures at sub-regional levels; considers that such sub-regional entities can easily remain deep poverty pockets facing segregation even within regions that are not necessarily lagging behind the statistical averages; notes that concentrated efforts should be made on the development of these sub-regional entities;

47.

Welcomes the fact that operational programmes (OPs) covering all target areas have also been set up under the ESF for the first time in some Member States for the 2007-2013 funding period;

48.

Underlines the fact that the invaluable experience gained with the Community EQUAL initiative is still relevant today, especially as regards combining local and regional measures and the EU-wide exchange of best practices;

49.

Draws attention to the synergies achievable through integrated local and regional development approaches, notably linking the ESF and the ERDF, and calls for common eligibility rules and for the use of the option of cross-financing between these funds – specifically with a view to place-based integrated development planning – to be increased and facilitated; supports the introduction of an option for multi-fund OPs which would further facilitate integrated approaches; calls, furthermore, for better synergies between the EDF and the ERDF;

50.

Calls, with a view to increasing synergies, for greater integration of sectoral policies (transport, energy, research, environment, education) under the cohesion and structural policies, so as to achieve greater effectiveness and better coordination between the Structural Funds, the CIP and the Framework Programmes for Research and Development; suggests that multi-fund programming could contribute to a more integrated approach and would increase the effectiveness of the interplay between these different funds; considers the national/regional development partnerships to be an appropriate instrument to bring together the various policies; underlines, in this respect, the need to set clear objectives and to assess whether the goals have been achieved in the Member States;

51.

Proposes that research and development policies be territorialised; stresses, therefore, the importance of adapting cohesion policy and research and innovation policies to the specific needs of the territories, since closer involvement of regional and local authorities in the design and implementation of the regional development funds and research and innovation programmes is of crucial importance in view of the impossibility of applying the same development strategy in all regions;

52.

Calls for a common strategic framework for the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the framework programmes, the EAFRD and the EFF, for the post-2013 funding period; takes the view that the model of a harmonised regulatory approach (covering administration, eligibility, auditing and reporting rules) must be further strengthened by means of a joint framework regulation; highlights, in this respect, the importance of different funds working smoothly together in order to achieve results; calls for the Commission to make the adjustments required to ensure that the relevant funds can, where possible, complement each other;

53.

Calls for a new Common Strategic Framework to be adopted by the Council and the Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure, on the basis of Article 177 of the TFEU;

54.

Takes the view that the European Social Fund needs to be included in the common strategic framework, without, however, altering its own specific operating rules and provisions and while ensuring the provision of adequate resources; calls on the Commission to strengthen the role of the ESF, raise its profile and simplify its budgetary control arrangements by establishing simple and effective cooperation procedures between the managing authorities and the budgetary control departments;

55.

Suggests, in this context, that reintegration of the regionally oriented EAFRD (Axes 3 and 4) programmes should be considered; is opposed, however, to this resulting in a reduction in the budgets for the ERDF and EAFRD; calls for binding targets to be set for the Member States and the regions in order to establish harmonised administrative structures for the EU Structural Funds and the regionally oriented rural development programmes;

56.

Calls for the revision of the regulation concerning cross-border cooperation at external borders and of the current ENPI, so as to integrate the relevant funds into Objective 3 (European Territorial Cooperation);

57.

Welcomes the objectives of the development and investment partnership contracts between the EU and the Member States, which the Commission is proposing in place of the national strategic reference frameworks previously prepared for individual Member States; calls for key investment priorities geared to the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and the achievement of other cohesion policy objectives to be set at this stage; considers that the allocation of responsibilities between the various levels involved needs to be clarified as quickly as possible, and calls for national and/or regional and local competences to be retained in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for a clear commitment to the appropriate involvement of partners in the development and investment partnership contracts;

58.

Supports retention of the operational programmes as the most important tool for implementation of the strategy papers in terms of concrete investment priorities; calls for clear and measurable objectives to be set in this respect;

59.

Calls for the mandatory involvement of regional and local authorities and associations thereof, in accordance with the constitutional and institutional systems of the individual Member States, in all phases of cohesion policy implementation (strategic planning, drawing up and negotiating development and investment partnership agreements and operational programmes, monitoring and evaluation), in a structured and systematic way; considers it essential to make appropriate provision for this in the regulations governing the Structural Funds;

60.

Believes that any future strategy for the use of the ESF will be more effective if it involves regional and local levels of governance, which are capable of gearing strategic objectives to specific territorial characteristics on the basis of structured dialogue with all stakeholders;

61.

Supports the system of thematic priorities that the Commission is proposing; points out that, the lower the level of development in a Member State or region, the more wide-ranging the list of priorities needs to be, while specific regional development needs have to be taken into account and it has to be ensured that this thematic approach for structural and cohesion fund programming cannot be implemented to the detriment of the integrated place-based approach;

62.

Calls for Member States, in the event of certain binding priorities being set for all Member States, to include among their priorities innovation, infrastructure, transport and resource management, but considers there should be some margin for manoeuvre to take into account the scale of the programmes, the baseline scenario in each region and the results to be achieved, in order for these priorities to be tailored to each region's specific needs; stresses, in this connection, that innovation must be given a broad interpretation in line with the Innovation Union flagship initiative; notes that SMEs are the main source of jobs in the EU and are a breeding ground for business ideas; stresses that support for SMEs must be continued and strengthened in light of the key role they can play in the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that, in connection with Innovation Union, a broad concept of ‘innovation’ needs to be applied, while SME access to finances must continue to be facilitated; stresses that it must be possible for additional priorities to be proposed and pursued on a voluntary basis and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; calls for the proposed priority areas to include energy, education and training, and action to combat poverty;

63.

Calls for delays in launching programmes to be avoided and for decision-making and evaluation processes to be speeded up as a matter of principle; stresses that this is extremely important for small and medium-sized undertakings in particular; calls, too, for the technical equipment available to the relevant administrative authorities to be improved and for those authorities to be more closely inter-connected, for publication requirements to be reduced, and for deadlines for calls for tender and applications to be significantly shortened; asks the Commission to evaluate whether pilot areas could be established in order to test out new regulations on smaller scale before they become applicable to the rest of the regions, in order to identify possible implementation problems;

64.

Calls for funding under the development and investment partnerships to be made subject to certain specific commitments predetermined in a dialogue between the Commission and Member States; take the view that those predetermined conditions must require the Member States to undertake reforms in order to ensure that funds are used efficiently in areas directly related to cohesion policy, that, where necessary, Member States should be called upon to do so, and that the funds should be made dependent on those conditions; calls for it to be made possible for the actors involved in the management of operational programmes to influence conditionalities; considers it fair for such conditions to include, in particular, full implementation of existing EU legislation (e.g. on price regulation, tendering procedures, transport, the environment and health) in order to prevent irregularities and ensure effectiveness; rejects, however, the imposition of conditions requiring Member States to undertake fundamental social and economic reform; all conditions should fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and partnership;

65.

Takes the view that any new conditionality must not result in extra administration burdens for the actors involved; encourages the development of consistent, standard systems of conditionality for both the ERDF and ESF that are objectively assessable;

66.

Considers the Commission to be responsible for establishing conditionalities and overseeing their implementation, and proposes corresponding action plans for the Member States and regions;

67.

Welcomes the Commission's proposal to make cohesion policy more result-oriented by means of the ex-ante establishment of appropriate objectives and indicators; stresses that such indicators must be few in number, that they must all be clearly defined, measurable and related directly to the impact of the funding, and that they should be established by agreement with the regions/Member States; considers, however, that all instruments and criteria proposed to measure performance should continue to be based on a qualitative approach to the programmes;

68.

Considers that the indicators determining regional subsidies from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund must be based on Eurostat's most recent statistical data, so as to take full account of the economic and social impact of the crisis on the regions;

69.

Calls for the effectiveness and transparency of the ESF to be increased through more results-oriented action and asks for the ex ante setting of clear and measurable targets and outcome indicators, directly linked to the purpose of the funding, which measure, in particular, success in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and integration into high-quality employment; considers that stakeholders at all levels of governance need to be involved in the setting of these targets and indicators and that the latter should be clearly defined in good time prior to the provision of funding, so that both the Member States and the Commission can evaluate the results achieved and use the experience during the next planning phase; supports the Commission's proposal to make the allocation of ESF money dependent on ex ante conditionality, including a precondition regarding the transposition of EU legislation and EU objectives, which are indispensable for the success of ESF measures, as well as structural reforms and adequate administrative capacities; stresses that result-orientation must not lead to small beneficiaries being disadvantaged or exposed either to new barriers to access or to risks;

70.

Regards public and private co-financing as one of the basic principles of cohesion policy; calls for a review of the percentage ceiling for EU funding – which should take more account of regional development levels, European added value and the types of measure funded and should be raised or lowered accordingly;

71.

Calls on the Member States and regions to look ahead when programming co-financing appropriations and to boost them by means of financial engineering;

72.

Calls, in connection with direct subsidies to undertakings, for it to be recognised that cohesion policy funding, rather than influencing decisions by companies – and particularly larger companies – to open a plant in a given location, tends to be pocketed by companies which have already taken such decisions (deadweight effect), and calls, therefore, for grant support for large, private undertakings to focus on investment in research and development or for it to be provided, more often than is currently the case, indirectly through infrastructure financing; also calls for clear provisions to be included in the general regulation governing the Structural Funds ruling out the provision of any EU funding for the relocation of undertakings within the Union, substantially lowering the threshold for review of relocation investments, excluding large enterprises from direct subsidies, and placing a 10-year limit on the duration of operations;

73.

Recognises the leverage effect of new financial instruments and their potential to mobilise investment, supports increased financing from credit in general, and calls for the use of revolving financial instruments to be extended to those areas eligible for funding which prove to be appropriate; calls for procedures to be simplified to that end and for a greater degree of legal certainty throughout the entire funding period, as well as for the establishment of an EU register showing which projects are provided with loans and which with subsidies; calls for the instruments to be adaptable, so as to ensure they are viable and feasible for all regions and cities; takes the view that at the end of a funding period, at the latest, responsibility for how the funds are spent should transfer to national level or project level; notes that during the current period not all Member States have adopted a decentralised approach to dealing with financial instruments such as JESSICA; emphasises the need for direct access for cities;

74.

Emphasises that the provision of grants must always be retained as an option and that it must be the responsibility of those involved on the ground to use the funding mix best suited to regional needs;

75.

Considers that the EIB must assume a stronger role in the financing of TEN infrastructure; calls for more emphasis to be placed on self-supporting public-private partnerships; considers, as a matter of principle, that the European Parliament has a major responsibility in this regard for ensuring transparency, as well as in relation to decision-making and supervision;

76.

Welcomes the effective cooperation between the EIB and the Commission in implementing three joint initiatives – JESSICA, JEREMIE and JASMINE – which should increase the efficiency and effectiveness of cohesion policy and improve the functioning of the Structural Funds; calls on the Commission to continue to actively adopt joint initiatives with the EIB, particularly in the field of cohesion policy and to ensure financial support for SMEs;

77.

Sees global grants at sub-regional level as an appropriate tool for developing independent innovation strategies in line with European regional-policy objectives;

78.

Rejects quotas or obligations for global grants, however, as they could run counter to the setting of overriding priorities tailored to the regions’ needs;

79.

Takes the view that the system of seven-year programming periods has proved its worth regarding cohesion policy and should be retained at least until the end of the next planning period (2020); calls, however, for swifter strategic reassessment of the basic conditions so that the EU can respond even more quickly and more flexibly to exceptional events (such as the financial crisis, the energy crisis or natural disasters);

80.

Emphasises, nonetheless, that the EU budget as currently structured and its allocation mechanisms, underpinned by the regulations governing the various funds, have proved effective in the implementation of cohesion and structural policy in particular, and that changes should therefore be made only where procedures have not worked or where the arrangements are at odds with the Financial Regulation; supports, in this context, proposals from the Commission for harmonisation of the rules governing all funds available for regional development; calls, however, for the utmost caution to be exercised when making even the most minor adjustment to established, tried and tested structures, so as to avoid malfunctions and uncertainty for national and regional administrative bodies and an increased burden for beneficiaries, particularly those with small structures and limited capacity;

81.

Regards the integration of the Europe 2020 objectives into the existing system of objectives and funds as feasible; rejects any division of the EU budget under the notional headings of ‘smart’, ‘inclusive’ or ‘sustainable’ growth, as well as any fragmentation of cohesion policy across various budget headings; considers that this policy should have its own heading within the EU budget;

82.

Regards post-2013 cohesion policy as being capable of making an even greater contribution to further and sustainable development of the EU regions and as the decisive policy for cross-sectoral implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, and therefore calls for it to be allocated at least the same budget appropriations;

83.

Recalls that the European Court of Auditors has for many years reported that payments in the area of cohesion are affected by an error rate exceeding 5 %, but notes that this fell from 11 % for the last discharge procedure as shown by the ECA Annual Report, and that the supervisory and control systems are only partially effective; calls in addition for clarification on the method of calculating errors, as discrepancies in figures provided by the European Court of Auditors and by the Commission lead to confusion and to mistrust of official figures;

84.

Calls for the adoption of stricter rules on the monitoring of irregularities in the use of the Structural Funds in respect of Member States that have a high level of irregularities in connection with the use of monies from the Structural Funds and on a procedure for the systematic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as evidence suggests significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authorities; calls, at the same time, for unnecessary controls to be done away with in those Member States that have a satisfactory fund management system; considers that the ‘contract of confidence’ and ‘single audit’ principles should be implemented wherever possible;

85.

Calls on the Member States/public authorities to designate authorities or entities that will assume exclusive responsibility for the proper administration of monies from the Structural Funds;

86.

Considers the annual, tested management declarations at the level of the head of the office administering the funds (payment office/administrative authority) to be an appropriate means of strengthening the reporting and control chain and highlights the absolute necessity for these declarations to be accurate in terms of content; calls, therefore, for a penalty system to apply to false declarations; continues to endorse the purpose of national statements of assurance;

87.

Calls for the Commission to have, from the start of the next programming period, greater responsibility for the improvement of national administrative procedures; considers, in this connection, that there is an urgent need for simplification and clarification of the administration of support programmes, in particular in the area of financial implementation and financial control; takes the view, therefore, that it will be incumbent on the Commission to implement accreditation procedures for national or federal-state administrative and auditing bodies; considers that entitlement to simplified and less frequent reporting should be linked to successful accreditation and a reduction in the error rate;

88.

Calls, furthermore, for the supervisory role of the Commission to be strengthened by introducing systematic interruption and suspension of payments as soon as well-established evidence suggests a significant deficiency in the functioning of the accredited authorities; calls on the Commission also to put in place more robust plans for increasing the rate of recoveries of erroneous payments;

89.

Calls for the inspection system to be simplified and the number of inspection levels to be reduced and for the respective responsibilities of the Commission and Member States to be clarified; calls for the use of a single-level inspection procedure, under which Member States would inspect projects and the Commission would inspect the Member States’ inspection systems;

90.

Takes the view that, in order to improve the effectiveness of the operational programmes, greater use should be made of competitive procedures for project selection within the regions;

91.

Calls, in the interests of reducing red tape, for more general application of standardised procedures, with higher standardised units of cost and the declaration of overheads on a flat-rate basis where this system is appropriate; calls for greater account to be taken of the principle of proportionality, i.e. for the implementation of smaller programmes to be subject to significantly reduced reporting and auditing requirements;

92.

Calls on the Commission to maintain an annual public ‘failure scoreboard’ of inadequate and/or late execution of reporting and disclosure requirements and of irregularities, abuse and fraud in the use of monies from the Structural Funds; calls for this information to be broken down by Member State and by fund;

93.

Is concerned at the fact that red tape is preventing small companies and organisations from gaining access to structural funding; calls for the relevant rules and technical documentation to be made as clear as possible;

94.

Calls for annual clearance of accounts procedures that also cover multiannual programmes to be established for the new programming period;

95.

Considers more efficient e-government solutions (harmonised forms) to be necessary for the entire implementation and monitoring system; calls for exchanges of experience between the Member States coordinated by the Commission and for coordinated implementation through groupings of administrative authorities and auditing bodies;

96.

Supports the Commission's proposal that national authorities should not receive reimbursement until the EU funding has been paid out to the beneficiaries; envisages that this will speed up payment procedures and will be a crucial incentive to carry out stringent national auditing; notes, however, that cash flow problems could potentially arise at Member State or regional level and that appropriate hedging arrangements will need to be made;

97.

Regards the Commission's call for payments to be more closely geared to results as illogical, in that results will only be achieved by financing the projects in the first place; is concerned that the monitoring is likely to be highly bureaucratic, but regards as conceivable requirements which make payments contingent on proven consistency between the projects and, for example, the Europe 2020 strategy;

98.

Considers that, while reimbursement should arrive after EU funding has paid out for projects, no extra burdens should be placed on the beneficiaries, in the form of interest rates that do not reflect the low risk factor of such loans, by banks or other financial institutions;

99.

Calls for diversification of the penalty mechanisms, including among other aspects a bonus system for those Member States which comply with the implementation requirements, in particular through administrative concessions;

100.

Recalls that, unlike other structural funds, the specificity of the ESF is that it is closely linked to the target groups it supports and that it needs to be shaped in a way that allows for many small-scale, locally based projects; calls for the Member States to be required to pass on funding to projects immediately, so as to rule out problems for smaller beneficiaries; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure flexibility in the financial implementation of programmes, to take the principle of proportionality regarding time and efforts and financial contribution into account when fixing control and audit obligations, and to simplify procedures and reduce excessive administrative costs and any obstacles, for the benefit of the projects and the potential beneficiaries, thereby making the ESF better able to contribute to achieving the EU's objectives for growth and job creation; calls on the Commission to increase the choice for management authorities and beneficiaries as regards financing options and to propose the possibility of standard cost options alongside traditional accounting;

101.

Supports the Commission's proposal that the N+2 and N+3 rules should, in certain situations, be applied systematically, possibly at the level of Member States’ allocations, in order to provide greater flexibility, except in the first year of funding and except for cross-border programmes, and that any other derogations from the automatic decommitment rule should only reflect an adaptation to the administrative burdens imposed by new provisions related to strategic programming, results-based orientation and ex ante conditionality; supports, indeed, the application of an N+3 rule in the case of cross-border programmes, in order to take account of the slower administrative processes resulting from the linguistic and cultural challenges they face; considers this will guarantee that a balance is struck between high-quality investment and smooth and speedy programme implementation;

102.

Emphasises the importance of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) for cohesion policy with regard to cross-border cooperation with states outside the EU; takes note of the current problems with implementation of the programme; is convinced that it will ultimately prove necessary to reincorporate the ENPI cross-border cooperation programmes into cohesion policy; sees infrastructure (transport, energy and environmental) links with neighbouring countries as having particularly positive effects on the European border regions; calls for ENPI funding to focus more closely on strategic needs in relation to energy and to transport infrastructure; underlines the role that macroregions can play in this context; calls on the Commission to look into the feasibility of establishing better synergies between ERDF initiatives, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the European Development Fund (EDF); asks the Commission, furthermore, to evaluate whether the structures already used in the regional policy sphere could also be applied to the administration of the ENPI;

103.

Stresses, too, the relevance of the EU enlargement process for cohesion, as part of which the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) helps the candidate countries to make substantive and organisational preparations for implementing cohesion policy; draws the attention to the implementation problems in the Member States; recalls the original aims of the IPA instrument, in particular those of financing capacity building and institution-building and supporting the candidate countries’ preparations for the implementation of the Community's cohesion policy in order to prepare them for full implementation of the Community acquis at the time of accession; calls on the Commission to identify the problems in the current functioning of the IPA instrument;

104.

Reiterates its call for the Committee on Regional Development to be involved in and share responsibility for determining the form that these instruments will take in future;

105.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Presidents of EU regions and Länder.

5.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 33/38

—

having regard to the commitments on aid volume, aid to sub-Saharan Africa and aid quality made by the G8 at the 2005 Gleneagles Summit and all subsequent G8 and G20 meetings,

—

having regard to the Millennium Declaration adopted by the United Nations on 8 September 2000,

—

having regard to the European Consensus on Development (1) and the European Union Code of Conduct on Complementarity and Division of Labour in Development Policies (2),

—

having regard to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action,

—

having regard to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which stipulates that ‘the Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries’,

—

having regard to Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (3) (the ‘Development Cooperation Instrument’ (DCI)),

—

having regard to Article 61(2) of the Cotonou Agreement,

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2006 on aid effectiveness and corruption in developing countries (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2008 (5),

—

having regard to its position of 3 February 2011 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (6),

—

having regard to Court of Auditors Special Report No 11/2010 entitled ‘The Commission’s management of general budget support in ACP, Latin American and Asian countries’,

—

having regard to the Green Paper from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the future of budget support to third countries (COM(2010)0586),

—

having regard to the Commission’s 2007 document entitled ‘Guidelines on the Programming, Design & Management of General Budget Support’,

—

having regard to the Commission’s 2008 report entitled ‘Budget support: The effective way to finance development?’

—

having regard to the report of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade on budgetary support as a means of delivering official development assistance (ODA) in ACP countries,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0206/2011),

A.

whereas the reduction and ultimate eradication of poverty is the European Union development policy’s primary objective under the Lisbon Treaty,

B.

whereas budget support has become one of the key forms of aid,

C.

whereas many donors consider general and sectoral budget support as a means of fostering partner countries’ ownership of development policies and lasting reform processes, strengthening national accountability institutions and systems, and facilitating growth, poverty reduction and the achievement of development objectives,

D.

whereas operational capacity development is needed in order to create in the first place the preconditions for programme-based approaches, including budget support or more far-reaching models,

E.

whereas budget support helps to overcome certain weaknesses of the traditional project-based approach (high transaction costs, fragmented parallel systems) and thus increase the coherence and efficiency of EU measures, aims which are stressed in the Lisbon Treaty,

F.

whereas budget support should help to improve the quality and effectiveness of aid, with particular reference to the principles of ownership and harmonisation, given that political dialogue between donors and recipients makes it possible to tailor contributions to the priorities countries have set in their national poverty reduction strategies,

G.

whereas, despite the risks mentioned by the European Court of Auditors in its reports on budget support, the ‘dynamic approach’ in the general conditionality of budget support is still a very important instrument of political dialogue; whereas budget support must nevertheless under no circumstances be considered as a ‘blank cheque’,

H.

whereas the range of commitments made by beneficiary countries to all their partners may, in some cases, make their use difficult, given that the conditions imposed by donors are sometimes contradictory,

I.

whereas the European Union has hitherto referred more frequently to violations of human rights (‘first-generation rights’) in partnership agreements rather than violations of social, economic and cultural rights (‘second-generation rights’),

J.

whereas all the donors should consult one another in order to prevent inconsistencies in conditionality,

K.

whereas, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Lisbon Treaty, it is an objective of the European Union to work for a sustainable social market economy, and whereas this should also apply with reference to development policy and relations under the neighbourhood policy,

L.

whereas making a partner government publicly accountable for its budgetary management is an essential factor in the country’s capacity building process through the exercise of scrutiny by its parliament and the provision of information to civil society in the field of public finance,

1.

Welcomes the Commission’s initiative through the Green Paper on budget support, which is aimed principally at promoting the development of partner countries from within, and calls for the budget support eligibility criteria to be clarified with a view to avoiding any loss of control over or misuse of this type of assistance, with due account being taken of factors such as the corruption index ratings for the countries concerned;

2.

Welcomes the European-level consultation process; hopes that budget support award practice will be objectively analysed and improved in order to increase its effectiveness;

3.

Recalls that, according to the Lisbon Treaty, poverty reduction and eradication is the EU’s primary development policy objective; emphasises that poverty has multiple dimensions such as human, economic, socio-cultural, gender, environmental and political, which all need to be tackled by the EU development policy;

4.

Is of the opinion that EU aid should generate real quality change in the partner countries and recognises budget support as an effective tool for achieving this goal, provided that, as well as implying conditionality, it is used alongside effective political and policy dialogue;

5.

Emphasises the crucial and compulsory role of policy coherence in the implementation of a high-impact development policy; further calls for the EU foreign and security policy to focus on the promotion of democracy and human rights, peace and security, all key preconditions for sustainable development; calls for more systematic efforts to mainstream climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction measures;

6.

Takes the view that taxation guarantees an independent source of financing for sustainable development and provides an important link between the governments and citizens of developing countries; calls for the development of a viable fiscal administration and a comprehensive tax infrastructure to be made one of the highest priorities of budget support; recommends that budget support policy should incorporate measures to combat tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flight;

7.

Stresses the need to use sectoral budget support wherever appropriate in order to ensure better targeting of basic social sectors, particularly health, education and assistance for the most vulnerable groups, especially persons with disabilities;

8.

Points out that budget support must not be used to reinforce the EU’s particular economic and strategic interests, but to reach development objectives of and for developing countries, especially to eradicate poverty and hunger;

9.

Draws attention to the innovative role played by the EU in the field of budget support and the added value which the Commission brings, owing to its expertise in this area;

10.

Notes that budget support can enhance not only the accountability of governments but also donor coordination through the necessary dialogue on budgetary issues; points out that this a possible way forward for better coordination with emerging donors;

11.

Stresses that the Union has a responsibility to pass on its experience to other institutional stakeholders, in particular at the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan;

12.

Stresses that the dynamic approach adopted by the Commission and a majority of budget support providers entails a number of risks which must be duly taken into account; calls on the Commission to carry out national assessments of the likely risks and benefits of budget support in partner countries;

13.

Calls on the EU to administer budget support in such a way as to take full advantage of its complementarity with other forms of aid;

14.

Stresses the need to strengthen both the Commission’s monitoring mechanisms and parliamentary scrutiny and the provision of information to civil society in countries in receipt of budget support; stresses also that optimum procedures must be established for auditing the public finances of recipient countries as a precondition for any disbursement of funds;

15.

Recalls that clearly defined, widely supported and closely monitored indicators are essential in order to demonstrate the concrete effects of budget support in third countries and that the relevant budgetary authorities should be updated regularly on the indicators and guidelines that shape the decision-making process in relation to budget support; emphasises that these indicators must be better tailored to the specific needs of partner countries in order to avoid the ‘one size fits all’ approach taken by the Commission, which is potentially counterproductive;

16.

Calls for budget support to be made contingent on democratic parliamentary scrutiny of the budget in recipient countries; calls for the broad participation of parliaments and consultation of civil society in partner countries, so as to ensure that decisions about the use of budget support funds can be taken democratically;

17.

Calls on the Commission to ensure, before budget support is granted, that the aims of the intervention are part of the national programmes of the recipient country and that the principles of coordination, complementarity and coherence in relation to other donors are respected, as well as additionality to the resources allocated by the recipient country;

18.

With a view to ensuring the relevance of EU budget support, calls on the Commission to streamline its programming and design process by improving the preparation and documentation of decisions to launch budget support operations and, given resource constraints in Delegations, which often limit their capacity to perform certain activities, calls on the Commission to provide sufficient qualified staff for the implementation process, as budget support requires different analytical skills from project and programme financing;

19.

Insists on the leading role that national parliaments of recipient countries, civil society organisations and local authorities should play as they are best placed to identify priority sectors, prepare Country Strategy Papers and monitor budget allocations; demands that national parliaments adopt Country Strategy Papers and the multiannual budget in consultation with civil society, prior to policy dialogue with donors on budget support, in order to empower parliamentary scrutiny;

20.

Emphasises the importance of the effectiveness of EU development aid; calls on developing EU-level independent evaluation systems and a complaints mechanism open to those affected by EU aid, as well as supporting in-country accountability mechanisms;

21.

Calls on the Commission to supply a comprehensive financial analysis of general and sectoral budget support granted to local government and to consider whether part of budget support should be decentralised with a view to ensuring genuine ownership by local government stakeholders, as well as to assess the risks involved in doing so;

22.

Calls on the EU to respect and promote genuine ownership of developing countries over their development strategy and to refrain from crowding out national policy-makers through policy dialogue surrounding budget support, which undermines democratic accountability and contributes to depoliticising domestic political realities;

23.

Considers that budget support should focus as a priority on the government departments that have the greatest impact on poverty reduction, in particular health and education ministries;

24.

Considers, furthermore, that there is a need for gender mainstreaming in budget support, with attention being paid to gender issues at all stages in the budget process, dialogue being promoted with women’s associations and gender-differentiated indicators being introduced;

25.

Stresses that, with a view to enhancing mutual accountability, the Commission should step up its role as a facilitator between government, members of parliament and civil society, and considers, to that end, that a percentage of the budget support earmarked for technical assistance to sectoral ministries could also be used for capacity building in parliaments and civil society in order to enable them to play their budget support oversight role to the full;

26.

Stresses the prominent role of donor organisations in supporting partner countries in their capacity development and the positive influence of local project aid on reducing poverty and promoting inclusive growth and sustainable development in partner countries;

27.

Is concerned at the effects of macro-economic destabilisation and the impact on the most vulnerable sections of the population which a sudden break in budget support might cause; proposes that, on the basis of concerted action by donors and following consultation of the civil society and parliament of the partner country concerned, a mechanism be set up for the gradual reduction of budget support payments, which could attenuate such impacts, encourage political dialogue and enable concerted solutions to be found to the difficulties encountered;

28.

Believes that budget support just like programmed aid should be treated as a transitional instrument and should not hamper efforts to strengthen countries’ capacities to raise own resources, such as taxes, in order to become independent from third country donations;

29.

Calls on donor countries to coordinate budget support more effectively and make such support more predictable, and points out that they need to be willing to enter into long-term commitments with partner countries;

30.

Calls on the EU to take the appropriate measures, so that there is commitment from the third countries that they will be investing in a mechanism which promotes their financial stability;

31.

Insists on the effective implementation of the requirement contained in Article 25(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (the DCI Regulation), which stipulates that the Commission shall consistently use an approach based on results and performance indicators and shall clearly define and monitor its conditionality and support efforts of partner countries to develop parliamentary control and audit capacities and to increase transparency and public access to information’; urges the Commission to extend these provisions to budget support to beneficiary countries of the European Development Fund(the ACP countries), for which – so far – only the more technical criteria of Article 61(2) of the Cotonou Agreement apply;

32.

Considers that, since the use of budget support is an important strategic decision in the Union’s relation with its partner countries, Article 290 TFEU (delegated acts) must apply to the definition of the eligibility criteria for this aid modality, giving the Council and Parliament, as co-legislators, full codecision powers over its adoption, including – if necessary – the right of revocation of the delegated act;

33.

Recalls that major deficiencies in capabilities, in particular weak governance, are liable to deprive many developing countries of budget support;

34.

Takes the view that financing decisions on budget support must be driven not only by expected benefits but also by the short-term and long-term risks incurred in both donor and partner countries; notes that the Court of Auditors, in its Special Report (7), is in full agreement with this assessment by highlighting that a sound risk management framework is still to be developed and implemented;

35.

Is concerned that the Court of Auditors (‘the Court’) in its Annual Report on the activities funded by the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) for the financial year 2009 found budget support payments to be affected by a high frequency of non-quantifiable errors due to the lack of formalised and structured demonstration of compliance with payment conditions; at the same time takes note of and welcomes a substantial improvement in the demonstration of eligibility noted by the Court under the Tenth EDF owing to the clearer assessment frameworks that are now routinely used;

36.

Points out that public investments in public goods, such as education, social security, infrastructures and productive capacities, especially with regard to smallholder farming and support to local markets, are crucial for successful development strategies;

37.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the specific conditions for performance-based variable tranches clearly specify the indicators, targets, calculation methods and verification sources and that Delegations’ reports provide a structured and formalised demonstration of public finance management progress by clearly setting the criteria against which progress is to be assessed, the progress made and the reasons why the reform programme may have not been implemented according to plan;

38.

Calls on the Commission to take all necessary measures in order to combat corruption in the recipient countries, including suspension of disbursements if necessary; in this context calls on the Commission to maintain a close and regular dialogue with partner governments on corruption issues and pay sufficient attention to the capacity-building needs of particular recipient countries in terms of accountability and anti-corruption mechanisms;

39.

Considers the predictability of aid flows to be one of the most important factors for ensuring the quality of spending, as it enables the partner countries to undertake long-term expenditure planning and to sustain improvements in sectoral policies; advocates that such an approach be reinforced by partner countries’ fiscal policies and mobilisation of domestic revenue which, in the long term, should reduce aid dependency;

40.

Recalls that the lack of progress as regards the management of public finances still disqualifies many countries from receiving budget support;

41.

Takes the view that budget support should be introduced gradually in developing countries, starting with a limited amount and increasing it as the partner countries build capacity;

42.

Reiterates that budget support should be spent in pursuit of poverty reduction, including the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals and to principles such as partnership, aid effectiveness and policy coherence for development; expresses its support for results-based incentives but emphasises that variances of disbursement must be predictable as far as possible so as not to impact negatively on budgetary planning; reiterates that budget support should only be granted to countries meeting and upholding minimum standards of governance and respect for human rights; underlines that conditions linked to macro-economic reforms must be compatible with human and social development;

43.

Encourages developing countries and the Commission to promote participatory development, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Cotonou Agreement and of Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, in particular with regard to the promotion and consultation of civil society and local and regional authorities;

44.

Points out that, when granting budget support to banana-supplying ACP countries benefiting from accompanying measures in this sector, it is important to include in the variable tranche based on governance indicators the specific conditions contained in the new Article 17a that Parliament is proposing be inserted in Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 (DCI Regulation), as set out in an amendment in its above mentioned position of 3 February 2011;

45.

Demands that the Commission publish the agreements with developing countries on budget support and MDG contracts;

46.

Underlines that sectoral budget support can constitute under certain circumstances a useful intermediary option to give the concerned governments and parliaments more ownership over aid funds while earmarking them for the MDGs;

47.

Considers that oil and mineral rich countries have the potential to finance their own development and fight against poverty through transparent tax collection systems and fair redistribution of wealth;

48.

Takes the view that, in principle, MDG contracts are an example of high-quality, results-oriented budget support (long-term, predictable, targeted at social sectors, etc.); calls accordingly on the Commission to publish an assessment of MDG contracts in 2011 and to look into the feasibility of extending them to a larger number of countries;

49.

Calls on the Commission also to publish the conditionalities and performance indicators in Country Strategy Papers on the occasion of the mid-term review; takes the view that budget support performance should be measured in terms of progress towards poverty reduction targets and the MDGs;

50.

Reiterates its previous calls on the Commission to move from control over inputs to the checking of results against indicators, by improving its reporting system so that it concentrates on the effectiveness of the programmes;

51.

States that the effectiveness of development-policy measures in the partner countries must fully take into consideration local conditions and respect the EU values as stated by the Treaty including the principle of rule of law and democracy; stresses that needs must remain a crucial criterion for the allocation of EU development aid;

52.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create a public register in which budget support agreements, procedures and development indicators are transparently listed, with a view to reinforcing the domestic democratic institutions and to ensuring mutual accountability;

53.

Calls on the Member States to show greater consistency at national and Community level as regards development aid policy; calls on the Member States to make use of the European External Action Service to strengthen their coordination with the Commission as regards budget support so as to avoid duplication and inconsistency;

54.

Reminds the Commission and the Member States to harmonise their development cooperation and to improve mutual accountability;

55.

Is firmly convinced that a thorough analysis of the future of EU budget support to third countries must address the issue of budgetisation of the European Development Fund; is aware of the historical and institutional background to the current situation but believes that the time has come for the Council, the Member States and the ACP countries to acknowledge that this situation is detrimental to the efficiency, transparency and accountability of EU budget support; emphasises, however, that budgetisation must not entail a decrease in the overall financial envelope for development policies;

56.

Calls on the Member States, the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS), in line with the practice established in other policy fields, to improve the coordination of their respective budget support to third countries in order to avoid overlap, inconsistencies and incoherencies; deplores the reviews showing that, at sectoral level, weak policies, institutions and service delivery systems have prompted donors to use their own systems to implement projects, and to act bilaterally rather than in a coordinated manner, a situation which is all the more unacceptable in a context of scarce funding and which also makes it very hard for the EU to live up to its promises on making aid more predictable; maintains that a focus on specific areas offering the greatest added value should drive EU budget support throughout all phases of preparation and delivery;

57.

Calls on the Commission to raise public awareness of the risks entailed by the practice of budget support and to highlight the positive impact of budget support on partner emancipation;

58.

Calls on the EU and its Member States to continue to promote and preserve their financial support and at the same time to provide consultative support for technocratic management of public finances;

59.

Emphasises that the aims of improved coordination are to optimise the allocation of resources, enhance the exchange of best practices and boost the efficiency of budget support;

60.

Considers that the Union should recognise and utilise the added value generated by its huge political weight and the potentially broad scope of its action, ensuring political influence proportional to the financial support given;

61.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

5.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 33/46

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond – a blueprint for an integrated European energy network’ (COM(2010)0677),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document on an impact assessment on the ‘Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond – a blueprint for an integrated European energy network’ (SEC(2010)1395),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Energy 2020 – a strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy’ (COM(2010)0639),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Europe 2020 – a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Renewable energy – progressing towards the 2020 target’ (COM(2011)0031),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (1),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Analysis of options to move beyond 20 % greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage’ (COM(2010)0265),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (COM(2011)0112),

—

having regard to the third legislative package concerning the internal market in the field of energy and entitled ‘Energising Europe: A real market with secure supply’ (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply (3),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘A resource-efficient Europe – flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy’ (COM(2011)0021),

—

having regard to Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision 96/391/EC and Decision 1229/2003/EC (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy (5),

—

having regard to the report from the Commission on the implementation of the trans-European energy networks in the period 2007-2009 (COM(2010)0203),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 May 2010 on mobilising information and communication technologies to facilitate the transition to an energy-efficient, low-carbon economy (6),

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the European Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘An energy policy for Europe’ (COM(2007)0001),

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘Priority Interconnection Plan’ (COM(2006)0846),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (7),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on ‘Towards a new Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020’ (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2010 on revision of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 (11) on Europe 2020,

—

having regard to Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union,

—

having regard to Article 170 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union, under which the Union is required to contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0226/2011),

A.

whereas our major energy challenges are confronting climate change, strengthening energy security and autonomy while reducing the overall energy use as well as fossil fuel imports and dependency, diversifying energy suppliers and sources, achieving a competitive internal energy market and ensuring universal access to sustainable, affordable, safe and efficient energy,

B.

whereas the common energy policy at EU level has been built around the shared objective of ensuring the uninterrupted physical availability of energy products and services on the market, at prices that are affordable for all consumers (domestic and industrial),

C.

whereas it is necessary to ensure security of supply and the consolidation of solidarity between Member States in situations where a Member State is confronted with an energy crisis,

D.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty provides a specific legal basis for developing an EU energy policy promoting the successful interconnection of energy networks between Member States across national and regional borders, which is necessary to achieve the other EU energy policy and solidarity objectives (functioning of the energy market, energy efficiency and renewable energy, security of supply and diversification of energy sources and forms of supply),

E.

whereas a lack of timely modernisation, upgrading, interconnection and adjustment of the Union’s energy infrastructure to a more sustainable and efficient energy production, transmission and consumption model could jeopardise its capacity to achieve the energy and climate objectives for 2020 – especially those of integration and increasing the share of renewable energy sources – and undermine the EU’s 2050 long-term objective of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80 % to 95 %,

F.

whereas infrastructure investment planning and the decisions to be taken in association with it need to be supported by long-term scenarios that take into account expected achievements and additional technical development needs,

G.

whereas further integration of renewable energy sources will require some adaptations of the European energy infrastructure at both transmission and distribution levels,

H.

whereas an open, transparent, integrated and competitive EU energy market is needed in order to achieve competitive energy prices, security of supply and sustainability and efficient large-scale deployment of renewable energy, and whereas the completion of such a market still remains an important challenge for all Member States,

I.

bearing in mind the crucial importance of timely and full implementation of existing legislation, including the regulatory work called for by the third internal energy market package and the adequate notification of investments in energy infrastructure, pending the judgment of the Court of Justice (12), in order to have an overview of potential gaps in demand and supply, as well as obstacles to investment,

J.

whereas interconnection capacity or its availability between Member States still remains insufficient in one third of the Union, according to the 10 % interconnection target set at the 2002 European Council and whereas certain Member States and regions still remain isolated and dependent on a single supplier, which prevents the real integration of markets, liquidity and energy flows,

K.

whereas the special requirements of natural islands and outermost regions, such as the Canary Islands, Madeira, the Azores and the French Ultra-Peripheral Regions (RUPs), should be taken into consideration in terms of energy infrastructure,

L.

whereas in south-east Europe the energy transport network is less dense than in the rest of the continent,

M.

whereas alternative supply and transit routes and new interconnections are important in order to ensure that solidarity between Member States becomes operational,

N.

whereas special focus should be placed on projects not yet finalised that have been selected by the EU as priority projects in accordance with Decision 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks and repealing Decision 96/391/EC and Decision 1229/2003/EC,

O.

whereas the third energy package has created a legal framework which should improve competitiveness in the energy market,

P.

whereas energy infrastructures planned today must be consistent with market needs and with long-term EU climate and energy objectives and their implementation in the various national energy policies, giving priority to those energy sources with no societal and environmental cost,

Q.

whereas, with regard to gas and electricity, a reinforcement of investment in transmission capacity is needed while bearing in mind the EU 20-20-20 energy objectives and the new, highly decarbonised energy environment beyond 2020,

R.

whereas building energy infrastructure is of strategic importance with a view to meeting the Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan targets,

S.

whereas energy efficiency offers a powerful and cost-effective tool for achieving a sustainable energy future: by reducing energy demand, it can also lessen import dependency and the relocation of plants in response to rising costs and, through smart investments in existing and new infrastructures, it can reduce the need for public and private investment in energy infrastructure,

T.

whereas smart grids provide an important opportunity to establish an efficient relationship between energy production, energy transmission, energy distribution and end-users, allowing rational energy consumption and therefore increasing energy efficiency,

U.

whereas the reinforcement of interconnection capacity between gas systems along the south-western axis in the North-South Corridor will enable both the LNG import capacity and the underground storage capacity of the Iberian Peninsula to contribute to EU security of supply, while providing an important step towards a truly integrated internal energy market,

V.

whereas lengthy authorisation procedures and a lack of coordination between administrative bodies can result in major delays and additional costs, especially in cross-border projects,

W.

whereas lengthy permit-granting procedures and the lack of cost-allocation methodologies and instruments for sharing the benefits and costs of cross-border energy infrastructure projects are a major impediment to their development,

X.

whereas a high-quality public debate must be guaranteed and European environmental legislation must be duly taken into account,

Y.

whereas regulators play an important role in the creation of a consumer-orientated, integrated and competitive internal energy market,

Z.

whereas, according to the Commission communication entitled ‘Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond – a blueprint for an integrated European energy network’, EUR 200 billion will be needed during the coming decade in order to finance energy infrastructure requirements, and whereas half this amount must be provided by the Member States,

AA.

whereas market-based tools and the user-pay principle remain the basis for financing energy infrastructure, and whereas, transparently and on case by case basis, a limited amount of public finance will be required to fund certain projects of European interest, which are not strictly commercially viable, whilst defending a level playing field in the European internal energy market, guaranteeing security of supply, preventing distortions of competition and promoting the efficient integration of renewable energy,

AB.

whereas there is a need to carry out large-scale investment as soon as possible,

AC.

whereas a crucial role is played by regional authorities in that they are major players in energy matters, given their responsibilities in a number of activities concerned with general and regional planning, granting permits, granting authorisations for major infrastructure projects, investment, public procurement, production and the fact that they are close to consumers,

1.

Underlines the fact that public authorities have the overarching responsibility to serve the public interest by fulfilling societal and environmental goals, but that the main responsibility for the development of energy infrastructure should rest with a properly regulated market;

2.

Stresses the crucial importance of timely, correct and full implementation of existing legislation, including the regulatory work called for by the third internal energy market package, in order to achieve an integrated and competitive European internal market by 2014 at the latest;

3.

Emphasises the need to implement current policies and regulations so that the existing energy infrastructure is better utilised for the benefit of the European consumer; calls on the Commission and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) to monitor more strictly the national implementation of rules such as those concerning the use-it-or-lose-it principle;

4.

Believes that an EU approach – developed in cooperation with all stakeholders – is needed in order fully to exploit the benefits of new infrastructure, and stresses the need to develop a complementary harmonised method, in line with the rules of the internal market, for the selection of infrastructure projects; considers that this method should take into consideration the European and regional perspectives in order to remove disparities and to optimise the socio-economic and environmental effects;

5.

Stresses that the planning of energy infrastructure projects should comply fully with the precautionary principle; action plans should be subject to thorough environmental impact assessments on a case-by-case basis, taking into account local and regional environmental conditions;

6.

Stresses the need to ensure an adequate degree of security of energy supply for the EU, and to develop favourable relations with non-EU energy supplying and transit countries by means of cooperation in connection with regional and global energy supply transport systems;

7.

Stresses that the reference scenario used for assessing the energy infrastructure for 2020 needs to be transparent and consistent with the overall energy policy objectives enshrined in Article 194 of the Treaty on European Union and the EU’s 2050 roadmap, with other EU policies (such as transport, buildings and the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)), with the energy efficiency policies required to deliver the 20 % energy savings target (in particular the energy efficiency plan), with the potential impact of technological advances, notably for renewable energy and the increasing role of electric vehicles, and with the deployment of smart grids and the ‘smart cities and regions’ initiatives;

8.

Supports the prompt launch of the ‘Intelligent cities’ partnership for innovation, and calls on relevant partners involved in planning processes for sustainable urban development to better promote and profit from the benefits that the JESSICA and ELENA initiatives can provide for investments in sustainable energy at local level, with a view to helping cities and regions embark on viable investment projects in the fields of energy efficiency, clean-burning and renewable energy sources, and sustainable urban transport; points out furthermore the potential of cross-border funding with neighbouring countries in the framework of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI);

9.

Emphasises the need to identify, according to a hierarchy of importance and in the interest of cost-effectiveness, where infrastructure could be minimised through energy efficiency policies, where existing national and cross-border infrastructure can be upgraded or modernised and where new infrastructure is needed and can be built alongside existing energy or transport infrastructure;

10.

Considers that the reduction of energy consumption and of polluting emissions, and enhanced energy efficiency can be achieved by implementing programmes for greater energy efficiency in the buildings and transport sectors;

11.

Highlights the importance of identifying potential future gaps of energy demand and supply, as well as potential forthcoming deficiencies in the production and transmission infrastructure;

12.

Underlines the importance of harmonising the EU market design and the development of common European infrastructure schemes in order to assure the management of the internal European interconnections and the interconnections with third countries;

13.

Considers that the development of electricity infrastructure between the EU and third countries, and in some cases existing electricity infrastructure, can create a risk of carbon leakage or increase that risk where it is already present; calls on the Commission to evaluate this possibility and to bring forward, if necessary, measures by which the EU could address this effectively such as requiring conformity with Directive 2009/28/EC on renewable energy;

14.

Calls on the network operators, the regulatory authorities, including ACER, and the Commission to create, in cooperation with network operators and authorities in third countries, the necessary conditions to ensure compatibility and stability between the EU’s electricity infrastructure and that of third countries, with the aim of enhancing Member States’ energy security;

15.

Stresses that there should be a focus not only on cross-border projects but also on internal transmission systems, which are crucial for the integration of energy markets, the integration of renewable generation and system security, the end of energy islands and the relief of internal bottlenecks that have an impact on the European power system as a whole; underlines the importance of guaranteeing that remote regions and their local needs are duly taken into account;

16.

Stresses the need for new infrastructure which will put an end to energy islands and single supplier dependency and will enhance security of supply;

17.

Stresses that no region, including island regions, of the EU Member States should remain isolated from the European gas and electricity networks after 2015 or see its energy security jeopardised by lack of appropriate connections;

18.

Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to promote regional cooperation and calls for further guidance on such regional initiatives;

19.

Draws attention to the opportunities which existing EU regional cooperation arrangements present for developing and intensifying cross-border energy infrastructure projects, particularly relating to renewable energy, and urges that the regional cooperation instruments (Euregios, EGTCs) be used for this purpose;

20.

Takes the view that regional initiatives should be expanded and further developed, since they tie in most closely with the way in which the energy system operates in individual regions (e.g. the structure of regional generation sources, wind energy, grid limitations and the availability of energy sources);

21.

Emphasises that cooperation between municipalities and regions on a national and European level contributes to eliminating energy islands, to the completion of the internal energy market and to the implementation of energy infrastructure projects; takes the view that the European territorial-cooperation objective of cohesion policy, as well as macro-regional strategies, can increase cooperation opportunities for cross-border projects with a view to achieving efficient and intelligent interconnections between non-conventional local and regional energy sources and large energy grids; underlines the fact that appropriate coordination of infrastructure projects can guarantee the best possible cost-benefit ratio and maximise the efficiency of the EU funds; considers, in this context, that regional cooperation should be improved, in particular with a view to ensuring a proper connection between the priorities established and the European regions;

22.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to establish measures to ensure that transmission system operators (TSOs) are properly incentivised to examine possible interconnectors from a regional or European perspective and that their investment plans are based on the socio-economic effects of energy interconnectors rather than purely on project economy, thereby avoiding under-investment in transmission capacity;

23.

Calls on the Commission to submit, by the end of 2011, proposed solutions to the trade-offs described by the European coordinator Georg Wilhelm Adamowitsch in his third annual report, of 15 November 2010, for example that between the urgent need for new infrastructure and rigid environmental protection rules;

24.

Calls for steps to be taken to ensure compliance with international agreements, such as the Espoo Convention, before cross-border projects are undertaken or further developed, and draws attention, in the context of the expansion of energy networks, to the need to foster closer cooperation, in particular between Russia and Belarus and the Baltic States, and, in that connection, to develop the EU-Russia energy dialogue, in particular with a view to achieving the objective of energy security for the EU Member States and regions;

25.

Welcomes the Commission’s decision to introduce ‘stress tests’ for Europe’s nuclear power plants; considers that future legislative initiatives to set up a common framework for nuclear safety are essential in order continuously to improve safety standards in Europe;

26.

Notes that significant risks are associated with energy infrastructure, including operational risks (e.g. congestion and discontinuity of supply), natural risks (e.g. earthquakes and floods), environmental risks (e.g. pollution, and habitat and biodiversity loss) and anthropogenic/political risks (e.g. safety risks and terrorism); therefore calls for decisions on the development of smart grids to be implemented, as provided for in Directive 2008/114/EC on critical infrastructures; suggests that the Member States draw up a risk map as a tool for decision making and monitoring the results of smart grid implementation in order to improve the interconnectivity of grids;

27.

Urges the Commission to assess the possibility of including in the energy infrastructure priorities projects that would enhance the safety and security of existing major energy infrastructures in Europe (gas and oil pipelines, electricity grids, nuclear power stations, LNG terminals etc.) against accidents and natural or human-induced disasters;

28.

Considers that the Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) identifies relevant electricity and gas infrastructure projects and should contribute to setting the priorities for the selection of projects of European interest to be developed in order to achieve EU energy and climate goals, without interfering with the functioning of the internal market; takes the view, in this regard, that interconnection capacity should be considered at the same level as the 20-20-20 targets, and that, accordingly, the TYNDP should be understood as the instrument for monitoring compliance with the 10 % interconnection target;

29.

Calls on the Commission, with a view to ensuring better governance of future EU electricity and gas infrastructure planning, to present a concrete proposal to improve transparency and public participation in determining EU priorities, within a broader stakeholder participation process (including, for example, the energy sector, independent experts, consumer organisations and NGOs); considers the publication of technical planning data as key in ensuring this participation;

30.

Considers that attention has to be paid to the ownership of EU energy infrastructure by foreign companies, or their subsidiaries, without a transparent management structure and subject to undue influence from foreign governments; calls on the Commission to present proposals to put in place adequate legal and institutional safeguards in this respect, in particular with regard to access to EU public funding;

31.

Considers that the TYNDP contributes to the rolling programme for developing European gas transport and electricity transmission infrastructure within a long-term European planning perspective and with monitoring by ACER and the Commission, taking due account of the relevant provisions of the Third Internal Market Package;

32.

Underlines that this bottom-up approach needs to be complemented by a well structured top-down view with a European perspective;

33.

Stresses that fostering the building of transmission and distribution infrastructure for efficient and intelligent integration of renewable energy and new electricity uses (such as electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles) is critical for the successful achievement of overall energy objectives; welcomes the priority given to the future European super-grid and the pilot projects endorsed by the Florence Forum; asks the Commission to consult all relevant stakeholders with a view to speeding up the identification of electricity highways as an integrated hub-based grid infrastructure in order to optimise connectivity, system resilience and operational flexibility and to reduce costs, without excluding any wider European geographical territory, and calls the Commission to present an outline to Parliament by mid-2014, which addresses as fully as possible the specific needs arising from the transmission of renewable energies;

34.

Points out that the geographical obstacles inherent in their location make islands and mountain areas very difficult to integrate into the EU energy network; calls, therefore, on the Commission to take into account the diverse circumstances in the regions and to focus expressly on regions with specific geographical and demographic characteristics, such as islands, mountain regions and regions with low population density, in order to achieve greater diversification of energy sources and the promotion of renewables so as to reduce dependence on imported energy; urges the Commission to include among its energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 the special situation of island energy systems;

35.

Stresses that there is a need for transversal policy coherence with regard to energy infrastructures and their relation with the maritime spatial planning framework and that this could also be useful for embedding large offshore wind park projects in an overall strategy;

36.

Reminds the Commission, however, that every Member State should also be given support to be a producer, as well as a consumer, of sustainable energy, for both security and economic reasons;

37.

Maintains that developing regional power generation is an important means of guaranteeing self-sufficiency in energy in the various parts of Europe, especially in the Baltic region, which remains isolated and dependent on a single source of supply; notes that the regions have a wide range of resources to tap, including the possibilities offered by natural resources, and that the aim in future should be to exploit these to the full in order to diversify energy production;

38.

Endorses the importance of efficient gas infrastructure in enhancing diversification and security of supply, in contributing to better internal energy market functioning, and thus in reducing energy dependence, while respecting the need substantially to reduce emissions from the energy sector by 2050; highlights the need for additional and correct implementation of flexibility requirements in gas infrastructure, in particular with a view to ensuring reverse flows and interconnections, and stresses that gas infrastructure should be developed, with full account being taken of the contribution of LNG and CNG terminals, transport ships and storage facilities, as well as the development of gasified biomass and biogas;

39.

Welcomes the Commission’s announcement that natural gas will take on an important role as a backup fuel; stresses, however, that other forms of energy and energy storage facilities will also have to take on this role if security of supply is to be ensured; underlines the fact that a broad energy mix will continue to be the basis for secure, cost-effective energy supply;

40.

Notes that, in contrast to all other infrastructure investment which the EU plans to incentivise, gas interconnections and storage under the 2009 Security of Gas Supply Regulation are compulsory infrastructure; asks the Commission to evaluate whether some EU funding of the infrastructure improvements required under the 2009 regulation is needed;

41.

Urges the Commission to evaluate unconventional gas sources, taking into account legal issues, life-cycle assessment, available reserves, environmental impact and economic viability; asks the Commission to conduct, on the basis of the principle of equal treatment of primary energy sources, a thorough evaluation of the potential benefits and risks of using unconventional gas sources in the EU;

42.

Considers that, although the decarbonisation of the economy will lead to a progressive decrease in fossil energy use, oil will remain a significant part of EU energy supply for many years and therefore a competitive European oil transport and refining infrastructure must be maintained during the transition in order to ensure secure and affordable product supplies to EU consumers;

43.

Stresses the importance of integrated energy infrastructure planning for agricultural and small-scale rural energy sources, so as to favour decentralised energy production, market participation and rural development; emphasises the importance of priority access to the grid for renewables, as outlined in Directive 2009/28/EC;

44.

Points out the need to prepare and adapt grids for the production of forms of energy such as electricity and biogas from agriculture and forestry sources, as a result of a reformed common agricultural policy;

45.

Considers that attention should be paid to new technological solutions for the use of waste energy from industry, i.e. flared gas, waste heat, etc.;

46.

Emphasises the importance of infrastructure at distribution level and the important role that prosumers and distribution system operators (DSOs) play during the integration into the system of decentralised energy products and demand-side efficiency measures; points out that according higher priority to demand-side management and demand-side energy generation would considerably strengthen the integration of decentralised energy sources and would advance the achievement of overall energy policy objectives; believes that this also applies to national infrastructure projects which have a positive impact beyond the national borders in terms of supply or interconnection of the internal energy market;

47.

Urges the Commission to present, by 2012, concrete initiatives to promote the development of energy storage capacities (including multi-use gas/hydrogen facilities, smart reverse-flow electric vehicle batteries, hydropower pumping storage stations, decentralised biogas storage, high-temperature solar installations, compressed air storage facilities and other innovative technologies); suggests that the Commission assess further initiatives for energy storage in order to maximize the integration of renewable energy;

48.

Considers that modernising and improving the efficiency of urban heating and cooling networks must be a priority for the EU and should be reflected and supported in relation to both the review of the existing financial framework and the future financial perspective;

49.

Welcomes the CO2 capture, transport and storage projects developed so far; calls on the Commission as a matter of urgency to draw up a mid-term report, including from a technical and economical point of view, evaluating the results obtained from the use of EU-subsidised experimental carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for coal-fired power stations;

50.

Urges the Commission – in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, including the relevant network and market operators – to assess critically and review, wherever necessary, the figures for investment needs given in the communication on energy infrastructure priorities, particularly in relation to demand reduction through energy efficiency measures, and asks it to report to the Council and to Parliament on the investments likely to be needed;

51.

Notes that, apart from the capital and operational costs, significant environmental costs arise from the construction, operation and decommissioning of energy infrastructure projects; emphasises the importance of accounting for these environmental costs in the cost-benefit analysis using the life-cycle costing approach;

52.

Considers that TSOs should be required to place all transmission lines fully at the disposal of the market, thereby preventing the reservation of transmission capacity for cross-border balancing, etc., and that this requirement needs to be established in binding legislation based on the current European Regulators’ Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG) guidelines on good practice;

53.

Supports enhanced cooperation between Member States towards the creation of regional regulatory authorities for a number of Member States; welcomes similar initiatives towards creating single regional TSOs;

54.

Calls on the Commission and ACER to pursue the task of creating a common European intraday market by 2014, as this would allow for the free exchange of power on all transmission interconnectors between countries and/or different price areas;

55.

Believes that energy infrastructure should become more end-user-oriented, with a stronger focus on the interaction between distribution system capacities and consumption, and emphasises the need for real-time, two-directional power and information flows; points to the benefits of a new gas and electricity system incorporating efficient technologies, equipment and services such as smart grids, smart meters and interoperable ICT-operated load-side and demand-side energy management services, involving the development of innovative and dynamic pricing formulas and demand-response systems for the benefit of consumers;

56.

Stresses the need to promote the development of user-friendly technologies and demand-side management so as to ensure the deployment of smart grid technologies and demand-response systems and to achieve the full benefit of smart grids for all stakeholders;

57.

Stresses that the roll-out of smart grids should be one of the energy infrastructure priorities with a view to achieving EU energy and climate objectives, as it will help the integration of distributed renewable generation and electric cars, the reduction of energy dependence, the improvement of energy efficiency and the development of electric-system flexibility and capacity; believes that smart grids offer a unique opportunity to boost innovation, job creation and the competitiveness of European industry, with particular reference to SMEs;

58.

Asks the Commission to facilitate the urgent deployment of large smart-grid demonstration projects as the best way to measure the costs and benefits to European society; notes that, in order to share the risk of the investment needed for these projects, public funding is required under a public-private partnership framework, which is effectively offered by the European Electric Grid Initiative (EEGI);

59.

Notes that smart grids are a result of convergence between electricity and information and communications technologies, and that consequently special attention must be paid to cooperation between these two sectors, e.g. with regard to the efficient use of radio spectrum across Europe and to the understanding of smart energy functions in the planning of the future ‘Internet of Things’; asks the Commission to establish a cooperation plan among the different units involved (DG Research, DG Energy, DG INFSO, etc.) so as to ensure the most coherent and generally efficient contribution to the deployment and operation of smart grids, as a fundamental base for energy policy activities;

60.

Calls upon the Commission to assess whether any further legislative initiatives for smart grid implementation are necessary under the rules of the third internal energy market package; considers that the assessment must take into account the following objectives: i) ensuring adequate open access and sharing of operational information between actors and their physical interfaces; ii) creating a properly functioning energy services market; and iii) providing proper incentives for grid operators to invest in smart technologies for smart grids;

61.

Calls for a stronger focus on the interaction between distribution system capacities and consumption, involving a common European smart grid strategy, and notes that, as highlighted in the European Council conclusions of 4 February 2011, technical standards for smart grids should be adopted by the end of 2012 at the latest;

62.

Stresses that grids should be adapted for new entrants, in order to facilitate small-scale new production sources, such as households and SMEs;

63.

Considers that, in the 7th and 8th R&D Framework Programmes, scope should be created, as a priority, for smart grid technology with regard to the private charging infrastructure for electric cars, with a view to the rapid roll-out of a decentralised, two-way energy network in this field;

64.

Notes the need to create a stable regulatory framework in order to promote the very large investment needed in Europe to establish smart grids;

65.

Stresses that smart grid standardisation and interoperability shall be a priority; urges the Members States, in liaison with European and international standardisation bodies and industry, to speed up work on technical and safety standards for electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, smart grids and smart metering, with a view to its completion by the end of 2012; emphasises that technologies should be based on open international standards so as to ensure their cost-effectiveness, which will enhance the interoperability of the system and will provide consumers with a choice of solutions;

66.

Acknowledges that standardisation work in smart metering is progressing, with standardisation Mandate M/441 issued by the Commission to the European standardisation organisations (CEN, CENELEC and ETSI), and stresses that technical standards for smart meters should take into account the additional functionalities identified in the final report of the CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Smart Meters Coordination Group (SM-CG), namely:

67.

Welcomes the work carried out by the EEGI and the Commission’s Smart Grids Task Force; calls on the Commission to take the fullest account of their conclusions on the specific legislation for smart grids scheduled for the first half of 2011;

68.

Underlines that the objective of smart meters is to enable consumers effectively to monitor and control their energy consumption;

69.

Points out that Member States are already obliged, subject to positive assessment, to roll out smart meters for at least 80 % of their final consumers by 2020, and draws attention to the interim target of smart meter installation in 50 % of households by 2015, agreed in the new Digital Agenda for Europe;

70.

Stresses that Member States should support a sufficient number of pilot projects for residential consumers in order to enhance public acceptance and boost the innovation process, as provided for in the third energy market package; calls on the Commission to present, on the basis of the assessments required in the third energy package, further measures to ensure the deployment of smart meters for all non-residential customers by 2014, temporarily excluding micro-enterprises; calls for clear rules concerning security, privacy and data protection to be established in accordance with existing EU law;

71.

Stresses that the deployment of energy management devices, especially when installing smart meters for use by domestic consumers, must, first and foremost, be of clearly tangible benefit to the final consumer; emphasises the need to keep consumers informed about their energy consumption, in order to involve them actively in the energy saving effort, and requires a special focus on creating awareness-raising campaigns, providing training, clear invoicing, ensuring cost-effectiveness and promoting the development of user friendly technologies;

72.

Emphasises, in this connection, the paramount importance of support for research and innovation, which must be backed up by an active financing policy, including the use of innovative instruments that have yet to be developed, such as a European fund for financing innovation or a European fund for patents;

73.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to work towards the selection of a standardised licensed radio spectrum band for smart meters and grids;

74.

Urges the Commission, in close cooperation with the European Data Protection Supervisor, to assess the need for additional data protection measures, the roles and responsibilities of different actors in relation, inter alia, to access to and the ownership possession and handling of data and read-and-change rights, and, if necessary, to issue adequate regulatory proposals and/or guidelines;

75.

Welcomes the priority corridors identified by the Commission and agrees on the need to optimise limited funds; reiterates that, while responsibility for the planning and development of infrastructure projects lies mainly with the market, the EU has a role in promoting certain projects by awarding them the status of ‘project of European interest’ and in providing public financing to some of them;

76.

Calls for a clear and transparent methodology leading to the selection of priority projects that meet pressing European needs; emphasises that the selection of projects of European interest (PEIs) should be conducted on the basis of objective and transparent criteria and with the involvement of all stakeholders;

77.

Stresses that all PEIs should contribute to achieving EU energy policy objectives – completion of the internal market, promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy and enhancing security of supply – and should be capable of contributing substantially to:

78.

Considers that, to justify projects being accorded priority, the following criteria should be taken into account:

79.

Takes the view that, to allow further prioritisation of projects, the following eligibility criteria should be taken into account:

80.

Underlines the importance of regional cooperation in the planning, implementation and monitoring of the established priorities and in drawing up investment plans and specific projects; believes that the existing strategies for macroregions (such as the Baltic and Danube regions) can also serve as models for cooperation platforms when agreeing and implementing energy projects;

81.

Points out that it is necessary to press ahead with the integration of the internal energy market by promoting, in particular, projects to ensure that neighbouring countries have a well balanced national energy mix;

82.

Stresses that obstacles to competition and market-driven development of all energy infrastructures, including district heating and cooling, must be removed;

83.

Reiterates that the geographical obstacles inherent to the location of island territories render their integration into the Union’s energy network very difficult, and that they should be granted special facilities in order to reduce their energy dependency, either by developing their endogenous potential in renewable energy sources or by promoting energy efficiency and energy saving;

84.

Emphasises that transparency should be enhanced by clearly informing the public about the purpose and technical planning data of each project; asks that proof of compliance with the criteria should be verified in the context of public consultations;

85.

Considers that not only large infrastructure projects should be supported, but also smaller projects which could have a high added value and be more swiftly completed;

86.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that projects granted the status of PEI continue, after approval, to meet the criteria set out above; believes that, in the event of any major change to a project, its PEI status should be reviewed;

87.

Agrees on the need to ensure timely implementation of PEIs and welcomes the Commission’s proposal to streamline, enhance the coordination of, improve and speed up permit-granting procedures – provided that the subsidiarity principle and national competence in relation to permit-granting are respected – in order to ensure that existing deadlines in these fields do not discourage private investors from being innovative;

88.

Welcomes the establishment of a national contact authority (one-stop shop) for each European interest project as a single administrative interface between developers and the various authorities involved in the authorisation procedure; takes the view that, with regard to cross-border projects, further coordination between national one-stop shops and an increased role for the Commission in such coordination should be ensured; points out that, before the creation of new one-stop-shops, the Commission and the national authorities must make full use of existing institutions;

89.

Stresses that any national contact authority must be independent and free from political or economic influence; believes that PEIs must be processed in order of submission and within the time limit set out in the future Commission proposal;

90.

Stresses the importance of timely finalisation of projects and high quality stakeholder dialogue; encourages the Commission to provide for a system of mild to serious warnings in the event that a Member State fails to process a permit application within a reasonable period of time, and to monitor closely whether national administrative procedures ensure the correct and rapid implementation of PEIs; welcomes, where difficulties are encountered, the introduction of indicative time limits within which the relevant competent authorities must reach a final decision; urges the Commission – in the absence of such a decision – to investigate whether the delay in question could be understood as an instance of the Member State impeding the correct and rapid implementation of the EU energy internal market;

91.

Calls on the Commission to determine, taking account of the diverse range of project specificities and the territorial characteristics of projects, whether joint or coordinated procedures establishing concrete ad hoc key measures and best practices (regular exchanges of information, timely communication of decisions, joint problem-solving mechanisms, etc.) could be set up, and to evaluate the suitability of using arbitration procedures as a final decision-making tool;

92.

Stresses the need for a more participatory approach, and recognises that securing greater acceptance by local people of energy infrastructure projects goes hand in hand with providing adequate information about the purpose of the projects, and with local involvement in their development at the earliest possible stage; calls for the participation, at all levels of civil society, of NGOs, industry, the social partners and consumer organisations in the consultation process for projects of European interest; calls on the Commission to set up a consultation and assessment system in order to identify and disseminate best practices and knowledge in relation to public acceptance of infrastructure;

93.

Stresses the need – given the importance of the regions’ sustainable energy strategies to their development potential – to establish a platform for exchanging best practises acquired in the regions, taking into account successful examples of municipalities and regions that have specialised in renewable energies, energy saving and efficiency; calls, in this regard, for a consultation and assessment system in order, where possible, to identify, share and copy best practices and knowledge about public acceptance of infrastructure;

94.

Emphasises that the greatest challenge lies in securing local public acceptance for energy infrastructure projects; is convinced that the acceptance and trust of members of the public and decision-makers can only be won by holding open and transparent debates in the run-up to decisions on energy infrastructure projects;

95.

Asks the Commission to evaluate whether the modernisation and upgrading of existing energy corridors is preferable to the creation of new corridors in terms of cost-efficiency and public acceptance;

96.

Advocates providing more information on the importance of energy networks in the European Union; asks the Commission to consider running an EU energy networks information and communication campaign tailored to suit national and local audiences;

97.

Notes that grid investments are cyclical and should be viewed in a historical perspective; points out that much of the infrastructure built in recent decades to interconnect centralised power plants is ageing; points out that society will expect the cost of keeping existing infrastructure operational and deploying new infrastructure to be optimised through public-private partnerships and the development of innovative financing instruments; emphasises the need accurately to ascertain infrastructure requirements and avoid lock-in to surplus capacity by taking full account of cost-effective energy efficiency potential;

98.

Stresses that the effective functioning of the market should provide a large part of the cost of the requisite infrastructure investment, on the basis of principles of proper cost-allocation, transparency, non-discrimination and cost-effectiveness and in line with the ‘user pays’ principle; requests the Commission to assess where the existing regulatory incentives are sufficient to send the necessary signals to the market, and what complementary measures, including those improving cost allocation rules, are needed;

99.

Takes the view that, when no regulatory alternative is available and the market alone can not cover the investments needed, EU funding may be required to fund some limited PEIs the specific characteristics of which make them commercially unviable but the development of which is necessary to achieve EU energy policy objectives; considers that public funding may be used to lever private investment by setting up an innovative mix of financial instruments, provided that it does not distort competition;

100.

Notes that the European Regional Development Fund makes a massive contribution to the funding of energy – and other – infrastructure projects and points out the significant role of cohesion policy at local and regional level in relation to energy efficiency and achievement of the Union’s renewable energy targets;

101.

Stresses that the cohesion and structural funds should continue to be central to our infrastructure projects; believes any attempt to create new sectoral funds from cohesion policy funds to be misguided;

102.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that financing of infrastructure investments is market-based in order to prevent distortions of competition and the creation of false incentives for investment, and that unjustified fluctuations between Member States are avoided, provided, however, that public interest – especially at local and regional level and in territories with specific geographical features such as islands, mountainous regions and regions with very low population density – is also safeguarded through a limited amount of public finance which has to result in an innovative mix of financial instruments that levers private investment;

103.

Considers that the European Union should fund commercially unattractive projects that are unable to attract private investors but that are essential for the interconnection of isolated EU regions to the European power and gas grids, as an integral part of the creation of a unified energy market in the European Union;

104.

Calls on the Commission to allow public funding only for Member States which have fully implemented and correctly apply existing EU legislation, including the regulatory provisions laid down in the third internal market package;

105.

Calls on the Commission to review state-aid rules in relation to energy infrastructure and if necessary, to bring forward proposals to amend these rules to allow states to encourage the modernisation of infrastructure; calls on the Commission, at the same time, to issue a new guideline document on public financing of projects and current state-aid legislation, setting out clear criteria for the public funding of energy infrastructure; stresses that this document must be developed jointly by DG Energy, DG Competition and DG Regional Development in order to eliminate any inconsistency in the Commission rules;

106.

Calls, on the basis of the strategic objectives, for the geographical principle to be taken into account in relation to future energy subsidies in the areas of infrastructure and R&D; insists, furthermore, that developed regions should receive further R&D subsidies only if the subsidised activity is conducted in conjunction with less-developed regions;

107.

Emphasises that a stable, predictable and appropriate regulatory framework, including appropriate rates of return and incentives for new infrastructure, is crucial in order to promote investment in both transmission and distribution; stresses that regulators should foster the implementation of new technologies through market incentives and pilot projects;

108.

Believes that private funding can facilitate timely construction of the requisite energy infrastructure, the sheer magnitude of the infrastructure challenge being such that private means need to be properly unlocked; considers that, as private investors embrace the infrastructure challenge, the Commission should establish clear guidelines for the involvement of market actors and private investors in so-called ‘merchant line’; believes that concerns about the possible impact on market functioning can be overcome if merchant lines are obliged to hand over their full capacity to the market;

109.

Stresses that the fullest possible use should be made of market-based tools, including improvements to rules on cost allocation, project bonds, revolving funds, renewable energy equity funds, loan guarantees, non-commercial risk-sharing facilities, incentives for funding public-private partnerships, partnerships with the EIB – by improving its intervention capacity and available resources – and use of ETS auction revenue for projects linked to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, as well as, where appropriate, other innovative financing instruments; calls on the Commission to take into account the financial capacities and market conditions of the less-developed Members States;

110.

Underlines the importance of closer and more effective collaboration with the private sector and financial institutions, especially the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to promote the necessary financing, in particular for priority cross-border projects; calls on the Commission to explore other innovative financial instruments and help to promote the establishment of public-private partnerships, for which local, regional and national authorities provide incentives and the necessary legislative framework and policy support; stresses in this context the need to develop technical assistance and financial engineering at local and regional authority level in order to support local players in setting up projects of energy efficiency – e.g. by harnessing the EIB’s ELENA technical assistance facility and the experience of ESCO where energy efficiency infrastructure is concerned;

111.

Supports the idea of issuing common European project bonds to finance Europe’s significant infrastructure needs and structural projects in the framework of the EU 2020 agenda, including the new Strategy on Energy Infrastructure Development; believes that EU project bonds would secure the investment required and create sufficient confidence to enable major investment projects to attract the support they need, and would thus become an important mechanism for maximum leverage of public support; points out that, if Europe is to be put on a sustainable footing, these projects must also contribute to the ecological transformation of our economies;

112.

Considers, in particular, that EU project bonds can become a key financial instrument for the requisite energy infrastructure investments in Europe, helping private project companies to attract capital market funding from investors; calls on the Commission swiftly to produce a legislative proposal on EU project bonds;

113.

Stresses the importance of the regulators’ developing a common methodology for cost allocation in cross-border infrastructure projects, as such network infrastructure incentives are characterised by multiple market failures, mainly due to natural monopoly and lack of competition;

114.

Highlights the importance of transparent, proportionate, fair and non-discriminatory tariffs, with a view to ensuring appropriate cost allocation for investments in cross-border and internal transmissions infrastructure, with cross-border impacts significantly contributing to the achievement of EU policy goals, fair prices for consumers and greater competitiveness; urges the Member States to abstain from applying excessively low regulated tariffs; welcomes the Commission’s REMIT proposal;

115.

Recalls that the third package creates an obligation for regulators, in setting tariffs, to evaluate investments on the basis not only of their benefits in the Member State in question, but also of their EU-wide benefits; urges the ACER to ensure that its members heed this obligation; asks the Commission to assess further, where costs and benefits cannot be fairly allocated through tariff setting, whether compensatory mechanisms based on strict transparency could prove useful in relation to the approval of cross-border projects or of relevant internal projects necessary for the achievement of EU energy objectives;

116.

Stresses the importance of increasing the interconnective capacity of energy networks at a cross-border level, and points to the importance of providing the financing required to attain the goals laid down, including territorial cohesion;

117.

Calls for improved EU financial instruments to be set up to back regional and local authorities as they seek to invest in sustainable energy production;

118.

Welcomes the Commission’s initiative to present in 2011 a proposal to address the question of cost allocation of technologically complex or cross-border projects, as this is considered one of the main barriers to the development of cross-border infrastructure and a new financial instrument to back priority projects during 2014-2020;

119.

Considers it important that more attention be paid in future to dealing with the financial guarantees for investments, and that the projected financial framework be developed in conjunction with planning of the 2014-2020 budget period;

120.

Considers that all external pipelines and other energy networks entering the territory of the European Union should be governed by transparent intergovernmental agreements and subject to internal market rules, including rules on third-party access, destination clauses, supervision of allocation and bottleneck management, the duration of the contracts and take-or-pay clauses; calls on the Commission to ensure that current and future pipelines and commercial agreements respect the European energy acquis, and to take action if necessary;

121.

Calls on the Commission to further restrict the granting of third-party access exemptions on energy infrastructure, and for those granted to be reviewed to see if they are still needed; notes that the provision of public finance or support for projects through instruments such as EIB-backed project bonds, etc., should reduce or remove the need for third-party access exemptions;

122.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Member States.

5.2.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union