10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/1

—

having regard to the European Commission’s communication on its ‘Work programme 2016: No time for business as usual’ and to the cooperation agreement between the CoR and the European Commission,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 9 July 2015 on the priorities for the 2016 work programme of the European Commission and of 4 June 2015 on its priorities for the sixth term of office 2015-2020,

—

having regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,

1.

welcomes the Commission’s proposals to put forward, on the basis of the mid-term review of Europe 2020 and the implementation of the United Nations sustainable developments goals (SDGs), a new strategy to apply the sustainability principle under Article 3(3) of the EU Treaty. Two potential options for this new strategy could be to include the SDGs either in a revised Europe 2030 strategy or in a new sustainability strategy;

2.

stresses that this endeavour needs a strong territorial dimension with local and regional authorities (LRAs) involved in its design and implementation, through the European Semester, to ensure effectiveness as well as democratic legitimacy and accountability; this claim correlates with the CoR’s call for a White Paper on territorial cohesion, based on the work of the Luxembourg Presidency in analysing the interplay between the territorial agenda 2020 and the Europe 2020 strategy also suggests in this context to make territorial impact assessments compulsory in the conduct of European Commission impact assessments;

3.

urges the European Investment Bank and the Commission to prioritise projects which involve local and regional authorities, including small and medium project clusters, and commits to promoting and monitoring the EFSI at local and regional level; notes that EFSI loans are not relevant in all countries, as the EFSI does not offer better lending conditions for local and regional authorities than those already available in some Member States;

4.

welcomes the Commission’s willingness to simplify the implementation of cohesion policy and considers that simplification efforts must take a holistic approach for both beneficiaries and managing authorities; the CoR will closely follow and contribute to the work of the High-Level Group on Simplification;

5.

urges the Commission to enter into an early dialogue with the CoR on the territorial aspects of the MFF review to ensure that all EU policies contribute to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU;

6.

notes that gearing the EU budget towards results also requires an ambitious follow-up to the soon-to-be-expected conclusions of the High-Level Group on Own Resources. Given that the main impact of the EU budget is at local and regional level, LRAs must also — notably through the CoR — play a prominent role in the preparation of the substantial and comprehensive proposals for a revision of the EU budgetary system which the CoR expects the Commission to put forward in 2016;

7.

reiterates its encouragement to the Commission to relaunch the debate on ‘GDP and beyond’ and examine the need for and feasibility of developing complementary indicators for well-being and sustainable development;

8.

regrets that the Commission work programme 2016 does not make reference to the EU urban agenda, given the urgent need for a more integrated approach to EU policy and legislation in this area; reiterates in this regard its request for a White Paper on the EU urban agenda;

9.

calls on the Commission to consider the Luxembourg Presidency proposal for a ‘European Cross-Border Convention on specific provisions in cross-border regions’ and asks to be actively involved in the review of cross-border obstacles currently being prepared by the Commission;

10.

reiterates its call to the Commission to publish a Green Paper on mobility in geographically and demographically challenged regions;

11.

calls the Commission to issue a White Paper on rural areas, in order to develop the enormous jobs and growth potential of rural areas, including within an urban-rural context; reiterates the need for a simplification of the CAP; also looks forward to the report on the functioning of the milk market on which the CoR has already put forward very specific recommendations;

12.

calls on the Commission to have a clear action plan on blue growth and calls for the creation of a specific knowledge and innovation community for the blue economy as a further measure for the development of skills and the transfer of ideas from marine research to the private sector;

13.

supports the Commission’s efforts to facilitate the use of innovative financial instruments; underlines that such instruments need to be further simplified and urges the Commission to adopt in close dialogue with representatives of cities, regions, the EIB and social partners, all necessary legal solutions to avoid repeating the mistakes that occurred at the beginning of the 2007-2013 programming period;

14.

will carefully examine the new circular economy package, including its action plan and new legislative proposal amending EU waste legislation and its impact on LRAs;

15.

calls on the Commission to encourage greater European cooperation in the energy field and explicitly recognises the role and contribution of local and regional authorities in Energy Union policies, especially as regards renewable, micro-production of energy, energy efficiency, the implementation of the internal energy market, energy infrastructure and diversification policies, as well as innovative energy technology; expresses its willingness to be actively involved in the Energy Infrastructure Forum and cooperate with the European energy regulators;

16.

calls on the Commission to take into account the views and expectations of consumers, as well as the experience and best practices of local and regional authorities when developing the new energy market design structure; declares its readiness to contribute actively to the work of the Citizen’s Energy Forum;

17.

welcomes the fact that the Commission is promoting an initiative, albeit non-legislative, for Europe’s space strategy and hopes that it will support the space technology market so as to foster the creation of SMEs in this sector; in this regard, calls for greater involvement of local and regional authorities in the planning and implementing phases of Europe’s space strategy;

18.

asks the Commission to support local and regional initiatives in the campaign for ‘risk resilient cities’, led by the United Nations through its ‘Sendai Framework’ and reiterates its call to the Commission to firmly embed resilience-building into its development policies; action now would be far more cost-efficient than trying to build resilience to infrastructure that is already built;

19.

welcomes the Commission’s decision to merge the management of the Covenant of Mayors and the Mayors Adapt initiatives and declares its readiness to actively contribute to enlarging and promoting the new Integrated Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy worldwide; reiterates, however, that other local and regional forms of cooperation on climate and energy issues should not be neglected;

20.

regrets the lack of a clear reference in the work programme to the general Union environment action programme to 2020, as adopted by the European Parliament and the Council (1); calls in particular on the Commission to implement its priority Objective 4 on maximising the benefits of EU environmental legislation by improving implementation; welcomes the envisaged REFIT initiative on environmental reporting, but reiterates its call for a new directive on access to justice in environment matters, and for a proposal on environmental inspections and enforcement (2);

21.

notes with concern that the demographic change, socioeconomic crisis and geographically concentrated migratory flows can amplify already existing health inequalities between European regions and become a challenge to effective, accessible and resilient health systems and calls on the Commission to commission a study looking into these compounding factors and ways in which European regions can change this challenge into an opportunity;

22.

calls on the Commission to take action in the field of food waste by setting a target of at least 30 % food waste reduction by 2025, particularly as many local and regional authorities across Europe need guidance and legal certainty when implementing measures and initiatives to reduce food waste;

23.

reiterates its calls for EU measures, financing arrangements and priorities to take into account the accumulative impact of small and medium-sized towns and cities given that approximately 56 % of towns and cities are small and medium in size with populations of between 5 000 and 100 000;

24.

urges the Commission to swiftly bring forward its proposed initiatives for delivering the single market strategy; underlines that the territorial impact of related measures should be fully assessed;

25.

highlights that the implementation of the digital single market is key for local and regional authorities; calls on the European Commission to report regularly on progress made in overcoming the digital divide, particularly at regional and local level;

26.

welcomes the European Commission’s intention to revise the Audiovisual and Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and asks that the regional dimension and specifications are taken into account;

27.

stresses the need for a strategy to support the development of ICT infrastructure, in particular in rural and remote regions and, more generally, in regions whose development is lagging behind, bearing in mind that broadband and ultra-fast broadband connectivity services can be a powerful growth stimulus;

28.

welcomes the Commission’s focus on releasing the potential of the collaborative or sharing economy and expects the Commission to present proposals soon for a coordinated approach on the rules applicable to it, taking into account the important role of LRAs and the need to ensure the rights of consumers;

29.

supports the Commission’s efforts to tackle regulatory obstacles for SMEs and start-ups and welcomes its intention to propose an initiative to give a second chance to entrepreneurs after bankruptcy; stresses the important contribution of regional and local authorities to the emergence of strong entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus underlines the need to integrate them in the governance of SME policy and notably in the network of SME envoys;

30.

invites the Commission to continue its efforts to establish a Capital Markets Union, and reiterates the need for minimising the administrative burden resulting from future regulatory actions and avoiding excessive risk-taking and instability in financial markets;

31.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to present an action plan on VAT, to implement international standards on base erosion and profit shifting and to clarify, in the framework of the 2016 review of the EU VAT Directive, the conditions under which the non-taxation of inter-municipal cooperation arranged under public law and outside the scope of public procurement law can be regarded as consistent with EU law;

32.

takes note of the Commission’s announcement to withdraw its current proposal on a Common consolidated corporate tax base which the CoR had welcomed but wonders to what extent the Commission’s intention to replace it by ‘proposals for a step-by-step approach towards an obligatory corporate tax base’ pre-empts the outcome of the ongoing public consultation on the topic;

33.

deeply regrets the lack of explanation for the European Commission’s decision to postpone the adoption of the labour mobility package, meant to be one of the Commission’s flagship initiatives to tackle social dumping and social tourism, and strengthen social rights in Europe and which should, according to the CoR, contain a revision of the Directive on the posting of workers;

34.

awaits the Commission’s proposal to better address the challenges of work-life balance, in particular in relation to the participation of women in the labour market, notably by reviewing the 2010 directive on parental leave, by unblocking the institutional deadlock with regard to the Maternity Leave Directive and by presenting a concrete strategy for achieving gender equality in the EU;

35.

calls on the Commission to propose a revision of the Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to carcinogens and mutagens at work and a Directive on work-related musculoskeletal disorders;

36.

underlines that the new skills agenda for Europe should focus on renewed efforts to modernise the European higher education systems, as well as proposals to ensure that all individuals in the EU have the right and the possibility to reach a minimum level of education and skills, to achieve excellence and stimulate innovation in education and in vocational education and training (VET), promoting education of digital skills and the role of education against youth radicalisation;

37.

welcomes the Commission’s willingness to improve the democratic accountability of the EU’s economic governance system, which would not be complete without involving sub-national authorities;

38.

calls on the Commission to assess the impact of the new ESA 2010 rules on the ability of local and regional authorities to invest;

39.

takes note of the Commission’s initiatives regarding the transition from phase 1 to phase 2 of the completion of the EMU, including the white paper planned for spring 2017; stresses that a separate decision must be taken on every step of the implementation process;

40.

stresses that, to improve the social dimension of the EMU, it is crucial to tackle regional disparities; points out that regional disparity indicators should be added to the EMU social indicators scoreboard;

41.

considers that multi-level governance makes it possible to address the protection of fundamental rights in practice and contributes to the process of building and safeguarding a citizens’ Europe;

42.

considers that mutual trust is essential for effective cross-border law enforcement, given that terrorism and radicalisation, organised crime and cybercrime are transnational by nature and require an EU response; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to pay increased attention to developing the operational cooperation and tools that are needed in this regard;

43.

notes the focus on the principles of solidarity and responsibility in the European agenda on migration and its implementing initiatives; underlines that these principles and the respect for human rights as well as the capacities of local and regional governments should be at the centre of all EU policies on migration, as well as in their adoption and implementation by the Member States;

44.

notes the increase in EU funding to deal with the refugee crisis and calls for an analysis to be carried out by the Commission to the added-value and scale of its use, particularly for local and regional authorities; stresses the need for more urgency in the provision and allocation of funds for the management of migration and integration; urges the Commission to ensure that local and regional authorities that are currently receiving and hosting refugees are urgently provided with the necessary financial resources to meet the refugees’ immediate needs;

45.

welcomes the announcement of initiatives to remedy the weaknesses of the EU asylum regulations and to present a coherent long-term, EU-wide system of relocation and resettlement; welcomes in this connection plans to further develop the Dublin Regulation in order to share the burden more fairly on the basis of fixed and fair quotas; stresses that the consensually agreed provisions of the Dublin procedure remain in force and that all EU Member States have to comply with EU admission and procedure standards;

46.

stresses the urgent need for better protection of the EU’s external borders; stresses that any measures that jeopardise the principle of free movement within the Schengen area should be avoided; acknowledges, however that in exceptional circumstances it is possible to carry out checks at its internal borders in order to safeguard the area of freedom, security and justice; urges the Commission to also consider the need for future initiatives to facilitate the integration of refugees, for example by setting up ‘Migration and integration partnerships’ between LRA in the countries of origin and countries of destination;

47.

notes the Commission proposal for a list of safe countries of origin and commits to engaging in designing policies and exchanging best practices at regional and local level through its joint consultative committees and working groups, involving all seven countries listed on the EC proposal;

48.

invites the Commission to design effective return policies to be implemented swiftly and in respect of the dignity and fundamental rights of those migrants who are ineligible for asylum and can be safely returned. This is necessary to ensure that resources can be focused on those in real need and to help avoid creating further social conflicts which may pave the way to extremism;

49.

welcomes the Commission’s proposal to introduce a new investment court system for the TTIP and all other ongoing and future trade negotiations; specifically welcomes that the new proposal enshrining the right of governments to regulate, but nevertheless calls for further detailed clarifications on how this will improve the situation as compared with the current ISDS mechanism;

50.

urges the Commission to undertake impact assessments of the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of trade agreements, including on SMEs, consumers, specific economic sectors, human rights and on developing countries before opening trade negotiations; in particular underlines the need to clarify if and when TTIP may impact local public services;

51.

regrets the continued omission of the regional and local dimension in trade negotiations and calls on the Commission to correct this in its new trade and investment strategy; in this context calls on the Commission to involve the CoR in the TiSA negotiation process, in particular by granting the CoR similar access to negotiation documents as for TTIP;

52.

stresses the urgency to find a peaceful resolution to conflicts in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. It offers the involvement of local and regional authorities within the people-to-people diplomacy; reaffirms its readiness to work towards implementation of the reform on decentralisation in Ukraine and proposes strengthening the bonds of cooperation between European and Libyan local and regional authorities targeting capacity building and territorial development, including prior to the full implementation of an overarching internal agreement;

53.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to provide a more focused framework to support the stabilisation and democratic development of partner countries within the new European neighbourhood policy; stresses that the new policy must adopt a territorial approach and incorporate support for the process of decentralisation in its strategic objectives; commits itself to contribute to that approach through its two cooperation platforms, namely the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM) and the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern Partnership (Corleap);

54.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to continue to work towards the concretisation of the accession perspective of the EU candidate countries; urges the Commission to examine in greater detail the situation of regional and local self-government in the enlargement countries in the context of its enlargement progress reports which would be the focus of the joint consultative committees’ (JCCs) and working groups’ (WGs) work;

55.

welcomes the proposed post-Cotonou policy and the Commission’s intention to increase external policy coherence; insists on the need to develop local democracy and administrative capacity in development policy and of promoting regional integration in and decentralised development cooperation with partner zones;

56.

calls on the Commission, when considering the responses to public consultations, to take account of the different origins of the various contributions, and make a distinction between contributions representing specific interests and those representing general interests, which include contributions from local and regional authorities; stresses the importance of taking account of this difference in scope, including for the purposes of assessing the need to carry out a territorial impact assessment regarding specific legislative proposals;

57.

stresses that local and regional authorities can play a crucial role in identifying administratively burdensome EU rules including those that may be caused when rules are being transposed and implemented; reiterates its call for referring to the CoR’s contribution to the legislative process within the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Regulation, given the CoR’s privileged institutional role with regard to the principle of subsidiarity and the territorial impact of the EU’s legislation;

58.

re-emphasises its call for an exemption for democratically-elected representatives of regional and local authorities and their representative associations from the rules of the EU transparency register intended to regulate access to EU institutions for lobbyists;

59.

welcomes the Commission’s intention to expand the ‘Citizens’ Dialogues’ and its determination to bridge the gap between the EU and its citizens; reiterates that it will continue to promote transparency and democratic accountability in the EU decision-making process as well as decentralised communication on EU policies impacting LRAs in order to increase the legitimacy of the EU and its legislation;

60.

follows with great interest the revision of the Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative and stresses that a comprehensive revision is needed in order for this instrument to fulfil its potential role and merits;

61.

instructs the President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the President of the European Council.

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/8

1.

welcomes the efforts by the Luxembourg Presidency to discuss Territorial Vision 2050 and is pleased that the Luxembourg Presidency has decided to consult the CoR on this matter;

2.

emphasises the importance of explicitly recognising the broad range of territorial realities in the European Union that need different approaches and strategies to tackle their problems;

3.

believes that more than 15 years after the European Spatial Development Perspective adopted in Potsdam in 1999 the European Union needs a new territorial vision which:

4.

therefore calls for a broad Europe-wide consultation on the future territorial vision of the European Union building on the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (COM(2008) 616 final) and reiterates its call for a White Paper on Territorial Cohesion, which could be used as a building block for other EU policies with a stronger territorial dimension already in the next post-2020 programming period;

5.

stresses the importance of identifying global trends and challenges early enough to adequately adapt public policy. In this respect the CoR welcomes various forward-looking reports which have been conducted by the European institutions and highlights the CoR study entitled ‘Challenges at the Horizon 2025 — Key trends and Impact on the LRAs’ (1);

6.

makes reference to global trends and challenges which the European Union is facing, as identified in the report entitled ‘Global trends to 2030: can the EU meet the challenges ahead?’ by the ESPAS project (2), and which entail a territorial dimension as their impacts differ from one region to another depending on territorial specificities and contexts. The CoR notes, however, that the territorial dimension was not sufficiently taken into consideration in the ESPAS report, therefore, looks forward to contributing to address the territorial dimension in the future work of the ESPAS project;

7.

believes that a clear European territorial vision is necessary in order to respond effectively to current and future trends and challenges and that it should strengthen the territorial dimension in policy-making, inter alia, by applying the place-based approach;

8.

highlights, in this respect, the role of the Territorial Agenda 2020 which remains valid and needs to be implemented better. In view of this, the CoR refers to its recent opinion on ‘The improvement of the implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020’ (3);

9.

stresses, moreover, that strategic planning and setting clear and achievable policy objectives, which could be part of a ‘vision’, are an essential element of good policy-making;

10.

reiterates that at EU level the Treaty (TFEU Article 174) sets an overarching territorial objective for the development of the European Union by stipulating that ‘in order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its actions leading to the strengthening of economic, social and territorial cohesion’. Territorial cohesion means ensuring the balanced development of all territories of the EU;

11.

draws attention to the advantages and benefits of applying the place-based approach (4), whose essential elements concern the integration of sectors in a particular territorial strategy and a results-oriented territorial dialogue. If implemented effectively, the place-based approach makes it possible to value and revive territorial identity and territorial specificities as a unique asset;

12.

notes that while the place-based approach is often discussed in the EU institutions, it is not yet fully implemented everywhere at EU and Member State level. The European Committee of the Regions reiterates its firm belief that the place-based approach of EU policies will bring the best results as the policies will be adapted to specific local conditions and as such will more effectively address the challenges of the regions, cities and municipalities, thereby reducing the differences between their levels of development;

13.

notes that while it also remains necessary to strengthen sectoral policies, the place-based approach is the most effective approach for achieving the treaty objective of overall harmonious development. In this respect, the CoR makes reference to a study conducted by the European Commission which identified five common features of successful implementation of the place-based approach (5). Such features include the important role of valuing a territorial identity, expanding beyond geographical and sectoral boundaries, an open governance system, a strong leading capacity and experimenting and learning by doing;

14.

believes that while sectoral policies are important for territorial development, the place-based approach is an important starting point for adapted local and regional development. The concept of a common framework (partnership agreement) for implementing the European Structural and Investment Funds in this programming period is commendable, but in order to be able to implement the whole policy effectively, the obstacles created by the different rules must be removed. The regulatory framework for the European Structural and Investment Funds should be simplified with the input and involvement of local and regional authorities. Projects with a territorially-integrated approach should be able to obtain financing from a range of funds and should be accountable to a single regulatory framework;

15.

points out the analysis in the 6th Cohesion Report which stated that ‘regional disparities have widened during the last few years because the economic crisis has affected regions differently’ (6). In fact, not only the crisis itself, but also policy decisions, notably austerity measures as part of the European Semester, have had very different impacts on European regions. For example, financially strong regions could mitigate the effects of the crisis and comply with requirements of the European Semester, while on the other hand, financially weak regions had to cut public investments as a consequence of austerity measures, which led to economic difficulties. This analysis leads to the conclusion that there is a territorial impact even in policy areas and external factors which previously have not been considered in a territorial perspective, such as banking or fiscal policy. The CoR notes that the crisis has particularly deepened disparities between regions and has most affected the countries whose development is lagging behind. It therefore stresses that for policies to have a unified impact they must be implemented on the principle of restoring balance and a territorial approach. This means applying an even-handed approach to austerity measures;

16.

notes that since the 2009 debate on ‘GDP and Beyond’ the available data at the EU level has significantly increased and there is a need to explore other indicators that complement GDP when measuring progress in particular at the level of EU regions and cities in completing EU objectives;

17.

stresses that the majority of EU policies have a regional and local dimension which can be assessed through a Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA) and should be taken into account when these policies are being designed and revised. The CoR started the pilot phase of its TIA Strategy in 2014 on selected files, during which different methodologies and approaches were tested. It strongly welcomes the fact that, following the Better Regulation Package published on 19 May 2015, the Commission will be using TIAs as one element of impact assessment. In line with the above, the CoR therefore stresses the role of the EU urban agenda — with particular reference to internal areas — and the overriding importance of implementing it for the development of regions. The CoR refers to its opinion Towards an integrated urban agenda for the EU (25 June 2014) (7), highlighting the proposal therein for a white paper on an integrated urban policy. Finally, the CoR emphasises that it agrees with the statement of the European Commission which announced concrete steps towards adopting the EU urban agenda, for which EUR 80 billion of the EU budget would be allocated (8). Calls on the Commission to build on the CoR experiences;

18.

is concerned that the current statistical units in the EU Member States do not necessarily represent the real socioeconomic situation and as such should not be the sole basis for the future design and implementation of policies. The policies should be integrated with a strong cross-sectoral, cross-regional and cross-border character, taking into account the spillover effects on the other regions;

19.

reiterates that in order to determine these effects, the Member States and the European Union need to implement Territorial Impact Assessments as a standard practice in the policy-making process and when programming and implementing sectoral investments. If the possible asymmetric effects of the EU and national policies are not taken into account, these policies can never be sufficiently efficient or effective, potentially resulting in unwanted effects;

20.

highlights that when examining the effects of the EU policies, the fact that more and more EU citizens are living in urban areas needs to be taken into account both in terms of the urban and the rural challenges this creates. Currently, statistical data on the urban level does not exist or is very limited, which makes it difficult to make a coherent and thorough assessment of the effects. The CoR and the European Commission are currently working on an Urban Impact Assessment pilot project which should be further developed in the future and could serve as a valuable tool for assessing these effects which would result in better law-making. Also underlines that the Committee of the Regions has been calling for EU policies to better take into account the accumulative impact of small- and medium-size towns and cities;

21.

recalls that rural areas are also diverse in terms of their characteristics and challenges and their level of development is lower than that of the EU, particularly compared to development levels in urban areas — and the gap is widening. It will not be possible to attain the territorial cohesion without harnessing all the available potential, which includes the potential offered by all territorial areas. This is particularly important given that functional interdependencies between urban and rural areas, for example through commuting or recreation activities, make it almost impossible in certain cases to draw clear boundaries between areas;

22.

as technology is expected to rapidly develop in the coming decades, so will the tools to assess these impacts in a quick, efficient and objective manner. Models such as this are already being created and are developing quickly and a good example of such a tool is the ESPON Quick Scan. Currently the main obstacle to having these kinds of instruments is the lack of a sufficient and complete database of statistical data, above all at the local level;

23.

believes that it is equally important to assess the Territorial Impacts of certain EU policies in areas listed in TFEU Article 174, affected by structural, natural or demographic handicaps, be that northernmost regions with very low population density, island, cross-border or mountain regions;

24.

requests that Member States and the European Union invest considerably more resources to acquire the missing statistical data reflecting various territorial challenges and strongly develop data collection at the lowest administrative level. This is particularly important in those countries where Eurostat territorial units do not really reflect real geographies at local or regional level. Without a complete and evolving picture of the European Union’s regions, it is not possible to create effective policies that address the challenges they face. The CoR recalls that in the new Structural Funds Regulations there is a Thematic Objective 11 of the Structural Funds that is precisely available for funding investments in developing better data at local and regional level but that is regrettably little used for that purpose so far. At the same time, the CoR reiterates the need to decrease the administrative burden on various stakeholders, including local and regional authorities, by developing suitable tools to enable collection of statistical data and reporting to be made more rigorously and selectively systematic, in order to streamline processing. It is important to ensure that the resources available under thematic objective 11 are widely known;

25.

highlights the useful work of the ESPON programme (9) which is gathering territorial evidence across Europe. In particular, the projections in its report entitled ‘Making Europe Open and Polycentric’ are relevant for making informed decisions on how to invest in order to strengthen regional development. Considering different scenarios, the CoR believes that polycentric development should be the objective and an essential element of the Territorial Vision 2050 which encompasses local authorities of all sizes, across all Member States of the EU. With metropolitan regions growing, balanced development should be promoted while at the same time paying attention to small villages and less developed regions and the interconnectedness of adjacent territories;

26.

given that global trends and challenges impact European territories differently and given that all public policies entail a territorial dimension, a European Territorial Vision should mainly focus on applying a territorial dimension to European Governance;

27.

recalls that the CoR has adopted a Charter for Multi-Level Governance (10) in Europe which outlines the key principles of European Governance that should help strengthen the territorial dimension of policy-making and achieve greater economic, social and territorial cohesion in Europe, as stated repeatedly by the CoR in all of its opinions on territorial policy;

28.

believes that in this context emphasis should be placed on, and special support should be given to, diverse forms of cooperation between local and regional authorities and other decentralised authorities as an effective, efficient and legitimate tool for delivering public services;

29.

emphasises that cross-border cooperation of local and regional authorities has proven as a key instrument for the development of border regions. Therefore it should be further supported by the EU and Member States;

30.

highlights that innovative financial instruments and public-private partnerships with clear rules can be important tools for territorial development in the place-based approach in certain areas where private financing can complement public financing and where returns are attractive enough. However, attention needs to be paid to ensure that local and regional authorities are provided with guidance on the use of financial instruments (11);

31.

emphasises the crucial role of local political leadership and democratically elected local governments in developing a place-based approach and notes that this kind of approach requires participation from stakeholders and openness from all levels of governance. It is important that the process, its value and benefits are well understood by all the actors in the process;

32.

underlines that the place-based approach entails specific roles for actors at different levels of governance. Spatial planning and development strategies should always take into account the level closest to the people, which in most cases means the local or regional levels;

33.

in policy areas in which competencies lie at the European level, a territorial dimension must be considered systematically. In this respect, the CoR welcomes the EC’s better regulation initiative and agrees that ‘applying the principles of better regulation will ensure that measures are evidence-based, well designed and deliver tangible and sustainable benefits for citizens, business and society as a whole’ (12). The CoR is particularly pleased that the better regulations initiative takes up key principles outlined in its charter for multi-level governance in Europe;

34.

recalls that the CoR has set up a Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform in order to monitor the regional dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy which has come to the conclusion that a renewed Europe 2020 strategy should be based on stronger partnership and ownership of all levels of government, introducing a territorial dimension, more transparency and accountability and multi-level governance (13);

35.

in line with the European Code of Conduct on Partnership, believes that Local and Regional authorities should be given responsibility for drafting plans for development using their territorial specificities as unique assets and taking agreed European objectives and the need to involve organised interests into consideration. The CoR stresses that Cohesion Policy is essential in financial assistance and for methodological guidance of local and regional authorities implementing their development plans. Efficient governance is fundamentally important when it comes to improving programme implementation, as is good project design;

36.

notes that, according to the 6th Monitoring Report on Europe 2020 and the European Semester recently issued (in October 2015) by the CoR’s Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform, local and regional authorities in 15 EU Member States were closely involved in preparation of the National Reform Programmes. Moreover, during implementation of the programmes, 23 of the 28 governments specifically referred to the role of local and regional authorities in certain areas, such as labour market policy, social inclusion and healthcare. With respect to the Europe 2020 strategy, 20 Member States emphasised the role of local authorities in the National Reform Programmes in the spheres of social inclusion, renewable energy and climate change. Calls therefore for the review of the Europe 2020 strategy to further strengthen the territorial dimension of EU policies so that all the Member States respect the Subsidiarity and multi-level governance and partnership principles when drawing up the National Reform Programmes;

37.

Cohesion Policy should ensure coherence of local and regional plans with European objectives. Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes are the main instruments in this respect. The CoR underlines that Cohesion Policy funding through the European Structural and Investment funds can contribute to the necessary financial assistance in order to implement plans. It also stresses that implementation of local and regional development plans can further be facilitated through specific instruments of Cohesion Policy such as Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), which should be used more widely;

38.

many other EU policies such as Agriculture and Rural development, Transport and Energy or Environmental protection among others have a territorial dimension which is as important as that of Cohesion Policy itself. Therefore these other sectoral policies must also be adapted in order to assist local and regional development plans. Indeed the Territorial Vision 2050 must comprise all EU policies with a significant territorial dimension so that the place-based approach to policy-making across all relevant EU policies is mainstreamed;

39.

a more cohesive and coordinated approach to European territorial Strategy/Vision at European level is needed; continuous cooperation with national and European associations, representing local and regional authorities, should be established. This approach should also include a structured and systematic exchange of experience and knowledge when developing various sectoral policies;

40.

finally, believes that a European Strategy/Vision must evolve constantly, notably by using bottom-up feedback provided by continuous cooperation with European and national association representing local and regional authorities and by taking into account global developments such as the challenges of migration and climate change where EU local and regional authorities play an important role on the basis of the principle of solidarity.

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/14

1.

welcomes the ongoing discussions at the different European Council and Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings and the efforts to agree on a common approach and concrete solutions to the migration crisis and how best to alleviate the situation; is, however, deeply concerned by the dramatic developments in the situation and the slow progress towards a comprehensive common response from the EU and its Member States; calls on the Member States, EU institutions, and other international actors to cooperate, find realistic common solutions and meet existing responsibilities;

2.

notes that the flow of asylum seekers and irregular economic migrants arriving in the EU has reached an unprecedented scale; the number of migrants clearly demonstrates that the capacity of any Member State to cope alone in the short to medium term is quickly challenged; what is needed is more union and solidarity between EU Member States, and a greater sense of partnership, belonging, and shared responsibility; stresses that all EU levels of governance — European, national regional and local — urgently need to find a common approach to manage all the social, economic and security challenges. Only a comprehensive, integrated policy approach addressing the root causes of migration will be successful in resolving the problem. This must include a strengthening of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, as well as greater coherence in the EU’s internal and external policies and its policies in the areas of foreign affairs, security, trade, development, humanitarian aid and migration;

3.

welcomes the fact that the meetings of heads of state or government devoted to the issue of refugees have led to the adoption of a complex approach, making a distinction between firstly, the question of refugees trying to save their lives and secondly, the question of irregular immigration. This approach has allowed the issue to be addressed as a whole and, beyond the humanitarian aspects, to discuss protection of borders, security and defence matters, smuggling of migrants, return and reintegration of irregular migrants, and cooperation with the countries of origin and transit;

4.

regrets, in this context, that the meetings of heads of state held to date barely addressed the humanitarian dimension of the situation; stresses that the strengthening of border controls and measures to tackle irregular migration is essential, including the strict registration of all migrants in accordance with the relevant EU acquis, but cannot take precedence over international obligations to save lives and respect human rights, or over the right to seek asylum in the EU, which must remain a place of refuge for people in need of international protection; therefore urgently calls for regular high-level meetings between the EU Member States, European institutions, EU agencies, regional organisations and the non-EU countries most concerned;

5.

also points out, however, that one of the key aspects of the current migration situation is the increasing business being made of it by people traffickers and organised gangs that exploit human misery and the poor social conditions of the migrants. The CoR supports measures designed to step up the fight against human traffickers and organised crime proposed by European and African Heads of State and Government at the Valletta Summit on 11—12 November 2015; stresses that rapid action as well as long-term, comprehensive and concrete action plans must be set up in close cooperation with non-EU countries. Points out that cooperation on this issue must be mutual, and that countries of origin and transit must commit themselves to supporting and implementing all measures agreed in the Valletta Action Plan. This is why it is essential to have the prompt involvement of the Member States’ law-enforcement agencies, stringent monitoring of criminal gangs and regular reporting on the situation and results in the battle against this form of organised crime, which threatens the safety and social cohesion of the populations of the EU Member States; also stresses the importance of detailed registration at the Schengen borders and effective monitoring of the external borders of the EU. The appropriate level of border control and measures to safeguard the internal security of the Schengen Area should be fully respected; one good example is the cooperation demonstrated by the V4 countries in providing officers to protect the external Schengen border (Hungary, Greece);

6.

stresses that a stronger focus on the commitment of the EU and its Member States to upholding the principle of solidarity is necessary in order to create a more efficient migration policy tackling all the issues faced by local and regional authorities. In this respect, the CoR notes the resolution of the European Parliament that was adopted on 29 April. At the same time the CoR believes that solidarity needs to be based on mutual trust rather than compulsion, although it must not be forgotten that it is an obligation, and that it is dangerous to describe movement caused by persecution as migration;

7.

welcomes, in this respect, the publication of the European Agenda on Migration on 13 May by the European Commission; believes this to be an important step towards forming a comprehensive approach to the benefits and challenges of migration; emphasises, however, that the agenda must also entail a long-term effort;

8.

welcomes the importance given in that Commission communication to prioritising an effective and sustainable return policy, which respects the rights of migrants and takes into account the specific features of the countries of origin. However, deplores the current lack of effective enforcement of return decisions and calls on the Member States to implement stringent return practices for dismissed applicants and irregular migrants by means of fair and swift procedures. Stresses in this respect the importance of strengthening the role and mandate of Frontex in return operations and of distinguishing between asylum seekers and economic migrants given that the two groups are legally different and therefore require different approaches. For this purpose, practical cooperation with the relevant third countries must be improved in order to foster and create the most efficient and rapid voluntary return systems and the capacity of authorities in countries of origin must be strengthened in order to deal with readmission applicants;

9.

welcomes the fact that the Commission communication underlines the importance of saving lives at sea as a priority for ‘immediate action’, and reiterates that solidarity, mutual trust and shared responsibility between Member States and local and regional authorities is the political compass that must be followed to achieve this objective;

10.

reiterates its conviction that the EU’s approach to migration must be solidarity-based, sustainable in the long term and human rights compliant. It must take account of all aspects of migration, which include humanitarian obligations, asylum seekers and economic migrants; emphasises the importance of tackling migrant smuggling and human trafficking, promoting development and stability in non-EU countries, establishing effective return policies, and addressing Europe’s demographic challenges. The Committee underlines that regular migration can be an essential factor in development. In addition to the benefits that successful integration brings for migrants, it also provides significant benefits to both the economy and society by meeting labour force needs and by contributing to social security funding. The Committee therefore calls on all the relevant stakeholders — the European institutions, national, regional and local authorities, the media and civil society — not to stigmatise migrants or migration and to provide citizens with objective information on migration and its causes and contribution to the host society; the Committee rejects all forms of discrimination and racist behaviour towards migrants in accordance with the founding principles of the European Union;

11.

with regard to providing objective information, as mentioned in point 10, calls on the European Commission to launch an information campaign directed at local and regional authorities and European citizens, which:

12.

considers it vital to give sufficient prominence to the issue of unaccompanied minors, who are generally dealt with on the margins of immigration policy initiatives: indeed, dedicated resources should be earmarked for local and regional authorities for the specific aim of supporting and monitoring unaccompanied minors, to prevent their disappearance and ensure that these weakest individuals, along with women, are not exploited by prostitution rackets, paedophile rings or organ traffickers;

13.

faced with a fast-changing migratory situation, considers that there is also a need for ‘immediate action’ priorities to include, in addition to measures to save lives at sea, a plan to address and eradicate the activity of smugglers along both land and sea routes. It is also essential, from this point of view, to ensure cooperation between all those concerned and involved at every level of governance: Member States, local and regional authorities, and official bodies, as well as civil society;

14.

checks and cooperation between security services need to be stepped up in order to ensure and to reassure the public that the desperate situation of refugees and their arrival in the EU are not exploited as a cover for terrorists and extremists; furthermore, the role of local and regional authorities in detecting, preventing and combating radicalisation and extremism must be supported;

15.

welcomes the measures for managing high volumes of arrivals within the EU proposed in the communication. Resettlement and relocation could be an effective means of addressing the problem of uneven distribution of asylum-seekers and refugees between states and between and within regions; therefore calls for increased efforts at European level to reach an agreement on the criteria for and implementation of a sustainable and fair system for distributing asylum seekers and refugees between the Member States;

16.

emphasises however that irregular immigration, which has increased dramatically requires a new approach. Such an approach must take account of the fact that the way in which economic migrants are managed (information, reception, return) differs from the humanitarian aid that must be given to refugees; emphasises also the importance of a systematic conversation between governments and citizens on these planned steps, at the same time presenting the effects of these steps to society;

17.

reiterates that it is time to establish more clearly what shared responsibility and solidarity may entail when it comes to asylum and migration issues. It is clear that different countries, regions and local authorities have different ideas of what constitutes fair sharing of responsibility or solidarity, based on their specific characteristics such as economic power. However, regrets that the Commission’s communication does not suggest any long-term solutions as regards planning and resources to prepare for reception sufficiently early;

18.

welcomes the budget increase for the EU operations Triton and Poseidon and the commitment from 15 Members States to provide additional resources and the subsequent EU decision to launch a military operation in the Southern Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) to disrupt trafficking networks. However, regrets that the communication does not address sufficiently the issue of resources available to local and regional authorities to allow them to fulfil their obligations where migration and integration are concerned, ensuring they have access to national and EU funds (such as the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Neighbourhood Policy Instrument and the European Social Fund;

19.

welcomes the European Council decision of 26 June and 22 September 2015 on the relocation of 160 000 people clearly in need of international protection. It shows how the principle of solidarity and shared responsibility might be realised in practice; regrets, however, the hesitant implementation and the very limited scope of the agreed measures, and calls urgently on the Member States to honour the commitment made in this context and on all tiers of government to put the necessary structures and mechanisms into place without delay; stresses that the key role of local and regional authorities must be more prominent in the discussion as they have first-hand information on their capacity to welcome refugees and migrants in a humane manner;

20.

welcomes the conclusions adopted to date by the European Council and the declaration published on 25 October 2015 by the leaders of the countries situated along the Western Balkans route. In this context, it calls for all the measures agreed upon to date to be implemented, and urges countries to increase the amount of suitable accommodation available;

21.

welcomes the Commission’s efforts, in cooperation with third countries and on the basis of reliable information received, to anticipate unregulated migration into the EU but also calls on the Member States to improve their information-sharing arrangements, both bilaterally and in the EU context;

22.

points out the importance of action taken by volunteer groups and civil society organisations to save people’s lives in the Mediterranean Sea. Despite the financial solutions presented in the communication and the increased efforts under operations Poseidon and Triton, the situation continues to be an emergency to which the only solution is common and concerted action day-to-day by the EU and its Members States with regard to our human rights values; acknowledges, however, that the refugee crisis cannot be solved only by means of rescue operations at sea and calls on the Commission to take appropriate supporting measures to prevent people smuggling; one important step is the adoption of Resolution 2240 by the UN Security Council on 9 October 2015, which allows Member States to intercept vessels off the Libyan coast suspected of people smuggling;

23.

reiterates that mutual solidarity is a cardinal principle of the European Union, which must be respected, not only between Member States, but also towards migrants and towards and between local authorities that face the task of helping those migrants on a daily basis;

24.

underlines that during the last few months the issue has become more salient with the massive arrival of mixed migration flows in the Mediterranean, the Balkans, Calais and other EU border regions, but also because the number of migrants has risen at local and regional level. The problems faced by hubs such as Calais and Lampedusa for many years are now spreading to other cities and regions. This fact is alarming and measures need to be taken quickly, but it must also be taken as an opportunity to convince public opinion that relocation is the only way to prevent areas along migration routes from being overwhelmed by the large number of migrants; migration is consequently not a temporary challenge affecting a few specific areas, but a short, medium and long-term problem for the European Union as a whole;

25.

wants to alert the Commission to the reality of the human tragedy that the migratory situation is creating in Europe: by the end of August over 3 400 known deaths in the Mediterranean according to the IOM, 700 deaths in the space of a few days in April 2015, and at least 13 deaths linked to migrants trying to cross the Channel; migrants often fall victim to smugglers involved in human trafficking, as was the case at the end of August when 71 migrants shut in the back of a lorry died in Austria, abandoned by those smuggling them;

26.

calls for practical solutions that involve local and regional authorities and not only the central governments of Member States. In the aftermath of the events, for example involving migrants and the Channel Tunnel, the debate is more focused than ever on the role of local and regional authorities and shows that the challenge is not only a matter of financial means being available but also of their physical deployment. Hence the Commission must push forward pragmatic solutions to enhance local authorities’ physical capacities. The uniform management of refugee camps is another way to make things easier for local authorities. Police forces and administrative staff could be sent from one region to another to foster cooperation between neighbouring regions and bring enough manpower to manage the growing population in distress;

27.

calls for a further increase of this budget in proportion to the changing needs for effective rescue operations and hopes that all Member States will commit to allocating the necessary additional resources; points out, in this regard, that the review of the multiannual financial framework, which has to take place by the end of 2016, provides an opportunity to step up the resources earmarked for implementing the priorities of the European Agenda on Migration; underlines that the swift release of funds and resources should be facilitated as much as possible without being delayed by unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. Such additional resources should include allocations for infrastructure, educational facilities and emergency aid in frontline EU countries. Member States should also be provided with practical guidelines on potential funding sources, e.g. from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF);

28.

urges that particular attention be paid to strengthening synergies between the various bodies and systems set up to date, on the basis of their specific remit and scope: such as Frontex, SIS II and EUROSUR, operating within the framework of migration and the movement of persons and, in terms of security, EUROPOL and EUROJUST, working to prevent and eradicate the criminal offences (people smuggling and human trafficking) linked to irregular transits;

29.

emphasises the importance of addressing root causes as to why migrants with no grounds for asylum come to the EU. Calls on the EU and its Member States to step up cooperation with third countries in the Middle East and Africa where democracy and rule of law need to be strengthened and to better coordinate their external policy. In this connection it welcomes the fact that an EU-Africa summit (Rabat and Khartoum process countries) was held in Valletta, Malta, on 11 and 12 November 2015; furthermore, believes that refugees living in non-EU states close to their countries of origin need to be provided with basic services, including security, both inside and outside the camps and education for their children, which requires a long-term vision and integrated planning, coordination amongst parties and local economic development;

30.

takes note of the debates on EU-wide lists of ‘safe third countries’ in order to guarantee common standards at EU level in the processing of asylum applications from the countries affected and facilitate effective return — a prerequisite for targeting the EU’s asylum and reception capacities more closely on individuals in legitimate need of international protection; underlines that in particular EU candidate and pre-candidate countries are obliged to meet the EU’s standards for human rights protection in order to qualify as ‘safe countries of origin’; warns, however, that the situation in these countries, in particular with regard to vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied minors, single women, ethnic minorities and LGBTI people, needs to be carefully monitored and mechanisms improved to identify and receive individuals with legitimate asylum claims from these countries and that specific reasons for persecution such as gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or ethnicity are addressed appropriately throughout the reception, examination of application and subsequent stages, including resettlement and relocation; the CoR commits to exchanging best practices at regional and local level through its Joint Consultative Committees and Working Groups, involving all seven countries listed in the Commission proposal;

31.

strongly welcomes the Commission’s commitment to submit proposals in early 2016 amending the Dublin Regulation, under which asylum could be requested and examined outside the EU; calls on the Commission to ensure that the distribution of responsibility between Member States is based on sustainable criteria and that the fundamental rights of migrants are also respected; this must be underpinned by an EU-wide mandatory distribution key for sharing asylum seekers between the Member States;

32.

recommends that the Commission proposal include the mutual recognition of successful asylum applications so that people afforded protection enjoy the same freedom of movement within the European Union as EU citizens. In addition, the Commission is urged to put forward a proposal for a general European immigration code, so that people who want to work in Europe are given the legal possibilities to do so. The Commission should also open up a path to labour migration for the citizens of candidate countries, making it easier for them to gain access to the European labour market;

33.

urgently calls on the European Commission and the EU Member States to push ahead quickly with the introduction of ‘hotspots’ as already approved, so that EU agencies can help the worst-affected border regions with the registration of incoming refugees, and calls for further appropriate measures to be developed;

34.

regrets that no specific measures for asylum-seekers have been put forward by the Commission to create safe and legal routes into Europe, in order to avoid further loss of human lives on dangerous journeys. These could include establishing a ‘humanitarian corridor’, issuing more visas on humanitarian grounds and setting up reception centres in countries of transit for processing asylum applications or determining eligibility for legal entry into EU countries. The idea of a ‘humanitarian corridor’ is in line with the idea of relocation and solidarity as it is the most effective means of tackling organised crime. The sooner the migrants are under the authority of European public authorities the easier the task of relocation will be. It is also the best way to achieve more equally distributed admission of migrants across the Member States. Local and regional authorities could be very helpful in this respect;

35.

calls for a real European Migration policy and welcomes the commitment given by the European Commission to propose new measures and review the Blue Card scheme in order to replace the 28 national systems and facilitate legal migration; urges the Commission to build on the experience of local and regional authorities and their knowledge of the local situation when drafting these proposals;

36.

regrets that the Commission did not echo the suggestion made by the Committee of the Regions to develop systems for sharing expertise and pooling experience and good practice. The Committee thus reiterates that a complete system of data sharing on the subject of migration and local authorities, based on the VIS system, should be implemented. This system could bring excellent results in terms of housing management, processing the claims of asylum-seekers and refugees, integration policies and tackling irregular migration and would offer practical solutions to set in motion the principle of solidarity between local authorities. The Commission is urged to set up a platform for cooperation (dialogue) on migration issues;

37.

calls for a genuine European Border Management System that establishes both professional and effective policing and which develops the capacity to detect and disrupt criminal gangs’ plans to transport migrants via illegal and dangerous routes, and the capacity to receive, screen and register people who arrive by land or sea in a well-organised way;

38.

agrees that the full and coherent implementation of an expanded and modernised Common European Asylum System, adapted to the current situation, should be a priority; suggests actively involving and harnessing the experience of local and regional authorities in the announced process of improving standards in reception conditions and asylum procedures, establishing training and networking of reception authorities as well as in the debate to be launched on the development and completion of the Common European Asylum System;

39.

reiterates its firm belief in the intrinsic link between the level and quality of development policies and the growing number of people who migrate. It is imperative for the European Union and its Member States to achieve the level of 0,7 % of GDP as soon as possible. In this connection, the financial involvement of local and regional authorities in fighting world poverty should also be strengthened, since some of them have already committed one euro annually per resident to their cooperation activities with developing countries;

40.

asks the European Commission to enforce a Single European Asylum System, which applies agreed criteria in a uniform way and provides humane and fair treatment for people seeking refuge in the Union, and a radical overhaul of the Dublin Regulation so that the differences between the 28 national systems, which are in danger of destroying Schengen, disappear, both in law and in practice;

41.

regrets that once again Article 80 TFEU has not been used to take measures implementing solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility with regard to mobility, including its financial implications, between the Member States. Commitments concerning migration and repatriation have been entirely voluntary, and in some cases it has been cities that have taken the lead in putting these commitments into practice;

42.

notes that the proposed redistribution system is based on the emergency clause set out in Article 78(3) TFEU, which seems fully justified under the present circumstances; underlines, however, that further medium and long-term measures requiring European solidarity should be adopted with the full involvement of the European Parliament to ensure their transparency and legitimacy;

43.

reiterates that multilevel governance is the most appropriate means of generating the necessary mix of measures and initiatives, in order to achieve optimum results in the integration of people recognised as having refugee status and migrants taken in for other reasons. All levels of government throughout the EU should share the responsibility for the reception and integration of refugees and migrants, and improve inter-regional cooperation, coordination and solidarity through the development of a permanent mechanism for redistributing them between Member States, regions and local authorities, taking into account structural constraints, resources, labour market needs, demographic situations and other relevant factors; calls on the European Commission and the Member States to provide enough financial, technical, administrative and law-enforcement support to all local and regional authorities affected by the influx of refugees and migrants while assessing the possibility of derogations from structural and financial constraints;

44.

reiterates that local and regional authorities have first-hand experience of the situation: they need to be consulted and more actively included in the process of relocation. Local and regional authorities constitute an efficient level of government for providing clear data on the number of migrants present in their territories and must be included in order to enforce a fair mechanism based on solidarity;

45.

urges all Member States to cooperate with local and regional authorities in the implementation and operation of both the emergency redistribution mechanism, which has been proposed by the European Commission, if it is to be put in place soon, and also in the possible future mandatory and automatically-triggered relocation system that should be proposed by the end of this year; considers that the creation of channels and opportunities for non-EU nationals to come to Europe to work or study should play a central role in the development of future migration policies. In order to establish a number of third-country nationals that every Member State will take, it is essential to bear in mind the free capacity of the labour market (including its structure) and the education system in individual regions and Member States. The Committee emphasises that it is also necessary, for this same reason, to speed up the introduction of simplified visa arrangements for third-country nationals involved in programmes of educational, scientific and economic cooperation, strengthening cooperation with other countries concerned, and to raise awareness of these programmes and of legal migration to Europe and serious dangers of irregular migration;

46.

stresses that a successful European migration policy will only be achievable if there is a clear understanding of and long-term commitment to effective integration policies, and highlights that it is especially at local level that integration succeeds or fails; draws attention to the fact that many local authorities have little experience and resources to draw upon as regards integration, and therefore calls on the European Commission to organise an annual Structured Dialogue on Integration together with the European Committee of the Regions with a view to drawing up, reviewing, and updating guidelines for local and regional authorities across the continent in order to ensure smooth integration;

47.

welcomes the incentive of EUR 6 000 from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) guaranteed for each relocated person, as proposed in connection with the emergency relocation programme; however, urges that these funds be used by the level of authority in charge of welcoming the migrants; in the immediate future, calls for the relevant rules to be amended so that the regions and local authorities can directly access the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund; furthermore considers that measures must also be developed over the longer term that create permanent incentives for receiving refugees by providing financial assistance directly to the local and regional authorities affected;

48.

expects that the European Agenda on Migration, together with the European Council conclusions and the discussions in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, will become the reference point for the adoption and implementation of effective migration and asylum policies based on the respect of fundamental rights and solidarity between the EU, Member States, local and regional authorities and migrants;

49.

reiterates that cooperation and solidarity would be considerably easier if more is done in terms of practical and pragmatic solutions. Local and regional authorities’ expertise must be drawn on in connection with integration matters;

50.

underlines that the Committee of the Regions is well placed to reach out to cities and regions all over Europe, to facilitate and encourage the exchange of innovative ideas and practices and to carry forward the debate on the ways to achieve more efficient involvement of local and regional authorities in the design and implementation of immigration and integration policies, in line with multilevel governance and the subsidiarity principle;

51.

reiterates that a bottom-up approach is necessary to address disparities between Member States and regions in the conditions in which asylum-seekers, refugees or irregular migrants are hosted on initial arrival and in the efficiency and speed with which applications and dossiers are processed;

52.

urges that the EU, national and sub-national authorities work in close cooperation with civil society, migrants’ associations and local communities and be receptive to their input;

53.

reiterates that the EU should seize all opportunities to cooperate with institutional partners and to foster the debate in all relevant frameworks. In this respect, non-governmental international organisations such as the IOM, cooperation networks with third countries and civil society and cooperation between local and regional authorities, for instance through ARLEM, or CORLEAP, constitute important elements of cooperation.

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/22

1.

points out that responsibility for employment and social policy lies primarily with national or regional governments, that the EU has a coordinating competence in this area, and that any EU initiative on European wage standards must respect the principle of subsidiarity;

2.

recalls that according to a Eurobarometer survey of attitudes of citizens to poverty, the vast majority (73 %) consider that poverty is a widespread problem in their country and want urgent action nationally (89 %) and at EU level (74 %) to tackle the problem (1);

3.

affirms that the right of all workers to a fair remuneration sufficient for a decent standard of living for themselves and their families is laid down in the European Social Charter, which has been accepted by nearly all EU Member States;

4.

considers that the democratic legitimacy of the European Union will be strengthened if Europe’s citizens recognise that social progress is also being addressed when employment and social dimension are fully integrated into the yearly cycle of economic policy coordination (the European Semester), alongside the promotion of growth;

5.

recalls that the EU has committed to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals and complying with the Resolution proclaiming the Second United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty (2008-2017);

6.

takes note that the ILO Convention C94 on Labour Clauses in public contracts is currently binding in nine EU Member States, and applied voluntarily in others. However, possible legal inconsistencies between ILO Convention C94 and the EU Treaty must be clarified;

7.

notes the calls from the European Parliament with regard to the issue of minimum wages (2), including its latest invitation to the European Commission ‘to explore all options for strengthening the EMU and making it more resilient and conducive to growth, employment and stability, with a social dimension aimed at preserving Europe’s social market economy, respecting the right to collective bargaining, under which coordination of the social policies of the Member States would be ensured, including a minimum wage or income mechanism proper to, and decided by, each Member State’ (3);

8.

affirms that poverty and social exclusion impede a decent existence, thus undermining people’s fundamental rights and suggests that all Member States should ensure a decent existence for people — for instance by providing the services needed to secure a decent living for them — and should pursue policies, especially labour market and social policies, that ensure fair wages over the working life cycle;

9.

emphasises the urgency of this issue given that poverty and social inequalities have worsened since the economic crisis in the EU, and that subsequent austerity-only policies have exacerbated the problem; the numbers at risk of poverty have increased, with women and children particularly affected;

10.

draws attention to the fact that the Europe 2020 poverty reduction target seems to be compromised and will have to be revisited when the Europe 2020 process is next reviewed, as the number of people at risk of poverty increased from 114 million in 2009 to 124 million in 2012 (4);

11.

welcomes the fact that most EU Member States have minimum wage regimes which are either established by law or agreed through collective bargaining. Authority and responsibility for matters relating to wage-setting rest with the Member States and/or national social partners. The autonomy of the social partners and their right to conclude collective wage agreements must therefore be fully respected;

12.

underlines that minimum wage regimes vary considerably and notes that in some countries the level set is below 50 % of the median wage (5) and that ‘in-work poverty’ is also a growing problem;

13.

acknowledges the key role of collective bargaining in setting minimum wages but points out that in many sectors and SMEs, sectoral agreements do not exist and that therefore some workers are excluded. The CoR calls upon the national social partners to strengthen social dialogue at national, regional and local level;

14.

maintains therefore that Member States should be encouraged to adopt an indicative fair wage, geared towards the use of 60 % of median wage as a benchmark, and based on reference budgets (6), which are a package of goods and services an individual needs to live at a decent level, together with a set of equitable terms and conditions of employment. According to a recent Eurofound study (7), a hypothetical scenario of a minimum wage set at 60 % of the median national wage would have benefitted — on the basis of 2010 figures — an average of 16 % of all EU employees;

15.

draws attention to the work undertaken by the European Reference Budgets Network to develop a common methodology for reference budgets in Europe so that their contents, such as the food basket, is comparable across Member States;

16.

emphasises the fact that private debt, which in the euro area reached 126 % of GDP in 2014, as opposed to 92 % for public debt, is a factor that worsens a situation marked by low consumption and falling investment; suggests in this context that fair wage structures are important economic stabilisers and a key tool to boosting non-price competitiveness, thus acting as a significant driver of economic growth and helping avoid stagnation; moreover, with a view to making household incomes more secure, thought must be given to putting in place an excessive debt management procedure at European level which, inter alia, addresses the conditions for the expropriation of family homes;

17.

maintains that a fair wage means that the public sector may need to provide little or no support, for individuals in full-time work through top-ups or tax credits, which could potentially assist Member States to respect their fiscal obligations;

18.

proposes to consider minimum wage provisions in conjunction with employment terms and conditions, in particular in the context of specific flexible arrangements;

19.

maintains that a fair wage, together with equitable terms and conditions of employment and an adequate social protection system are some of the preconditions for fair competition between EU Member States so that they do not undercut one another through ‘a race to the bottom’ and ‘social dumping’;

20.

underlines that this issue is particularly important in view of the Posted Workers Directive and subsequent European Court of Justice judgements, which have meant that companies do not have to abide by sectoral minimum wage agreements that have not been declared generally applicable (8);

21.

urges national and regional authorities to fully apply the Posting of Workers Enforcement Directive; keenly awaits in this respect the European Commission’s announced review of the current legislation applying to posted, the objective being to fight social dumping and that the same work at the same place is remunerated in the same manner throughout the EU;

22.

believes that further debate in this area could in particular be based on Articles 9 and 156 of the TFEU and should, to ensure respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, take place through soft processes such as the open method of coordination and as part of the European Semester, which has already addressed wage issues;

23.

further argues that fair wages as an economic factor could also be addressed in country-specific recommendations, which already include wage-setting in the area of the labour market and also address wage moderation;

24.

recognises that minimum wages vary considerably across those EU Member States that apply them. Underlines that fair wages proper to, and decided by, each Member State either by law or through collective bargaining, and in any case in full respect of its traditions and practices, could contribute to meeting the Europe 2020 target of lifting 20 million people out of poverty and social exclusion;

25.

suggests that fair wages could assist in tackling unacceptable levels of inequality in Europe, which is a source of concern for social cohesion, a political matter and a risk to the EU’s future growth potential;

26.

points out that there are examples of good practice in Member States where low-paid workers represent a small proportion of the total number of employees. In three of them — Sweden, Denmark and Italy — there is no statutory minimum wage or declaration of the generally binding nature of collective agreements; in these countries, wage-setting nonetheless works well on the basis of tradition and practice (9);

27.

encourages EU local and regional authorities to take the lead, in their capacity as employers, and work towards ensuring fair wages for their employees and calls for the exchange of best practices at EU level;

28.

further welcomes the fact that some public authorities at the local and regional level have used their procurement policies to encourage and require contractors to pay fair wages to their staff. To this effect, notes with satisfaction that Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement, which will enter into force in April 2016, explicitly mentions that the application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers should not be prevented (Recital 37) and stipulates that contracting authorities may not use ‘price only’ or ‘cost only’ as the sole award criterion of public contracts (Article 67). Moreover, warmly welcomes the judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-115/14 (of 17 November 2015), stipulating that EU law does not preclude the exclusion from a procedure for the award of a contract of a tenderer who refuses to undertake to pay staff concerned the minimum wage (10).

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/25

1.

considers that the social economy plays a key role in the EU’s social and economic development, accounting for two million enterprises including associations, cooperatives and mutuals. It provides 11 million jobs, i.e. 6 % of the employed population and 10 % of all businesses in Europe;

2.

notes that social economy institutions and actors have proved to be resilient during the crisis, helping to improve public well-being and keep people on the labour market, not without serious difficulty, even when other organisations and businesses have been unable to do so. This has been particularly evident in its inclusion of people who find it especially difficult to enter or to re-enter the labour market;

3.

considers that taking better account of the social economy’s contribution to achieving the social objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy must be given priority in the follow-up to the communication on strengthening the social dimension of EMU adopted by the Commission in 2012 and the Social Investment Package adopted in 2013; also considers that investments in the social economy should have a role to play not only in the European Fund for Strategic Investments, but also in the European Social Fund and other EU financing sources, since they often contribute to creating quality jobs for EU citizens;

4.

highlights how social economy initiatives, being based on cooperation and civic engagement among the individuals who make up communities, contribute to boosting social, economic and territorial cohesion and to raising the level of trust throughout the EU, due to their commitment and degree of local rootedness, making them less vulnerable to relocation and consequently providing a higher level of security to their employees, aspects which are part of their corporate social responsibility;

5.

welcomes the importance attached to the social economy in EU legislation such as Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 on the European Social Fund, Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 on the European Regional Development Fund or Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on a European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (‘EaSI’) and amending Decision No 283/2010/EU establishing a European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion. Also welcomes the new regulations for the ESIF programming period 2014-2020, which place social enterprise among the possible investment priorities of the ESF and the ERDF, strengthen the partnership approach and provide opportunities to promote partnership-based initiatives between the social economy and local/regional authorities through the use of instruments such as Community-Led Local Development;

6.

points out that social economy organisations stimulate participation and a spirit of solidarity and enterprise among all people, including those pushed aside by the economic system, which contributes to the generation of economic activity that creates added value, and profitability, in the case of social enterprises, even in the economically weakest sectors;

7.

emphasises the importance of facilitating public involvement and social co-creation processes, by means of dynamic partnerships between the public sector, the wide range of social economy institutions and the private sector, especially that part made up of social enterprises, while also adopting an approach geared towards socially innovative measures and policies;

8.

highlights the relatively scant public recognition of entrepreneurial capacity in the social economy, deriving in part from the lack of connection between actors in different regions and countries. Exchange of best practices, the establishment of partnerships and the creation of incentive systems and funding to promote business skills, social innovation and social investment are therefore crucial. These are essential preconditions if the social economy is to be made more attractive and be given greater recognition;

9.

suggests that a bigger role be given to research on the social economy in Europe, and to promoting the creation and dissemination of generic training programmes on the social economy for the general public, and students in particular, together with specialised programmes for social economy actors and jobseekers. Partnerships should be built up between social economy organisations, educational institutions, training bodies and local and regional authorities;

10.

recalls that local and regional authorities, the Member States and the EU must foster partnership and support for the development of new tools and new opportunities for social support still being opened up by progress in the Information and Communication Technologies, enhancing the quality and accessibility of services provided, rationalising costs and helping to create a positive image of the social economy among the general public;

11.

encourages the Member States to adopt measures to facilitate the activities of social economy actors in the market in view of their role in tackling problems, such as unemployment and social exclusion, by providing employment to groups considered to be suffering from exclusion;

12.

urges the European Commission to present, a legal framework, which would encompass a body of common definitions applying to the different forms of social economy in Europe, i.e. cooperatives, foundations, mutual societies and associations in order to enable social economy enterprises to operate on a legally certain basis and thus enjoy the advantages of the internal market and free movement. This document should include a body of common definitions. These definitions could underpin the way EU partnership programmes with these organisations are framed, so that support can be tailored to the needs of each type of organisation, with a view to strengthening their role in promoting employment and fostering local and regional entrepreneurship;

13.

notes that the positive role of social economy institutions and actors in tackling unemployment and promoting inclusive and sustained growth is particularly important in regions marked by emigration, a rapidly ageing population, lack of economic dynamism and a low level of entrepreneurship, with particular attention to rural areas. In such regions, the importance of the social economy goes beyond meeting local demand for social goods and services, because social economy organisations represent one of the few ways in which good intentions can coalesce to promote entrepreneurship and retain or attract economic actors who can make best use of local resources;

14.

recommends promoting cooperation between the social economy and vocational education in all its areas, and supporting the development of student and school cooperatives in order to expand career opportunities for young people and so help to prevent youth unemployment. With this in mind, the Committee also supports the involvement of school and student cooperatives as participants in the social economy and suggests that the European Commission and the different Member States work together to include cooperatives and the social economy in business education as part of national syllabi and curricula in schools and higher education;

15.

believes that wherever and by whatever means possible, national and EU support for partnerships involving social economy organisations should be increased in regions of low population density, regions with particularly high unemployment indicators and low rates of employment of vulnerable social groups, regions marked by poverty and social exclusion, as well as regions of particular environmental interest, with the aim of fostering their special role and creating and keeping value in such regions;

16.

calls on the Commission to be flexible when applying the rules on State aid for social economy organisations, to support local and regional authorities in understanding and applying these rules in a proportionate manner and, where possible, to increase the aid provided by the Member States or their local and regional authorities and the EU for partnerships, including social economy organisations;

17.

is pleased to note the recent adoption of the directives on public procurement and concessions (Directives 2014/24/EU, 2014/25/EU and 2014/23/EU), which include clauses and social criteria intended to promote social inclusion and innovation, among other aspects; calls on the Member States to ensure, at the current stage of the directives’ transposition into national law, that contracting authorities are allowed to make full use of the specific provisions on reserved markets and the simplified procedures laid down to give social economy stakeholders a greater role at both national and regional or local level. Moreover, calls on EU institutions to monitor the implementation of these rules at national, regional and local level and to continue the debate on their improvement;

18.

believes that the social economy can be a suitable and very effective instrument for combating the shadow economy and creating economic and social added value;

19.

considers it crucial to unlock the potential of the social economy by improving access by the social economy to various forms of financing (such as European funds, venture capital, microcredit and crowdfunding) and by tapping sufficient financial resources at local, regional, national and EU levels, reconciling the necessarily demanding economic and financial requirements with the acknowledged public interest of the work carried out in the field by these organisations;

20.

regrets that the Commission strategy for a digital single market makes no mention of the social economy and refers only in passing to the non-commercial cooperative economy which has major social potential;

21.

highlights the need to foster a culture of follow-up in social economy organisations, improving their capacity to measure and report the social and economic dimensions of their actions and developing methodologies and indicators that are consistent with their nature and specific features. Experience of follow-up should be shared and made accessible in different ways;

22.

welcomes the creation by the European Commission of a multilingual digital platform — the ‘Social Innovation Europe Platform’ — to foster exchange of information in the field of social innovation but considers it necessary that the platform includes a separate section dedicated to social economy;

23.

suggests that the European Commission establish a unit focusing on the social economy, since in the current circumstances the decision to merge units within the Directorate-General GROW in order to set up a unit on Clusters, social economy and entrepreneurship does not correspond to the scope and real-life situation of the social economy;

24.

encourages EU institutions, Member States and local/regional authorities to take stock and promote dissemination of existing examples of new forms of dialogue, co-construction of policies and joint implementation of the latter by partnerships composed of local/regional governments, social economy and other players;

25.

argues that the highly localised (or territorialised) scope of most social economy organisations means that the EU and the various Member States should promote and facilitate an expanded role for local and regional authorities in framing programmes and policies for the social economy, and in linking it with other public policies, making it possible to achieve the objectives set;

26.

advises the European Commission to propose that the Member States which have not already done so create and adopt, as soon as possible, the legal framework necessary in order for the social economy to develop and function, once a clear strategy has been defined for the sector.

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/28

1.

considers that the sharing economy (SE) builds on new or revived social patterns having important business, legal and institutional implications: the social practices of sharing, collaboration and cooperation. Given its innovative and dynamic nature, the concept cannot be ultimately defined. It however encompasses phenomena presenting the following features:

2.

notes against this backdrop that the European Commission uses the term ‘collaborative economy’ rather than ‘sharing economy’ and has made a first effort in its recent Communication on ‘Upgrading the Single Market’ (1) to define the concept as follows: ‘the collaborative economy, a complex ecosystem of on-demand services and temporary use of assets based on exchanges via online platforms, is developing at a fast pace. The collaborative economy leads to greater choice and lower prices for consumers and provides growth opportunities for innovative start-ups and existing European companies, both in their home country and across borders. It also increases employment and benefits employees by allowing for more flexible schedules, from non-professional micro jobs to part-time entrepreneurship. Resources can be used more efficiently, thereby increasing productivity and sustainability’. In the view of the CoR however, this definition focuses on the commercial and consumer aspects of the sharing (or collaborative) economy while leaving aside the non-commercial and commons-based approaches. Calls therefore on the European Commission to further analyse and later define the different forms of the sharing economy (a part of which belongs to the social economy);

3.

highlights that many take the view that the main actor of SE is no longer the ‘consumer’ wishing to own something or buy a service, but rather a citizen, commoner, user, maker, producer, creator, designer, co-worker, digital artisan urban farmer seeking access to a service or asset that is needed to satisfy certain of her needs;

4.

points out that others however argue that the SE actor is in many instances also a person willing to act and take care of, manage, generate or regenerate a common, open access resource, material or immaterial, without the intermediation of a public or private provider, on a peer-to-peer, person-to-person small scale level. Thus in SE the actor is not a mere ‘economic actor’. It can rather be a social or personal or civic actor for whom traditional economic motives are secondary or entirely absent. Some of the SE realms are not necessarily ‘economies’ in the strict sense, but social communities and networks of collaboration that generate new economic ventures or perform a function with regard to existing economic activities;

5.

underlines that the SE seems also to question traditional macroeconomic models with their clear distinction between consumers and producers;

6.

believes that the SE could give rise to a new economic identity where an individual, unwilling to act alone, would, instead of pursuing the quest to maximise his/her own material interests, associate his economic behaviour with a commitment to the community, act in the public — social, economic, political — arena and place himself/herself in relation to others in order to take care of the general, common interest (i.e. the so-called ‘mulier activa’ (2);

7.

highlights the need for a distinction between the various forms of sharing economy. They all use the same social paradigm, the act of sharing, collaborating, and cooperating. Yet they are very different from one another. There is room to spell out those forms of SE that perpetuate in some way the same social and economic dynamics as the pre-existing economic model and apply to each of them a different legal regime. The profit/non-profit divide and distinction between the type of company or association running SE projects, as well as the impact on cross-border trade in terms of EU law, can be important criteria in drawing the line between different forms of SE and providing calibrated regulatory approaches;

8.

points out that a first distinction could be drawn between the SE in the strict sense and collaborative forms of SE by framing collaboration and cooperation as added layers of sharing. A distinction could in fact be made between SE initiatives that create and ossify a distinction between different typologies of users (consumers-users vs providers-users) and SE initiatives that foster a peer-to-peer approach in which every user can be a provider and consumer at the same time, or even be involved in the platform governance. Account could also be taken of the model of governance and control of the financial transaction, distinguishing between situations in which the platform merely serves as a tool for connecting individuals (who conclude the agreement independently) and those in which the intermediary retains control of the transaction (3). Further cooperation might suggest a commons-based approach to SE (4). If the actors involved do not just share a resource but collaborate to create, produce or regenerate a common resource for the wider public, the community, they are cooperating, they are pooling for the commons;

9.

considers that two main categories and four forms of SE seem to emerge:

10.

notes that the European Commission quotes a recent study (5) to evaluate the SE’s potential to increase global revenues from around EUR 13 billion now to EUR 300 billion by 2025. However, according to the CoR, the growth of SE should only partially be considered a revolution and/or a consequence of the crisis. For some aspects it might also represent the reverse-transformation (6) or transition (7) of some sectors of the current economic model to long-standing economic traditions and economic models (e.g. cooperative economy, social economy, solidarity economy, handicraft production, commons economy etc.) and even to ancient forms of economic exchange (e.g. the bartering economy), which are alternatives to capital-intensive forms of the market economy;

11.

points out that technological innovation is playing a key role in the development of the SE, with most SE initiatives being based on the use of collaborative platforms through which the transactions and exchanges of goods and/or services are carried out. For this reason, it is necessary to step up the measures being taken to combat the digital divide, especially since the aim is to adopt a single digital market;

12.

emphasises that in situations where new SE-based services exert an aggressive crowding out effect on traditional services, public authorities at national, regional or local level do most often bear an important responsibility insofar as:

13.

SE can improve the quality of life, foster growth (in particular in local economies) and reduce environmental effects. It can also generate new, good quality jobs, reduce the cost as well as increase the availability and efficiency of some goods and services or infrastructure. However it is important that services offered through SE do not lead to tax avoidance, unfair competition or are in violation of local and regional regulation or national and European law; The evaluation of all possible positive and negative impacts and the definition of the public policy objectives should also be key drivers of any regulatory initiative on the SE;

14.

considers that free access to the market for newcomers needs to be guaranteed. Data collection by SE platforms/initiatives may cause ‘imbalances in economic power’. Data are the raw material of the SE and in some cases they need to be open source as much as possible. This is sometimes necessary in order to lower barriers to entry to the SE and to allow evaluation of the effects of SE initiatives or ventures and favour data-driven regulation at all levels of government. SE platforms should be asked to build in the platform technical mechanisms to feed public, relevant, but not sensitive or strategic data to LRAs. In any case, the EU and national governments should support LRAs in developing data collection operations. Data protection should also be one of the key drivers and the ‘mulier activa’ should be able to own her data;

15.

points out that an important precondition in the SE is trust and reputation management (8). Thus trust and reputation must be accurately and independently managed (e.g. regulation, certification, third-party arbitration). It should be further analysed whether SE actors can effectively carry out self-regulations (9). Peer-review could ensure trust. The establishment of independent bodies providing ratings, preferably co-owned by the peers, is a policy option that should receive major attention. Insurance coverage must also be evaluated. In any case data and reputation ‘portability’ should be one of the main policy objectives;

16.

underlines that SE impact evaluation results are not always positive in terms of environmental protection, social cohesion, equality and social justice, sound land use, or urban governance (10). It should also be considered that for-profit businesses sometimes abuse SE platforms and do not provide workers with social security cover, thereby harming both public well-being and national, regional and municipal finances. The EU and LRAs need to support and encourage only the development of those SE initiatives or platforms that produce positive social, economic, environmental impacts. Community-building, urban commoning, inclusion, non-discrimination, local economic development, young people’s entrepreneurship, environmental awareness and person-to-person solidarity are the public policy objectives that should be advanced through the SE;

17.

believes that if working conditions of SE actors are framed within the EU in the same way as those of an ‘employee’, SE actors should receive the appropriate treatment. In an increasingly ‘flexible’ context of economic exchange, the SE is potentially disruptive to labour relations. SE effects on personal economic security and social welfare must be thoroughly scrutinised. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, social partners and where applicable LRAs, must study in detail the employment and working conditions of SE workers, in order to ascertain whether regulatory action is needed in this area. The SE could give birth to a new social class, the collaborative class, that needs social and economic safeguards;

18.

emphasises that all antitrust, internal market, tax regulations and consumer protection rules should in principle be applied in the SE in the same manner as in all other economic sectors. SE initiatives should not be entitled to use the sharing paradigm only to disrupt pre-existing markets by aiming at a cost-reduction strategy based on avoiding the regulatory costs applicable to those similar services and products which are not provided by means of platforms. Considers however that regulation of pre-existing markets should be subject to regular review in order to verify its ability to allow for continued innovation processes. The debate on the circular economy and the Digital Single Market could be some of the areas where the SE should be taken into consideration. At the same time the EU Commission and Member States should ensure a coordinated approach to regulating the SE at European level where a European approach is necessary, in order to strengthen the single market and enable successful SE initiatives to spread easily across borders; in all other cases, regulation should remain the prerogative of national, regional or local governments according to the subsidiarity principle;

19.

notes that the European Commission made scant mention of the sharing economy in its communication on ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ (COM(2015) 192) but welcomes the Commission’s commitment in its Communication on ‘Upgrading the Single Market’ to develop a European agenda for the collaborative or sharing economy, to give guidance on how existing law — including the Services Directive, the E-Commerce Directive and consumer law such as the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive — applies to the collaborative economy and to assess possible regulatory gaps. Underlines that the CoR is ready to play an active role in developing this agenda and suggests closer cooperation with the European institutions in this field;

20.

notes that dossiers relating to the sharing economy are being handled by several European Commission directorates-general (DGs) (including CNECT, GROW, COMP, JUST, MOVE, TAXUD, EMPL, REGIO and TRADE) and that it is essential to ensure coordination between different Commission departments; suggests therefore that the European Commission establish a working group for coordination between DGs involved in SE matters;

21.

welcomes, however, the European Commission’s plan to launch a public consultation at the end of September 2015 on EU regulatory approaches to the sharing economy;

22.

believes that EU sectoral regulation is necessary for the commercial aspects of the sharing economy to ensure legal certainty and fair competition for operators, especially with respect to taxation;

23.

encourages the European Commission and Member States to establish incentives for collaborative economy to support and implement the principles of the social economy (in particular with regard to the principles of solidarity, democracy and participation, and cooperation with the local community);

24.

at local and regional level — and in addition to fostering the development of local economies — SE initiatives can become a tool for promoting, taking care of and regenerating commons, such as mobility, welfare, the urban landscape and the environment. From this perspective, the role of public administrations should be to support the consolidation of a ‘collaborative institutional ecosystem’ (11). To this end, the task of the local authorities must be to facilitate and coordinate the various SE initiatives, promoting those that strengthen participation and cooperation with the ‘mulier activa’, those that are inclusive, both at the planning stage and in the management and delivery of the service, and those that respect the principles of transparency, openness and accountability;

25.

also considers it important to observe the areas in which the SE is developing and how it is affecting macroeconomic indicators so that it does not turn into a system for tax optimisation;

26.

considers that any hard regulatory initiative should keep a sectoral approach and take into account the scale of the SE initiative as a criterion to draw regulatory lines. EU institutions and legislation should provide a sound framework, institutional and legal guidance and ongoing access to expertise and other assistance appropriate for implementation;

27.

calls, however, on all EU institutions dealing with the issue of the SE to adopt a holistic approach in addressing the SE as an economic, political and social phenomenon and to coordinate their efforts, in view of the widespread changes the SE could cause to current economic systems, through a comprehensive public policy drawing up an SE public policy agenda built collaboratively;

28.

recommends an EU SE Agenda to be based on the following pillars:

29.

considers that many of the sectors touched by SE have a, sometimes disruptive, impact at the local and regional level and that it should therefore be possible for them to be governed or regulated as necessary by local and regional authorities (LRAs) in compliance with the principle of local autonomy in order to allow LRAs to adapt SE initiatives and ventures to local conditions;

30.

insists that a SE regulatory initiative should not be detached from a vision of urban and local governance (13), as well as of rural areas. Collaborative and polycentric governance experiments in different European cities seem to be emerging as the most suited approach to accompany and foster a sound and fair development of SE initiatives. A collaborative/polycentric governance approach for SE would allow groups of citizens, associations, third sector organisations, unions, knowledge institutions, social businesses and start-ups the use of open, vacant, abandoned publicly-owned spaces and assets at their disposal, getting inspiration from some LRAs initiatives (e.g. Bologna Regulation on collaboration for the urban commons (14)).

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/34

1.

reiterates that any legislative proposal from the Commission, including those relating to taxation under Articles 113, 115 or 116 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, must comply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

2.

supports the four objectives set out in the Commission’s action plan on corporate taxation, which are as follows:

3.

considers that the existing legislation on corporate taxation — whether at national, European or global level — is no longer suited to the current economic context of globalisation, mobility, digital technologies, new business models and complex business structures;

4.

highlights the complexity of the current rules on corporate taxation within the EU, as well as the lack of coordination and complementarity between the different systems of the various Member States;

5.

regrets that some companies, particularly multinationals, take advantage of this situation to reduce their tax bill, either through legally improper tax fraud practices and illegal tax avoidance or through the use of aggressive tax planning strategies, which, while they may be lawful, go against the spirit of the legislation in question;

6.

stresses that, in both cases, these companies are ultimately subject to a level of taxation which is far from fair, as it is so low in relation to their revenue;

7.

notes that some calculations estimate the annual loss of potential tax receipts in the European Union due to tax avoidance, tax fraud and aggressive tax planning at around EUR 1 000-billion (1); also notes that this loss of revenue harms public finances at all levels, including for local and regional authorities; moreover, adequate, transparent and effective tax collection which is fair for all companies would bring about reductions in the tax burden;

8.

proposes that all international agreements to which the European Union is party, including trade agreements and economic partnership agreements, should include provisions on the promotion of good governance in tax matters, both in terms of transparency and combating harmful tax practices, and calls on the European Commission to insist on this point in its ongoing negotiations, particularly on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA);

9.

deplores the existence and extent of these harmful tax practices at a time when many taxpayers — particularly private individuals — in some Member States are subject to a higher tax burden due to austerity policies; believes that this lack of tax equity harms social and economic stability;

10.

notes that the complexity of the current rules on corporate taxation, whilst a huge benefit for certain large companies that take advantage of the loopholes therein, is a clear disadvantage for small, medium-sized and micro businesses, as this administrative burden hinders their activities, in particular cross-border activities;

11.

considers that this also constitutes a competitive imbalance between businesses, mainly between large multinationals, which have the necessary resources to shield themselves from taxation through aggressive tax planning, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which do not;

12.

notes that there is, at EU level and over the long term, a general trend of reduction in statutory corporate tax rates;

13.

stresses, however, that this decrease in rates has in recent years been accompanied by various developments such the broadening of tax bases, an increase in the number of companies being created and low interest rates (limiting tax-deductions), which should have led to an increase in corporate tax revenues;

14.

notes that it is difficult to compare the effective rates applied in different Member States and therefore suggests developing a common method of calculation so as to make it possible to draw up a comparative table of the effective tax rates across the Member States;

15.

supports — in the light of OECD studies showing that some multinational companies are using strategies that enable them to pay only 5 % in corporate tax while smaller companies are paying up to 30 % — the call for multinationals to be required to disclose a set of aggregated information in their financial statements for each Member State and third country in which they operate, including profit or loss before tax, tax on profit or loss, number of employees and assets held; this information should be made available to the public, possibly in the form of a central EU register;

16.

recognises the dual potential offered by a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB): firstly in the fight against aggressive tax planning, tax fraud and tax avoidance, and harmful tax competition between Member States, and secondly in achieving the aim of strengthening the single market and reducing the administrative burden weighing on companies of all sizes that engage in cross-border activities;

17.

considers that determining their tax base using a single set of tax rules instead of 28 would simplify matters and mean administrative cost savings for companies, and that this would be particularly significant for SMEs active in several Member States;

18.

stresses, therefore, the positive effects that a CCCTB is likely to have on economic growth, employment and tax equity as well as on public finances, including those of local and regional authorities;

19.

considers that, despite the fact that it is not geared explicitly towards local and regional taxes — at least in the 2011 proposal — a CCCTB would have an impact on the tax revenues of local and regional authorities, part of which is derived, depending on the Member State, from local or regional taxes levied on the national tax base and/or a share of national corporate taxes;

20.

calls on the Commission to carefully study the potential impact on local and regional authorities, particularly on their budgets, of a new legislative proposal to implement the CCCTB, without however restarting the whole procedure for analysing the impact of the CCCTB, which would unnecessarily delay its implementation;

21.

stresses that in some Member States, local and regional taxes would be affected by the introduction of a CCCTB system, in that, for the sake of simplification, it would make sense for this also to be used to determine local and regional taxes;

22.

stresses that the CCCTB is not designed to harmonise tax rates, given that the current Treaties do not include any specific article on direct taxation. However, the fact that harmonisation is not planned under the current Treaties does not mean that Member States cannot envisage closer cooperation in this field;

23.

notes that the statutory rates of corporate tax in the various Member States are an imprecise or even a deceptive indicator, given the many divergences between tax bases, as well as deductions and preferential schemes; stresses that in some cases the effective tax rate bears no relation to the statutory rate;

24.

in the interests of transparency, therefore, calls for Member States and regions with legislative powers in the area of corporate taxation to provide the Commission with detailed figures on the actual average rate of corporate income tax applied, including all deductions;

25.

welcomes the Commission’s desire to make the CCCTB mandatory in its new proposal, at least for multinational companies, since it is obvious that those engaging in aggressive tax planning, tax avoidance or tax fraud would not subscribe to a CCCTB system which prevents these practices if it were optional;

26.

points out that in its 2011 opinion, the Committee had proposed that the CCCTB be made mandatory following a transition period, at least for companies of a certain size (2);

27.

considers it desirable to immediately introduce a common consolidated corporate tax base. Since the negotiations on consolidation have been difficult and protracted, supports the Commission’s approach concerning the postponement of the CCCTB’s consolidation element if this allows for progress to be made with the negotiations on the other elements of the proposal, in particular establishing the common tax base. Notes, therefore, the announcement made in its 2016 work programme adopted on 27 October of its plan to withdraw the current CCCTB proposal, but wonders to what extent its intention to replace it ‘with proposals for a staged approach starting with agreeing a mandatory tax base’ anticipates the conclusions of the public consultation launched by the Commission on 8 October, which is due to run until 8 January 2016;

28.

reiterates, however, that consolidation must remain an objective of the EU institutions and Member States in the area of corporate taxation, in that it would provide a solution to the issues of intra-group transfer pricing within the European Union and the associated issues of tax evasion, and additionally would mean simplification and substantial administrative cost savings for companies;

29.

feels that if the negotiations on consolidation fail, a minimum tax rate could be considered;

30.

expresses concern furthermore that the temporary cross-border compensation mechanism envisaged by the Commission pending the introduction of consolidation could give rise to new opportunities for aggressive tax planning; in the light of this risk, which would result in a considerable loss of revenue for Member States, the CoR calls on the Commission to speed up the originally proposed timetable for implementation;

31.

considers that the favourable treatment reserved for debt and interest in many tax systems hampers the diversification of business funding models and prevents the strengthening of equity financing of companies in the EU, something commonly practised in other countries;

32.

therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage greater diversification of funding sources for companies, which would undoubtedly be beneficial for growth and employment;

33.

points to the Committee’s proposal, voiced in its 2011 opinion on a CCCTB, to include recurrent costs relating to environmental protection and reducing greenhouse gases when drawing up the list of deductible expenses, including when it comes to initiatives for adopting integrated production processes with low environmental impact;

34.

calls on the Commission to include the possibility of such a deduction in its new legislative proposal expected in 2016;

35.

also reiterates, as expressed in 2011, that if it is to achieve its goal of reducing red tape, the application of a common consolidated tax base should be accompanied by the implementation of common accounting rules;

36.

welcomes the fact that the work of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) led to the adoption by the G20 heads of state and government in Antalya on 16 November 2015 of its Action Plan on base erosion and profit shifting involving 62 countries; however, considers the measures concerning public country-by-country reporting to be inadequate, as BEPS Action 13 provides for automatic reporting of information solely to the tax authorities of the Ultimate Parent Entity’s jurisdiction of tax residence, given that in the EU there is already a reporting requirement for banks and extractive industries established in the EU;

37.

calls for the BEPS package to be implemented by the European Commission and the Member States and regions with legislative powers in the area of corporate taxation on a binding basis through a new anti-BEPS directive in order to combat these phenomena effectively within the EU;

38.

considers it encouraging that ECOFIN has agreed the ‘modified nexus approach’ and believes, furthermore, that the ‘modified nexus approach’, defined at OECD level in the context of the BEPS-package and by the ECOFIN Code of Conduct Working Group, relating to patent boxes, should also be anchored in binding EU law under this directive;

39.

considers that alongside the initiatives and necessary steps taken within the Union, it is crucial to strengthen the European approach towards non-cooperative jurisdictions or tax havens;

40.

believes that in this area in particular, the lack of unity and coordination between Member States are the factors allowing companies to avoid fair taxation;

41.

welcomes the Commission’s publication of a ‘list of uncooperative tax jurisdictions in third countries’ appended to the Communication, and considers this to be a strong symbolic initiative;

42.

considers, furthermore, that the publication of this list should form the basis for an ambitious discussion between all Member States aimed at establishing a common and coordinated approach to these jurisdictions at European level, in order to combat the harmful tax practices they facilitate;

43.

questions whether the criterion used to draw up the list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions published by the Commission is too restrictive, given that they must be identified as such by at least ten Member States;

44.

welcomes, in this regard, the agreements signed in May 2015 by the EU, on the one hand and Switzerland, Andorra and Liechtenstein on the other hand, as this constitutes an important step forward towards transparency and combating tax fraud;

45.

considers that the automatic exchange of information provided for in the agreements referred to in the previous point is an effective tool for reducing and combating aggressive tax planning and should be rolled out further; furthermore, welcomes the fact that several non-cooperative jurisdictions on the Commission’s list have adopted or have committed to adopting the global standard in this regard.

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/39

1.

the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is a trade agreement which has been under negotiation since early 2013, currently between 51 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) (1), including the EU;

2.

the aim of the negotiating parties is to liberalise trade in services, since services are an important sector in the global economy. Some 68 % of manpower in the EU is employed in the services sector, with 10 million EU jobs dependent on exports of services. Liberalisation of trade in services is understood primarily to mean removing barriers to the provision of services by foreign suppliers;

3.

although the TiSA negotiations are taking place outside the framework of the WTO, the agreement is intended to be compatible with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) so that it can be integrated into a multilateral agreement if other WTO members join at a later date;

4.

in its opinion of 3 July 2003 on the GATS negotiations in the WTO, the Committee of the Regions (CoR) already noted that the negotiations on trade in services were important in view of regional economic concerns (helping local businesses and in particular SMEs to access markets outside the EU) and the interests of local and regional authorities (LRAs), which often regulate services and in some cases deliver them themselves. In that opinion the Committee also expressed the view that it was not feasible to apply the principle of reciprocal market access for companies run by municipalities or regional authorities owing to their embeddedness in their own locality;

5.

the same considerations obtain for the TiSA negotiations, together with the observation that the basis of public service provision is LRAs’ sense of their obligations and duties towards the citizen and that therefore democratic supervision, continuity, accessibility and quality must be ensured;

6.

welcomes the general approach of the European Parliament’s draft report containing recommendations to the Commission on the TISA negotiations. According to this report, TiSA ‘must provide tangible benefits to consumers and grant access to the talks to interested parties so as to facilitate future multilateralization.’ Consequently, ‘public and cultural services, the fundamental rights to data privacy and fair working conditions and the right to regulate are non-negotiable and should be unequivocally excluded from the scope of the agreement.’ Further welcomes the many references to the local and regional dimension of the TISA negotiations made in the draft report;

7.

stresses that the EU negotiating mandate for the TiSA only covers provisions relating to market access and non-discrimination of foreign service providers, and not the right of the EU, individual states and their local and regional authorities to regulate services themselves;

8.

recognises that services are an important sector in the global economy, as well as Europe’s economy, and that many economic benefits primarily in the private sector are likely to result from further liberalisation of trade in services through the TiSA;

9.

welcomes the current discussion about the TiSA and emphasises the importance of striking a balance between the parties’ need for confidentiality during the negotiations and the general need for transparency, in order to ensure that legitimate outcomes can be achieved with the involvement of all stakeholders; draws attention here to general WTO practice regarding public access to negotiating documents, a practice it expects to be continued with the TiSA;

10.

welcomes the European Commission’s efforts to improve the transparency of the negotiations, but nevertheless notes that although the European Commission has made the negotiating mandate publicly accessible, local and regional authorities — represented at EU level by the CoR — must be invited to take part in the European Commission’s discussions at the beginning and end of the negotiating rounds;

11.

endorses the provision made in the European Commission’s Directives for negotiating the agreement that: ‘The agreement shall confirm the right of the EU and its Member States to regulate and to introduce new regulations on the supply of services within their territories in order to meet public policy objectives’;

12.

affirms, with regard to public services, the relevance of referring in the negotiating Directives to Articles 14 and 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and to Protocol No 26 on Services of General Interest and calls for the autonomy of local and regional levels of government to be fully respected in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); regrets to note, however, that the terminology concerning public services used in the different trade agreements currently being negotiated by the EU (CETA, TTIP and TiSA) is not consistent;

13.

emphasises that the TISA negotiations do not cover the privatisation of public services;

14.

emphasises the need to collect comprehensive and comparable data on the effects of the TiSA’s provisions at local and regional level, and the need to update accordingly statistical reports and economic forecasts based on these data and impact assessments;

15.

is concerned that the Sustainability Impact Assessment provided for in the EU’s negotiating directives (2) has not yet been finalised; calls for the impact of TiSA on territorial cohesion to be considered in this assessment (territorial impact assessment);

16.

draws attention to the obligation under Article 11 TFEU to integrate environmental protection requirements into EU external trade policy, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development;

17.

draws the attention of the European Commission to the particular interests of the local and regional level in relation to the TiSA negotiations. This role could be significantly strengthened if the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the free trade agreement between the EU and Singapore were to confirm that the TiSA has the characteristics of a mixed trade agreement, which in a number of Member States must be ratified by the assemblies representing the regional level;

18.

points out that under Article 3(1) TFEU the common commercial policy constitutes an integral part of the Union’s exclusive competences. However, where trade negotiations have implications for the Member States’ competences the division of competences in those negotiations must also be clarified at an early stage with reference to the subsidiarity principle;

19.

the CoR supports the approach of using a ‘negative list’ of spheres excluded from the agreement with regard to non-discrimination, while a ‘positive list’ of policy areas to be covered by the TiSA would be used in the context of market access;

20.

would expect that data-friendly strategies, even if they are essential for businesses and for growth, be used only in so far as they do not violate citizens’ right to appropriate privacy protection (i.e. comprehensive, unconditional protection of personal data), and therefore calls for an unconditional blanket exclusion of measures to protect privacy in the processing and transfer of personal data and to protect the confidentiality of personal records and accounts, in line with and building on GATS Article XIV. On no account should the agreement apply to data protection measures as long as the EU has not introduced a comprehensive legal framework governing data protection that reflects the current state of digitisation;

21.

opposes any encroachment on the sovereignty of national governments and LRAs, especially in the spheres of education, culture, theatre, libraries, museums and finance, as well as labour protection, environmental protection, data protection, publicly funded social and healthcare services, licensing of healthcare facilities and laboratories, waste management facilities and power stations, consumer standards, standards relating to social cohesion, schools and publicly-financed education services, and other, privately-financed education services, as well as public procurement provisions;

22.

opposes restrictions to cross-subsidisation of undertakings under the same local authority where they exceed the restrictions existing under EU and national law;

23.

calls for the adoption of a revision clause on the potential re-examination of the agreement and for the adoption of rules into the agreement, so that decisions on liberalisation of a service can be reversed at any time;

24.

is opposed to the inclusion of clauses that oblige authorities to fix the degree of liberalisation achieved at the time of the agreement (standstill clause), that prohibit a liberalised service from being returned to the public sector (ratchet clause), and that make any new service subject to automatic and complete liberalisation (safeguard clause);

25.

highlights that the TiSA should only set minimum standards without restricting the right to apply higher standards;

26.

calls for a social chapter to be included in the TiSA laying down social protection standards, in particular labour standards, based on the relevant ILO conventions, without this chapter rendering the multilateralisation of the TiSA impossible;

27.

calls for the country of destination principle to be upheld where standards differ, including especially Mode 4 services (temporary free movement of service suppliers or of employees sent out by a supplier), to ensure that rules on qualifications and on labour and collective bargaining laws continue to apply in the host country; the temporary free movement of service suppliers or of employees sent out by a service supplier must on no account be used to prevent strikes or circumvent existing collective bargaining laws (by hiring temporary workers);

28.

calls for the government right to regulate in the public interest (‘right to regulate’) of European, national, regional and local authorities to be fully recognised in the negotiating text and trusts that regulatory cooperation will not be allowed to undermine democratic legislation or regulations at any level or to hamper the legislative process;

29.

insists that the TiSA should include the option of judicial review with regard to respect for human rights in the context of trade in services;

30.

calls for legal disputes affecting compliance with this agreement to be referred to the public courts at the place of the defendant’s registered office, and for proceedings to be conducted in the defendant’s language and governed by the laws in force in the defendant’s country; the right of appeal must be safeguarded; mechanisms for settling disputes between states should draw on the mechanism currently in place within the WTO; this agreement should not contain a mechanism for settling disputes between investors and states;

31.

suggests that consideration be given to including provisions for online consumer protection in the agreement, with particular reference to fraudulent business operations, as well as a special jurisdiction regime for consumer transactions following the model of the Brussels I Regulation;

32.

expects the universal service principle to be safeguarded, so that for instance people living in remote regions, border areas, islands or mountainous areas enjoy the same standard of service and do not pay more than people living in urban areas;

33.

opposes the classification of municipal and regional provisions on land use and regional development or land-use plans as non-tariff barriers to trade;

34.

welcomes the explicit exclusion of audiovisual services from the negotiations, but regrets that this does not also apply to cultural services; is consequently concerned that it is difficult to distinguish cultural services and calls for protection of local linguistic and cultural diversity, paying particular attention to the interests of minorities, as well as copyright and intellectual property;

35.

is categorically opposed to commitments relating to financial services that would conflict with existing EU measures to regulate financial markets and products;

36.

urges that a second public hearing be held on the Trade in Services Agreement and expressly calls on the European Commission to take into account the findings of this hearing and of the previous consultation in its concluding assessment of the provisions set out in the agreement;

37.

calls for the TiSA negotiations to be conducted in an open manner to enable developing countries and least developed countries to be included if they so wish;

38.

points to the need for a multilateral approach in a world that is becoming more interconnected;

39.

calls for trade rules to be negotiated that contribute both to making trade fairer and more equitable, and to sustainable development and welcomes in this context the announcement made by the European Commission in its Trade strategy, that European Trade policy should be in line with the Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development.

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/43

1.

has supported the Covenant of Mayors since its launch in 2008. The Covenant of Mayors is a European movement with the aim of achieving and, where possible, going beyond the European Union’s target of a 20 % decrease in CO2 emissions by 2020. To this end, participating local authorities have committed themselves to energy efficiency and renewable energy targets. Today the Covenant of Mayors is present in all Member States with the exception of one, and the participating local and regional authorities, which already number 6 000, represent a third of the EU’s population. Signatories to the Covenant have committed themselves to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 28 %;

2.

in line with previous CoR opinions (1), recognises that, since its formation, the Covenant of Mayors has achieved unprecedented success both in mobilising local and regional authorities on climate and energy issues and in establishing multilevel governance structures;

3.

welcomes the fact that the European Commission has launched and is financing this initiative which, thanks to energy-saving measures and the promotion of clean energy, currently helps more than 6 400 towns and regions throughout the world to reduce their CO2 emissions. On the basis of commitments freely undertaken by the members of the Convention, a reduction of 28 % is anticipated by 2020;

4.

has continuously stressed the need to adopt a comprehensive approach to fighting climate change and adapting to its inevitable consequences; welcomes therefore the European Commission’s decision to merge the Covenant and the Mayors Adapt initiatives and encourages the Commission to fully explore the synergies which this will allow; recommends following a similar path with regard to the Pact of Islands initiative;

5.

draws attention to the fact that, with regard to achieving these aims, emphasis is placed first and foremost on improving the energy efficiency of public buildings, modernising street lighting and developing urban transport. Energy planning for buildings accounts for 44 % of the target of reducing CO2 emissions. Moreover, by 2020 energy consumption should be reduced by 20 % as a result of investment in buildings and transportation;

6.

will, via specific instruments, continue its institutional support for the Covenant of Mayors as well as encouraging, with the help of its current members, accession to the Covenant and the corresponding commitment to achieving the European Union’s energy policy objectives and exceeding their targets;

7.

approves of and supports extending and updating the Covenant of Mayor’s objectives in line with the EU 2030 climate and energy framework programme, namely a reduction of over 40 % (2) in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990 (3); also calls for the sustainable use of resources to feature among the goals, in addition to energy efficiency;

8.

calls on the European Commission to ensure that the Covenant of Mayors is able to continue its activities beyond 2020 and thus to provide the CoM with an autonomous administrative budget commensurate with the project’s growing political ambitions, in order to secure its long-term future. Taking into account the fact that 2020 is approaching and that the EU climate and energy framework will be in place until 2030, 2030 should be designated as a medium-term horizon and 2050 as a long-term target, as was the case with the strategy for transitioning towards a low carbon economy by 2050;

9.

in the medium term, suggests amending the 2030 target on the basis of scientific reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (4) and the recommendations of the Committee of the Regions on the 2030 climate and energy framework (5), namely to set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 % compared with 1990. The Committee nevertheless notes that the EU regulatory framework which is currently being drafted sets a European target of reducing greenhouse gases by 40 %;

10.

in the long term, suggests that the signatories set a target of at least 95 % reduction by 2050. On the basis of scientific reports published by the IPCC, the EU has committed itself to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by between 80-95 % compared with 1990. Taking into account the fact that new scientific data are regularly published regarding intervention measures and further efforts that ought to be made in order to respond to climate deterioration, the CoR proposes that the Covenant of Mayors set its own goal at the top end of this range, in other words a 95 % reduction;

11.

nevertheless declares itself opposed to making membership of the Covenant of Mayors more difficult. The goal of reducing CO2 emissions must be increased if only slightly as one of the attractions of this movement lies in its simplicity. The CoR recommends nevertheless that the more ambitious signatories consider putting in place an internal target system at various levels as well as an affiliated recognition regime, particularly for the more basic matters such as building design, transport, etc.;

12.

advocates focusing more on small towns and municipalities, given that 56 % of EU municipalities have between 5 000 and 100 000 inhabitants. The measures taken by conurbations and small and medium-sized towns have a significant cumulative effect when it comes to putting into place sustainable urban development principles. As a result, the Committee proposes to develop measures to simplify and modernise the sustainable energy action plans (SEAPs), including a simple financial sheet, and the monitoring system so as to take account of the size of conurbations, as the paperwork currently needed to participate in the Covenant of Mayors is too complex for some smaller local authorities;

13.

notes with satisfaction that the Covenant of Mayors has already expanded beyond EU borders. To date, local authorities in more than 50 countries worldwide have joined the initiative and have freely committed themselves to reducing their CO2 emissions;

14.

supports the global export of the Covenant of Mayors model and declares itself ready to help spread this model by means of partnerships with cities and regions in third countries, in particular those of the EU’s neighbours with which it already has cooperation structures in place through its ARLEM and CORLEAP platforms or through its Joint Consultative Committees and Working Groups, thus helping the cities and regions of the world to tackle the challenges of climate change;

15.

encourages the European Commission to likewise promote the successful principles and good practice of the Covenant of Mayors beyond the EU and to encourage dissemination of the multi-level governance model for climate objectives (6) in order to pave the way for further decentralised cooperation;

16.

notes with satisfaction that many CoR members are representatives of municipal councils which have already signed up to the Covenant of Mayors, and encourages members of the Committee to promote the Covenant initiative in their own cities and regions, as well as to establish long-term policies which promote the Covenant’s goals;

17.

considers that simplifying the elaboration and implementation of the SEAP and the reporting process may be instrumental in attracting new signatories. In this respect, it would be also very helpful to improve the SEAP evaluation procedures and shorten the maximum time for evaluating the SEAPs; it should be borne in mind that, at the moment, small towns and rural areas do not have access to the resources and funding needed to implement a sustainable energy action plan;

18.

considers that the regions and local authorities which already have experience in this area could act as mentors and thus help to encourage new local authorities to sign up to the initiative, as well as developing sustainable energy action plans and exchanging examples of good practice;

19.

suggests the possibility of appointing a ‘Covenant of Mayors ambassador’ in each Member State, in order to attract the attention of cities and regions to the initiative, notably those cities and regions which, following a political change of direction, have not necessarily sought to continue their participation in the Covenant of Mayors. These ‘ambassadors’ would be chosen, on a voluntary basis, from among the members of the Covenant of Mayors and would benefit from the support of the CoR, the relevant national ministries and, via the permanent representations in the Member States, the European Commission. At the same time, they would also be generally responsible for reporting on the objectives in each country;

20.

recommends building on existing local and regional partnerships and notably on twinning schemes, in order to continue to promote the Covenant of Mayors and its goals both within and outside the Union, and therefore contribute to the emergence of a global movement;

21.

recalls that the Covenant of Mayors’ goal is to put in place a governance structure ensuring that coordination between all levels of government conforms to the principles of subsidiarity and multilevel governance, so that the most ambitious level can take cost-effective measures. A prerequisite is that these measures are initiated at the grassroots level. It is crucial to mobilise the population and local authorities. The local authority level is the most appropriate for developing and implementing action plans, and encouraging public engagement in respect of these. The regions are to ensure coordination and bring the necessary support to the cities whose resources are limited when it comes to developing sustainable energy action plans. National authorities are also to ensure coordination as well as allocation of national and European resources, while decisions relating to the regulatory framework, financing and technical assistance programmes will be taken at the European level;

22.

insists upon the importance, in order to achieve optimal results, of every level of government fulfilling the mission and the role that have been assigned to them within the framework of the Covenant of Mayors and, moreover, insists that once the Covenant has operated for a number of years, the minimum possible commitments should be upheld;

23.

notes that the regions or micro-regions (NUTS 4 level) can play a crucial role in supporting signatory cities of the Covenant of Mayors, when it comes to developing sustainable energy action plans, implementing and exchanging ideas about good practice, with the aim of making sure that the same task is not performed twice, as well as enabling many small and medium-sized towns to participate in this initiative; this essential role of regions of any size is formally acknowledged by them joining the Covenant of Mayors as Territorial Coordinators;

24.

recalls its previous recommendations concerning the importance of recognising and reinforcing the coordination role played by the regions within the Covenant of Mayors. This role is in fact essential in order to integrate the measures and projects of the smallest local authorities, as they do not receive any compensation for the costs incurred;

25.

recognises however that the Covenant of Mayors does not have a monopoly and is not the only ‘way ahead’ in the fight against climate change. Similar initiatives exist both within the Member States as well as within the Council of Europe and efforts should be made to develop synergies with these. National and regional initiatives are important for providing greater operational support, particularly for smaller municipalities. Reporting and commitments within the Covenant of Mayors should be reviewed to facilitate coordination with other international initiatives to raise the profile of the local and regional levels in the context of the United Nations climate change negotiations, e.g. the Compact of Mayors, carbonn (carbonn Climate Registry) and NAZCA;

26.

reiterates its recommendation, already expressed in its opinion on the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (7), in favour of integrating the Covenant of Mayors and the ‘Mayors Adapt’ initiative, and recommends doing the same with the Pact of Islands initiative;

27.

draws the attention of the Covenant of Mayors Office and the European Commission to the benefits that can be reaped from synergies which might arise from bringing together, on the one hand, political commitments connected with membership of the Covenant of Mayors and ‘Mayors Adapt’ and, on the other, technological solutions proposed by ‘Smart Cities’;

28.

draws attention to the confusion that the various initiatives could create, bearing in mind the diversity of their membership procedures and control mechanisms, as well as the partial overlap of their goals; argues therefore in favour of better coordination at the initiative of the Covenant of Mayors, and structuring of the various elements, paying particular attention to transparency, clear communication and reducing paperwork; suggests putting in place a single point of contact via which local and regional authorities could obtain all relevant information on the various initiatives;

29.

notes that access to funding or financing is still a major barrier for SEAP implementation, in particular in the case of smaller municipalities or in countries where large budget cuts have been implemented;

30.

emphasises that aside from strong institutional support, local and regional authorities also need a legal, financial, methodological and promotional environment that encourages the development of networks and that will facilitate the achievement of targets (8);

31.

is opposed to all forms of discrimination against local authorities which have not joined the Covenant of Mayors;

32.

observes with concern that small and medium-sized towns find it very difficult to access the EU’s resources, either because they are not aware of the funding possibilities that they can benefit from, or because they do not have access to the skills required to develop proposals for the kind of projects that are likely to be funded; therefore strongly urges the European Commission and the Covenant of Mayors to inform these towns about funding possibilities that are available to them in order to formalise their commitments (9). More broadly, advocates the establishment of dedicated funding schemes for small and medium-sized municipalities;

33.

wishes to reiterate that, although the sustainable energy action plans approved by the EU’s Joint Research Committee are excellent ways to save urban energy, they still need to attract funding from a bank or from private capital in order to be transformed into projects. This is often because the skills needed to achieve this are absent at the local authority level. The ELENA programme, managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), can provide assistance in this respect, but it supports almost exclusively large projects. In order for the greatest possible number of plans to be implemented, national or regional programmes, modelled on the ELENA programme needs to be established that also provides funding opportunities for more modest projects, especially in small and medium-sized municipalities;

34.

suggests that signatories should continue to receive technical assistance (feasibility studies, technical and financial engineering, procurement processes, etc.) in order to prepare projects from their SEAP measures that can attract funding, and to implement long-lasting financing schemes to mobilise the necessary investments. The EIB ELENA instrument has helped signatories to implement large and long-term financing models, but is very demanding in terms of project size and leverage factor, which immediately excludes small and medium-sized signatories. More EU support is needed to provide project development assistance for SEAPs of various sizes. Different sources of financing should be streamlined, including EIB facilities (EFSI, EIAH, ELENA), ESIF (Fi-Compass), Horizon2020, EEEF, JESSICA, the future initiative smart financing for smart buildings, etc.;

35.

invites the European Commission to enable the Covenant of Mayors Office to support — possibly via an online platform — the interconnection of local and regional authorities’ projects so that they can access the service proposed by the EIB-managed ELENA programme; also requests that the Commission broaden access to technical support and capacity-building for signatories;

36.

urges all information relative to funding opportunities to be collected in a clearly-worded brochure, in all the official languages of the EU, and updated annually, and for this brochure to be sent to relevant stakeholders and notably to the CoR and its members;

37.

recalls that the CoR, as an EU institution representing the voice of the cities and regions of Europe and acting as a focal point for the various local networks, ought to play a central role in the multilevel governance system. Support should also be maintained for the work on multilevel government systems that is being carried out by regional and local energy agencies in Europe within the framework of the Covenant of Mayors. This would ensure that EU legislation is more in tune with the situation and needs of towns and municipalities;

38.

stands ready to develop actions in order to increase the visibility of the Covenant of Mayors among its members and encourages those who have not done so yet to become parties to the Covenant on behalf of their respective local or regional authorities; to this end, will explore the creation of an ad hoc grouping of ‘friends of the Covenant of Mayors’ among those of its members who are already Covenant signatories, and who could receive support in promoting the Covenant in the relevant structures both within and beyond the CoR;

39.

points out that the current refugee crisis, mainly caused by war and economic hardship, could in the future become even more serious if climate change is not fought successfully and its consequences threaten the survival of more and more people;

40.

adds, in conclusion, that the Covenant of Mayors constitutes one of the instruments which could potentially help to bring the EU closer to its citizens. Local and regional authorities have demonstrated their capacity to exceed, on the basis of voluntary commitments, the targets set by the EU. Even better results cannot be obtained unless individual households, possibly via initiatives launched by local authorities, manage to set their own objectives for reduced, cleaner and more sustainable energy consumption, in their own interest as well as the interests of the planet as a whole.

10.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/48

1.

highlights the fact that halting the loss of biodiversity and natural habitats and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020 and restoring them to their former state is one of the biggest environmental challenges we face at this time;

2.

notes that the relevant recitals of the EU Directive on the conservation of wild birds (1) and the EU Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) (the ‘Nature Directives’) stipulate among other things that the conservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment are essential objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and that the decline in the number of wild species and their habitats constitutes a grave threat to the conservation of the natural environment;

3.

expresses concern that, according to recent studies, such as the report on The State of Nature in the European Union (3), the biodiversity target for the year 2020 endorsed by the European Council on 25—26 March 2010 is unlikely to be achieved if this relies only on the measures taken or planned so far;

4.

shares the assumption made by the European Commission in the European Biodiversity Strategy (4) that full implementation of the Nature Directives is essential to prevent further loss of biodiversity and to achieve the Strategy’s objectives;

5.

points out that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in the implementation of the Nature Directives and is convinced that, because of this key role, the European Committee of the Regions has special expertise relevant to the Nature Directives;

6.

would therefore like to contribute the special expertise it has on the Nature Directives by virtue of its political mandate to the European Commission’s ongoing fitness check (5) and adopts the following positions on the various issues raised by the European Commission;

7.

takes the view that the reasons and objectives that led to the adoption of the Nature Directives remain valid today and that the Nature Directives are essential for the protection of species and their habitats and the types of habitat present in the European Union;

8.

emphasises that the Nature Directives address all the main threats to the species, their habitats and habitat types in the European Union;

9.

is extremely concerned that the provisions of the Nature Directives have not yet been implemented fully by all Member States; points out that Natura 2000 sites sometimes lack legal status, that there is often no management plan and that specific safeguards are often missing, and calls for closer involvement of local and regional authorities in these tasks;

10.

points out that the Nature Directives seek to offer comprehensive protection in all policy areas to the species, habitats and habitat types most in need of protection; also points out that, consequently, the challenge for the future is to incorporate nature conservation into other policy areas, such as agricultural policy, which is not yet happening in an optimal way;

11.

considers, in this context, the Nature Directives to be extremely relevant for the protection of species, their habitats and habitat types from pressures and threats at local and regional level, including the loss and fragmentation of habitats, pollution and the spread of non-native animal and plant species;

12.

acknowledges that the state of species, their habitats and habitat types has improved markedly in the areas where the Nature Directives have been implemented (6) and therefore considers that the objectives of these directives can be achieved if they are implemented fully;

13.

emphasises that a wide range of practical examples in the report on The State of Nature in the European Union show that Member States and local and regional authorities have a key role to play in the protection of species and habitats;

14.

expresses its grave concern that successes in the conservation of species and habitats resulting from the implementation of the Nature Directives are limited in scope and incomplete, since the great majority of species and habitat types still have an unfavourable conservation status and a significant proportion may even experience further deterioration;

15.

also points out that biodiversity in areas outside those protected by the Nature Directives has not developed as well as in the Natura 2000 sites, as shown by the dramatic decline in common bird species;

16.

is convinced that debates between different types of stakeholders related to a few species having the potential to cause damage, can be solved through clear instructions in management plans that lay down a series of interventions and are given appropriate support, in terms of finances and staff, to guarantee public health and public safety and to avoid serious damage and compensate for those that are unavoidable;

17.

calls on the European Commission and the Member States to support local and regional authorities in the full implementation of the Nature Directives; notes that this is particularly important with respect to the designation and the legal protection of Natura 2000 sites and the formulation of specific conservation objectives with respect to protecting species and habitats through conservation and restoration measures and with respect to the necessary financial support, not least to address the lack of funding and the need to simplify access to the existing sources of funding (7);

18.

encourages the European Commission to adopt more effective implementation guidelines and update existing ones so that they are easily understandable and available — via a single internet portal (8) — in the various languages of the Member States, reflect existing case law and, where appropriate, address the specific characteristics of certain sectors;

19.

calls on the Commission to place greater emphasis on information, education and awareness-raising, especially about the usefulness of nature conservation measures and Natura 2000 sites, and to develop, for example, the existing Natura 2000 viewer of the European Environment Agency into a comprehensive geographical online information system which systematically informs the public, planners, land users and other stakeholders about all aspects of the implementation of the Nature Directives in individual Natura 2000 sites;

20.

therefore believes that the shortcomings that have been identified and the worrying conservation status of many species and habitat types cannot be attributed to a lack of effectiveness of the Nature Directives, but that these have, on the contrary, proven to be very effective instruments for the protection of biodiversity;

21.

points out first of all that it is primarily society’s task to preserve biodiversity, by adopting a sustainable and durable way of life and an economic model that can be followed globally;

22.

highlights the fact that in a public consultation undertaken by the European Commission (9), small and medium-sized enterprises did not list the Nature Directives among the ten financially most onerous legal provisions;

23.

regrets that planners, land users and other key sectors have incurred costs, sometimes unnecessarily, through the late or incomplete designation of Natura 2000 sites; points out, at the same time, that different costs for different local and regional authorities are the result of the sometimes uneven distribution across regions of species and habitat types and the nature protection measures needed in consequence;

24.

emphasises that many of the Natura 2000 sites give rise to important revenue-producing ecosystem services at local and regional level (10), for example in the form of healthcare services, CO2 storage, flood retention, purification of water reserves, air purification, or prevention of soil erosion;

25.

points out that current research (11) confirms that there is an excellent cost/benefit ratio at local and regional level, since the environmental, social and economic gains far outweigh the costs of implementing the Nature Directives;

26.

notes the opportunities provided by the Natura 2000 network in terms of generating jobs and income in the sectors of environmentally sound tourism and nature recreation. Highlights the special importance of creating new business opportunities in disadvantaged rural areas in this regard;

27.

considers, therefore, that whereas the implementation of the Nature Directives naturally gives rise to costs, these costs are necessary to protect biodiversity — including with a view to sustainability — and are proportionate to the much larger benefits these directives yield, which can only partially be measured in monetary terms;

28.

is convinced that the two Nature Directives, taken separately, furnish excellent examples of legislation that is concise, comprehensible, consistent, systematic and, as such, overall well targeted;

29.

considers that, taken together, the two Nature Directives are successful tools of legislation, since both operate in a similar manner, are not mutually contradictory and complement each other sensibly as regards measures of protection so as to create, jointly, the system of safeguards known as Natura 2000;

30.

assumes that the Nature Directives are compatible with other EU environmental legislation and notes in this context the EIA Directive, which was amended explicitly for that purpose (12); at the same time, encourages the Member States as well as local and regional authorities to better coordinate the implementation of different pieces of environmental legislation and, for example, to move ahead with the integration of licensing procedures, monitoring measures and reporting requirements;

31.

takes the view that it could be useful, both for reasons of environmental protection and to avoid unnecessary costs, to improve the coordination of planning processes laid down in the Nature Directives, the Water Framework Directive (13) and, as appropriate, the EIA and SEA Directives (14);

32.

calls on the Member States to work with local and regional authorities and help them with the practical implementation of legislation, such as the EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species (15);

33.

finds it problematic, irrespective of the good integration of the Nature Directives into EU environmental law, and with a view to achieving the objectives of the Nature Directives, that other sectoral policies of the European Union, such as the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy or energy and transport policies, still do not contribute sufficiently to the preservation of biodiversity (16);

34.

thinks an obligation will have to be included in the European Commission’s mid-term report on the European Structural and Investment Funds requiring all projects funded by the EU to undergo a biodiversity check (17);

35.

also calls on the European Commission to propose a legislative framework, as part of the European Biodiversity Strategy, to conserve species and habitats outside Natura 2000 sites, as well as species that are not subject to strict protection measures, in order to prevent net losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services (18);

36.

is convinced, in view of the above, that the Nature Directives are well suited to achieving their stated goals, but that more needs to be done to stop behaviour that harms biodiversity in other policy areas not covered by the Nature Directives;

37.

recognises that the Nature Directives have contributed significantly to a more uniform and effective approach to the conservation of nature and species and to raising minimum standards in this area of law in the regions of the various Member States;

38.

notes that biodiversity and habitat diversity are unevenly distributed across Europe, including across borders, and that there is a corresponding need for an EU-wide approach that coordinates Member States’ efforts to ensure effective protection across the borders of the Member States;

39.

recalls that the Nature Directives constitute the key instrument enabling the European Union to respect its international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other international agreements, such as the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) and thereby also to influence biodiversity and wildlife inside and outside the European Union in a positive way;

40.

is convinced that the Nature Directives have contributed significantly way to the introduction of uniform protection standards in the Member States, which have provided businesses with guarantees that a clear framework with equal conditions of competition exists across the European single market;

41.

in the light of the above, emphasises that common legislation at European Union level is needed more than ever to meet the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the international conventions and that the Nature Directives constitute an excellent basis for this purpose;

42.

is convinced that any problems arising in connection with the conservation of species and habitats are not inherent in the Nature Directives themselves, but arise, for the most part, in their implementation at local, regional and Member State level;

43.

believes, for the above reasons, that it would be better not to open up the Nature Directives for review, also bearing in mind that initial uncertainties about the interpretation of the directives have largely been addressed by European Court of Justice case law;

44.

believes, further, that it would be better not to revise the Nature Directives, not least because local and regional authorities need more time to implement measures that are possible and foreseen under the directives but have not yet been put in place, such as management plans still missing so far, in order to realise the potential of the directives to the greatest possible extent;

45.

is very concerned, bearing in mind not least the interests of the different groups applying the Nature Directives, that opening up the existing legislation for review will prompt protracted discussions among the stakeholders in society affected by the legislation, followed by decades of legal uncertainty;

46.

is concerned about the destruction of individual Natura 2000 sites and the current level of illegal killing and trapping of birds and other species and is convinced that a greater effort at all governance levels is needed to meet the requirements to monitor and enforce the Nature Directives;

47.

therefore considers that the European Commission must take its role as guardian of Union law seriously and calls on it to respond seriously to complaints concerning the application of Union law and to initiate infringement proceedings as appropriate;

48.

recommends that the European Commission use the fitness check procedure to emphasise the importance of better implementation of the Nature Directives by the Member States and welcomes the approach taken by the latter to involve local and regional authorities in the implementation.