Pt 05a - Report on the impact of CoR opinions€¦  · Web viewTwo of the CoR's main contributions to the mid-term review of Europe 2020 influenced relevant documents and statements

EN

Brussels, 30 June 2015

ANNUAL IMPACT REPORT

2014

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 330

Table of ContentsImpact analysis of CoR opinions in major fields of political activity

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

2. EU Budget.......................................................................................................................................2

3. Economic and Monetary Union....................................................................................................3

3.1 Economic policies...................................................................................................................3

3.2 European Semester, Europe 2020 strategy..........................................................................4

3.3 Social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union...................................................5

4. Regional policy...............................................................................................................................5

4.1 Cohesion policy 2014-2020....................................................................................................6

4.2 Macro-regional strategies......................................................................................................6

4.3 Urban policy...........................................................................................................................8

5. Single Market & Competition......................................................................................................8

6. Building tomorrow's networks.....................................................................................................9

6.1 Transport and Connectivity..................................................................................................9

6.1.1 Air transport..................................................................................................................9

6.1.2 Mobility and Land transport......................................................................................10

6.1.3 Future EU ports policy and waterway transport......................................................12

6.1.4 Trans-European telecommunications networks.......................................................13

7. Growth, jobs and inclusion.........................................................................................................14

7.1 Social and inclusive growth.................................................................................................14

7.2 Civil protection.....................................................................................................................15

7.3 Education..............................................................................................................................15

8. Multilevel governance, division of powers/devolution and fiscal decentralisation................16

9. Environment and Climate Change.............................................................................................17

9.1 EU strategy for adaptation to climate change...................................................................17

9.2 Towards the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy..................................................................17

9.3 EU waste policy promoting a circular economy...............................................................18

9.4 EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the Aichi targets...................................................20

10. Agriculture...............................................................................................................................21

11. Maritime affairs and fisheries................................................................................................22

12. Europe for citizens...................................................................................................................23

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 330

12.1 Reconnecting the EU with its citizens................................................................................23

13. Europe as a global actor..........................................................................................................23

13.1 Enlargement.........................................................................................................................23

13.2 Eastern Partnership.............................................................................................................23

13.3 Southern Neighbourhood....................................................................................................24

13.4 Development Policy..............................................................................................................24

14. Conclusions and Outlook........................................................................................................25

15. List of CoR opinions with impact in 2013..............................................................................27

15.1 CIVEX...................................................................................................................................27

15.2 COTER.................................................................................................................................27

15.3 ECON....................................................................................................................................28

15.4 SEDEC..................................................................................................................................28

15.5 ENVE....................................................................................................................................28

15.6 NAT.......................................................................................................................................28

This document contains 28 pages.

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 331

1

1. Introduction

As stipulated under Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, the secretary-general has to submit a report on the impact of Committee opinions at least once a year to the plenary assembly.

This report summarises the CoR's impact in the major fields of its political activity. A total of 53 opinions with a significant impact in 2014 are included in this report. Opinions on legislative proposals are highlighted in the text.

The following criteria were used to define the "impact" of the opinion:- CoR specific proposals adopted in final legislation;- CoR policy recommendations considered in proposed legislation or in legislative procedures;- CoR positions which have made a major contribution to ongoing political debates;- references made to CoR positions in other EU documents, e.g. resolutions of the European

Parliament.

The following resources have been used to compile this report:

Contributions from all of the commissions to the Impact Report1: each commission held a debate on the impact of the opinions in 2014 at its commission meeting, before sending a written contribution to the secretary-general.

The Resolution on the Priorities of the Committee of the Regions for 2014 with a view to the Work Programme of the European Commission2.

The Organisation and coordination of the work of the CoR commissions - 2014 Work Programme3. The 2014 commission work programmes were drawn up in line with the European Commission work programme for 2014 and the Committee of the Regions' resolution on its political priorities for 2014.

The Reports from the European Commission on the Commission's follow-up to Committee of the Regions' opinions. A few months after the adoption of opinions, the European Commission publishes a report on its follow-up to CoR opinions. These reports are sent to the Committee every year and published on the Committee's website4.

The rolling planning charts: Since September 2011, the CoR commission secretariats, in collaboration with rapporteurs and their political groups, have been producing and regularly updating the sheets in order to plan, structure and monitor the CoR's political activities in relation to opinions. The aim of this is to enhance the CoR’s political impact. These charts summarise the political impact of opinions on documents at the European Commission, the European Parliament

1 CIVEX:COR-2015-00146-; ECON: COR-2015-00154; ENVE: COR-2015-00150 ; SEDEC: COR-2015-00149 ; NAT: COR-2015-00148 ; COTER: COR-2015-00153

2 COR-4044-20133 COR-2013-07657-16, item 13 A4 http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/opinions/Pages/european-commission-follow-up.aspx

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 331

2

and the Council. They also refer to activities linked to the opinion which helped to promote the opinion's objectives (interinstitutional meetings, high level conferences, seminars, etc.).

Analysis of the impact of CoR opinions in major fields of political activity

2. EU Budget

In 2014, the CoR contributed to the debate on the EU budget with two opinions: Execution of the EU Budget5 and Draft EU Budget 20156.

In line with the requests expressed in the CoR opinion on the Execution of the EU Budget, the European Commission has set up an "absorption task force" which provides technical support and enables those Member States who had unused commitments from the 2007-2013 period to share best practice.

The CoR opinion on Promoting quality of public spending7 has contributed to a shift in the EU's economic policies. After years of austerity policies, the European Commission has acknowledged that the EU has been suffering from dramatic underinvestment. This was outlined in the Commission's communication on an Investment Plan for Europe. Political relations between the CoR, Commission and European Investment Bank (EIB) were very intense during the last quarter of the year. Both the CoR president and secretary general stressed the importance of including, within the scope of the new European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), long-term investments in transport and communication infrastructure, energy, research and education as these are key to enhancing the economic and social development prospects of the regions. Moreover, the Committee insisted, in different fora involving the EIB and the Commission, on the need to ensure that local small-scale projects can also benefit from the EFSI, as well as on the crucial role that regional promotional banks can play. The CoR resolution on the same topic reiterated the opinion's recommendations and welcomed the fact that the EFSI would complement the funds available under the EU structural and cohesion funds. It was also pleased to note that public investments that support projects under the EFSI could be exempted from deficit calculations under the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP).

5 COR 8129/2013. Rapporteur: Adam Struzik (PL/EPP)6 COR 1750/2014. Rapporteur: Agnès Durdu (LU/ALDE)7 CoR 4885/2014. Rapporteur: Catiuscia Marini (IT/PES)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 332

3

3. Economic and Monetary Union

3.1 Economic policies

In its opinion European Long-Term Investment Funds8 (ELTIF), the CoR welcomed the proposal for a Regulation presented by the European Commission9 in June 2013 as a positive step towards funding the future economy and as an interesting prospect for the EU2020 targets.

This CoR opinion had a direct impact as the European Parliament's position on the proposal for a regulation on European Long-term Investment Funds,10 adopted in April 2014, reflected several issues raised in it, for example:

- it recognised the role of localities and regions as potential beneficiaries of long-term investment;

- it added that regional and local authorities also have a significant responsibility to promote and market ELTIFs effectively to investors, as well as to provide specific information to citizens and consumers on the benefits offered by that new programme;

- both the CoR and the EP also asked for more flexibility with regard to early redemption of an ELTIF.

The EP resolution shared the view that indirect holdings – as well as direct holdings – should be eligible for an ELTIF investment: "An ELTIF shall invest no more than 10% of its capital in an individual real asset" has been changed to "no more than 10% of its capital directly or indirectly in an individual infrastructure", which is close to the CoR's position.

The CoR has been very active in relation to the European Commission initiative on CARS 2020 Action Plan, contributing with its opinion CARS 2020: Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in Europe11 adopted in 2013. Many points raised in this opinion were reflected in the European Parliament resolution of December 201312. The CoR was also represented in the High Level Group set up by the European Commission for monitoring the implementation of the action plan. The final report by this group13 highlights the important role played by local and regional authorities in restructuring activities, as well as in activities aimed at ensuring efficient use of relevant EU funds. The report also underlines the significance of regional smart specialisation. It suggests that it could help to re-industrialise the affected sites and to actively support

8 CoR 6862/2013. Rapporteur: Simone Beissel (LU/ALDE)9 Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Long-term Investment Funds COM(2013)

462 final: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013PC046210 T7-0448/201411 CoR 1997/2013. Rapporteur: Christian Buchmann (AT/EPP)12 European Parliament resolution of 10 December 2013 on CARS 2020: towards a strong, competitive and sustainable European

car industry: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0547&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0391

13 CARS 2020 Report on the state of play of the outcome of the work of the High Level Group - October 2014: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/cars-2020/index_en.htm

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 333

4

the re-introduction of workers into the labour market, through retraining, assistance with job seeking or by promoting entrepreneurship.

3.2 European Semester, Europe 2020 strategy

Two of the CoR's main contributions to the mid-term review of Europe 2020 influenced relevant documents and statements produced by other European institutions: the Athens Declaration "On the Mid-Term Review of Europe 2020 - A Territorial Vision for Growth and Jobs", along with the accompanying "Mid-Term Assessment Report on Europe 2020: Rethinking Europe's Growth and Jobs Strategy", and the “Blueprint for a renewed Europe 2020 strategy from a territorial perspective”. The EC Communication on taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, states that “at European level, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions have been particularly active through their close monitoring of the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and by mobilising action in the Member States, including at regional and local levels, and reflecting the multilevel governance structure of the EU”.

One of the CoR's major concerns was to ensure that the role of cities and regions is properly reflected in all strategic documents. It had a considerable impact in this field: The Communication raises issues such as: increasing regional disparities, ensuring all relevant stakeholders take ownership of the strategy and the need to "clarify" and "enhance" the role of the different stakeholders in preparing and implementing National Reform Programmes. High priority is also given to "improving the quality of public expenditure and …. the efficiency of public administrations". In its conclusion, the Commission acknowledges that "Experience has also shown that the active engagement and participation of regions and cities – which are responsible for delivering many EU policies – has been crucial in pursuit of Europe 2020 objectives".

On 22 October 2014, The European Parliament adopted a Report on "The European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2014 priorities"14. In this report, it took on board the Committee of the Regions' observation that "... the divergences among regions and Member States are growing", and noted that there was "a growing number of CSRs addressed to the regional level".

In another resolution on "Employment and social aspects of the Europe 2020 strategy"15, adopted on 25 November, the EP "… calls for the involvement of national parliaments and local and regional authorities in the design and implementation of National Reform Programmes, including through multilevel governance arrangements".

14 Rapporteur Philippe De Backer, (ALDE/BE)15 Rapporteur Marita Ulvskog (S&D/SE)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 334

5

3.3 Social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union

The CoR opinion on the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union16 had a considerable impact on the Commissioner for Employment and Social affairs' hearing. The main aim for the CoR was to introduce new measures to strengthen the social dimension of the economic and monetary union and of the European Union in general.

During her hearing, Commissioner Marianne Thyssen pointed out that in order to draw attention to the social dimension of the European Semester, the EC would: consider introducing social indicators on an equal footing with other indicators when considering the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure, include social aspects in the CSR, assess the social impact of requirements addressed to Member States and tackle the structural causes of poverty and inequality. She mentioned the possibility of a European minimum income but highlighted that the EU at this stage has no power to impose this on Member States. All of the above elements are in line with the CoR opinion on the social dimension of the EMU.

4. Regional policy

In the field of regional policy, this year the CoR continued its work on key dossiers covering: Cohesion policy 2014-202017, macro-regional strategies18 and urban policies19. Moreover, the CoR sustained its efforts on TIA (Territorial Impact Assessment) and EUSF (European Union Solidarity Fund).

With regard to the opinion on Assessing territorial impacts20, a political agreement with the EP is nearly ready to be signed and the CoR has agreed to strengthen cooperation with the EP on TIA. This includes helping to analyse the impact of proposed amendments (legislative dossiers). Following intense cooperation in 2013 with the Network of Territorial Cohesion Contact Points, the CoR strategy on TIA was also presented to the NTCCP's working group meeting in Athens on 27 February 2014 at the request of the Greek presidency of the Council.

16 COR 6863/2013. Rapporteur: Jean-Louis Destans (FR/PES)17 See part 4.118 See part 4.219 See part 4.320 CoR 29/2013. Rapporteur: Michael Schneider (DE/EPP)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 335

6

The European Union Solidarity Fund is the main instrument with which the Union can respond to serious disasters occurring within Member States or countries negotiating accession. The CoR opinion21 on this fund addresses a number of points that should be improved from a local and regional perspective. These points relate to the criteria for distributing the fund at NUTS 3 level, exceptional cross-border natural disasters, the definition of eligible operations and time limits for submitting applications in the case of long-lasting disasters such as floods.

After the positive impact achieved by this opinion during the 2013 legislative cycle, the main achievements in 2014 concern: reinforcing or relocating existing infrastructure in order to improve its ability to withstand natural disasters in the future; reducing red tape for applicants and extending deadlines for using the fund. In each case, the final text is a significant improvement on the initial Commission proposal.

However, a number of CoR recommendations, which were initially taken up by the EP, could not be included the final text. In particular, this concerns recommendations to set the threshold for regional natural disasters at 1% of regional GDP, and the broadening the definition of regional natural disasters to include disasters that happen in neighbouring NUTS 3 regions.

4.1 Cohesion policy 2014-2020

The Commission Delegated Regulation on the European Code of Conduct on Partnership22, part of the European Structural and Investment Funds framework was adopted by the European Commission on 7 January 2014. Establishing the Code of Conduct as a delegated act can be considered as an important step forward. For the first time, it will set out a clear framework for cooperation between all partners involved in the planning and management of the EU Structural and Investment Funds. The CoR opinion on this issue strongly advocated the introduction of a Code of Conduct as a delegated act to the Common Provisions Regulation. The reasoning behind this was to require Member States to organise partnerships between national, regional and local public authorities, as well as with economic and social partners and NGOs, in relation to all aspects of the implementation of EU policies.

4.2 Macro-regional strategies

Throughout 2014, the CoR has worked hard to develop macro-regional strategies further. Two opinions on the subject achieved good results in 2014 at different levels: The opinion on the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR)23 and the global opinion on the added

21 CoR 6402/2013. Rapporteur: Pavel Branda (CZ/ECR)22 CoR 1683/2012. Rapporteur: Stanisław SZWABSKI (PL/EA)23 CoR 23/2014. Rapporteur: Gian Mario Spacca (IT/ALDE)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 336

7

value of macro-regional strategies24. The opinion on An Alpine macro-regional strategy for the European Union25 was also adopted in 2014 and will be included in the IAR 2015.

The opinion on The added value of macro-regional strategies26 noted that the basic areas for action in relation to macro-regional strategies include: the coordination of available resources and stepping up cooperation between existing institutions – especially as regards the role of local and regional authorities – without creating an additional red tape. The European Commission's report on improving the governance of the macro-regional strategies recognises this need, and this call, and it considers multilevel governance to be an essential way of improving the effectiveness of macro-regional strategies.

The European Commission has also acknowledged the major contribution made by the Committee of the Regions in relation to the governance of macro-regional strategies: To succeed, macro-regional strategies need to establish a better balance between the leadership provided by the countries and regions involved and that of the Commission, which still plays too prominent a role in many cases. This is in line with the recommendation made in the CoR opinion, which calls for the national and regional authorities to demonstrate their commitment clearly and to assume a leading role. However, the European Commission's report does not outline the role that local and regional authorities could play in ensuring this leadership clearly enough, which is evidently a shortcoming from the CoR's point of view.

The Council conclusions raised a number of points which were also included in the CoR opinion on EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) 27: acknowledgement that the Strategy remains open to future developments – The CoR

recommendation to allow new countries to participate in the future is along similar lines; welcoming the recognition of climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as efficient

disaster risk management including prevention, as horizontal principles underpinning all activity carried out under the four pillars;

stressing the importance of the involvement of all EU Member States and all stakeholders at transnational, regional and local level, as appropriate, in the implementation of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region;

inviting the Commission to play a leading role in the strategic coordination of the Strategy, but only where its involvement brings a clear added value, in partnership with the participating countries and in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;

engaging the Commission to ensure the involvement of the other EU institutions throughout the implementation, monitoring and the evaluation of the Strategy – in particular the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee;

24 CDR 5074/2013. Rapporteur: Pauillina Haijanen (FI/EPP)25 CoR 2994/2014. Rapporteur: Herwig Van Staa (AT/EPP).26 CoR 5074/2013. Rapporteur: Paulina Haijanen (FI/EPP).27 CoR 23/2014. Rapporteur: Gian Mario Spacca (IT/ALDE).

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 337

8

calling upon Member States participating in the Strategy to ensure that the partnership principle is respected and made fully operational, by encouraging relevant partners and stakeholders to participate actively. This involves including existing regional organisations, social and economic partners, civil society, national and regional parliaments, and the private sector at all stages of the Strategy's implementation.

The call to develop new macro-regional strategies in collaboration with all interested stakeholders has been taken into account in the case of EURSAIR28 (a structured dialogue with relevant actors and a detailed stakeholders' consultation have been held by the European Commission). The same path will be followed during the implementation phase of the Action Plan.

The call for targeted cooperation in relation to funding has also been taken on board in the case of the Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Regions. The creation of a transnational operational programme tailored to suit the needs of the geographical area affected by the Strategy will help to support capacity building and coordination at Strategy level.

4.3 Urban policy

The Urban agenda was an important topic for the CoR and the institution achieved high visibility with its opinion on Towards an integrated urban agenda for the EU29, both at the EU Urban Forum on 17-18 February 2014 and at the intergovernmental debate on the Urban Agenda, during which the value of the CoR input was recognised by several Member States as well as by the Italian presidency of the Council.

A major achievement for the CoR was the publication of the European Commission's communication on the urban dimension of EU policies30 on 18 July 2014: The CoR opinion had asked for a move towards a more ambitious EU urban agenda under the new Commission mandate.

In line with the CoR opinion, the Council (General Affairs Council of 19 November 2014) also recognised the need for an "EU" urban agenda. It asked the European Commission to develop this, factoring in the territorial dimension and the Territorial Agenda 2020 (as had also been requested by the CoR).

5. Single Market & Competition

28 European Commission Communication on the EU strategy for Adriatic and Ioanian Region, 18 June 201429 CoR 6942/2013. Rapporteur: Bas Verkerk (NL/ALDE)30 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/urb_agenda/pdf/comm_act_urb_agenda_en.pdf

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 338

9

With the revised opinion31 on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty32, the CoR influenced the final guidelines33 adopted by the European Commission on 9 July 2014.The threshold for public investments to be approved by the European Commission has been considerably increased, which had for long been requested by cities and regions.

6. Building tomorrow's networks

6.1 Transport and Connectivity

6.1.1 Air transport

In 2014, the CoR continued its work on the issues of the Airport Package and State Aid to Airports and Airlines.

The first impact on the CoR opinion on the Airport Package34 has already been outlined in the CoR Impact assessment report 2013.

In 2014, the legislative process for one of the Airport Package's three dossiers, namely, the Regulation on noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports (Regulation (EU) No 598/2014), was finalised.

The final regulation incorporated the CoR recommendation to introduce a transition phase of 4 years for raising the limit value for marginally compliant aircraft fully on board, although the wording was altered slightly. It also introduced such a transitional period with 8 EPNdB until 14 June 2020 (= 4 years after the entry into force of the Regulation) under Article 2(4).

The CoR further considered that the proposed right of scrutiny for the European Commission, whereby it could review operating restrictions before their introduction and if necessary suspend them, would exceed the powers of the Commission according to the principle of subsidiarity. In the final regulation changes were introduced which preserve the discretionary power of local authorities, as requested by the CoR.

In line with the CoR's request, the delegation of the power to amend the definitions of "aircraft" and "marginally compliant aircraft" has been eliminated. In relation to other issues, the purpose of the delegation of powers has been clarified ("to take into account changes to relevant international rules"). Moreover, the delegation of power was not granted to the Commission for an indeterminate period, as initially proposed by the EC, but instead only for a period of five years. Further extension for a period

31 CoR 7451/2014. Rapporteur: Christophe Rouillon (FR/PES)32 Initial opinion: CoR 240/2013. Rapporteur: Christophe Rouillon (FR/PES)33 Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, Official Journal C 249,

31.07.2014, p.134 CoR 694/2012. Rapporteur: Roland Werner (DE/ALDE)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 339

10

of identical duration is possible, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such an extension. This could also be considered as an improvement on the initial proposal.

With regard to airport finances, with its opinion on EU Guidelines on State Aid to Airports and Airlines35 the CoR had a positive impact on the following points: Recognising regional airports as important hubs which overcome accessibility deficits – a basic

principle of the CoR opinion. Broadening the definition of "acceptable state aid" for regional airports. This follows the approach

requested by CoR, stating that regional airports are essential drivers of local economic development and connectivity.

Broadening the definition of the conditions under which state aid could be granted to regional airlines.

The reference to specific and more favourable conditions for outermost regions has been added as requested in our opinion.

The threshold for operating aid to airports has been increased from 200 000 passengers per year to 700 000. This can be considered a partial success as the CoR asked for an increase to 1 million.

6.1.2 Mobility and Land transport

The CoR continued its work on the The fourth railway package36 in 2014. The first impact made by this opinion in 2013 was already outlined in the IAR 2013.

The main impact of the CoR opinion was the establishment of a dual system of vehicle authorisation and safety authorisation. This dual approach was also suggested by the CoR opinion, which supported a stronger role for the European Railway Agency as a one-stop shop for decisions on vehicles and safety certificates for railway companies within the technical pillar of the legal text, whilst allowing the option of authorising vehicles that are only to be used within a country by national safety authorities. The Council followed this suggestion.

The CoR recommendation for a legislative amendment introducing the possibility to appeal in the event that the European Railway Agency fails to act within the prescribed time limits has also been taken on board in the Council's political agreement on the technical pillar.

The governance pillar still remains at the discussion stage and Member States have adopted a diverse range of positions at the Council. The final impact will therefore be measured in the future, depending on how the file progresses.

35 CoR 5250/2013. Rapporteur: Catiuscia Marini (IT/PES)36 CoR 27/2013. Rapporteur: Pascal Mangin (FR/EPP)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3310

11

The CoR had already made a significant impact in the area of Urban mobility37 prior to the drafting of the opinion: DG MOVE, a leading directorate general at the European Commission, has taken on board Committee of the Regions key concerns in relation to the drafting of a non-binding proposal. This is due to the involvement of the Committee of the Regions in the impact assessment process for the Urban Mobility package38. This is an important achievement made during the pre-legislative phase.Furthermore, the CoR has been given observer status at the Member States' Expert Group on Urban Mobility and Transport, which was set up following a recommendation by the Commission.

The final text of the Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure39, of 22 October 2014, took on board a number of key policy recommendations set out in the CoR opinion on Clean Power for Transport40.

The CoR considered the deadlines set by the Commission in the draft directive to be too short, given that adopting national policy frameworks and the relevant administrative and legislative acts will require cooperation with local and regional authorities, as well as time for an in-depth national analysis, debate and the development of financing solutions. This concern was alleviated by an extension of the deadlines – from 18 months to two years – for Member States to bring into force the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions and to notify to the European Commission of the national policy frameworks.

In its opinion, the CoR requested that local and regional authorities be involved in drawing up the national transport policy frameworks and administrative and legal standards. The final text of the Directive stipulates that national policy frameworks should be established in close cooperation with regional and local authorities. It also specifies that the national policy frameworks shall take into account, as appropriate, the interests of regional and local authorities.

Following the CoR request, the text of the Directive now clarifies that Member States should ensure, through their national policy frameworks, that an appropriate number of recharging points are put in place. It also stipulates that public recharging points for electric vehicles shall make use of intelligent metering systems only when technically feasible and economically reasonable.

The request that Member States factor in the needs of rural and sparsely populated areas when planning their national policy approach was considered. The Directive clarifies that population density and geographical characteristics should be taken into account when elaborating national policy frameworks.

37 CoR 90/2014. Rapporteur: Sir Albert Bore (UK/PES)38 See chapter on subsidiarity above39 Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, 22 October 201440 CoR 28/2013. Rapporteur: Saima Kalev (EE/EA)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3311

12

6.1.3 Future EU ports policy and waterway transport

Given that this dossier has been postponed by the European Parliament until the next legislature, the impact of the CoR opinion on Framework on the future EU ports' policy including legislative proposals41 can only be described in relation to the Council's position, where a general approach on the draft regulation was adopted on 8 October 2014. As the legislative process is ongoing, the final impact will be presented in a future report.

In the opinion, the CoR stressed the need to consider the diversity of EU ports due to geographical location. The Council's general approach suggests that Member States can exclude ports located in outermost regions that are part of the comprehensive trans-European transport network (TEN-T) from the rules that govern market access to port services (Article 1 (3a)), which acknowledges the specific functions and the situation of these ports.

The Council partially took up the CoR's recommendation to exclude from the Regulation services that have "general interest" objectives - i.e. safety, security and environmental protection. This includes examples such as dredging and pilotage. The general approach only subjects dredging to the financial transparency rules for publicly funded activities, but exempts it otherwise from the Regulation (Article 1).

The CoR's recommendation to extend the remits of public service obligations and include in particular criteria related to territorial cohesion was taken on board in the general approach, which foresees "territorial cohesion" as a legitimate reason for imposing PSO (Article 8 (1) (cb)).

The CoR regretted that the legislative proposal did not provide a definition of "competent authority", and made a proposal for a definition in its recommendations for amendments. The general approach now introduces a definition of "competent authority", although worded differently.

The CoR questioned the added value of establishing an independent supervisory body responsible for monitoring and supervising the application of the Regulation. It expressed doubts about the need to set up cooperation between them in order to encourage a uniform implementation of the Regulation. The Council also rejected the idea of establishing such an independent supervisory body and deleted/modified the relevant provisions in the draft regulation accordingly.

The request to strengthen the role of competent authorities with regard to the minimum requirements for the provision of port services was well reflected in the general approach: The general approach goes even further than the CoR recommendation, which only requested the consultation of competent authorities. However, the word "regional" in Article 4(2)(d) was not taken on board.

Whilst the CoR's proposal to allow the competent authorities to decide on the introduction of public service obligations was not considered, the proposal to add criteria on territorial cohesion and compliance with safety/environmental requirements was taken on board, albeit in a different wording.

The general approach does not restrict the provision of port services by internal operators to public service obligations. It follows the CoR suggestion that internal operators should also be able to provide port services other than port services under public service obligations.

41 CoR 3610/2013. Rapporteur: Alessandro Cosimi (IT/PES).

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3312

13

The CoR rejected the idea that the European Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts on common charging principles for port infrastructure charges. The relevant paragraph was deleted in the general approach.

In the field of inland waterway transport, some of the concerns put forward in the CoR opinion on the NAIADES II package42 were already included in a question put to the Commission during the EP Plenary of the 6th February 201443, namely: a lack of adequate funding for innovation and the lack of a sound strategy and specific measures to make NAIADES II a reality. Following the question, a resolution was presented that outlined the same points and also referred to the need to speed up the integration of River Information Services (RIS) – another point raised in our opinion.

Echoing the CoR's position, in its final report the EP called for financial instruments to strengthen research and innovation in the sector, in order to integrate the sector in multi-modal transport. The EP called for the use of new financing instruments to adapt the fleets in accordance with technical developments. CoR made the same call in its opinion.

The EP amended Article 1, adding a reference to "encourage ways of leveraging the use of reserve funds in conjunction with available financial instruments, including, where appropriate, under Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility, and with financing instruments from the European Investment Bank". This is in line with the CoR view that the Reserve fund should be made more accessible. It also reflects the CoR's call to Member States to adopt other measures to help reach the objectives of the NAIADES II package.

6.1.4 Trans-European telecommunications networks

The Regulation on Guidelines for trans-European networks in the area of telecommunications infrastructure44 aims to lay down guidelines for the timely deployment of projects of common interest in the field of trans-European networks in the area of telecommunications infrastructure.

The CoR opinion45 on this Regulation proposed 11 amendments to the Commission proposal.

The following elements were taken on board in the final legislation:

- a mention of competitiveness and social inclusion46;- cooperation between Expert Groups and entities such as local and regional authorities47;

42 CoR 6651/2013. Rapporteur: Brian Meaney (IE/EA)43 By Mr Brian Simpson, Chair of TRAN committee44 OJ of the EU, L 86, volume 57, 21 March 201445 CoR 5559/2013. Rapporteur: Alin Adrian Nica (RO/ALDE)46 Part of AM 247 The idea of AM 4 was integrated in preamble 35 of the text adopted by the final Regulation

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3313

14

- the involvement of local and regional authorities in the process of exchanging information and best practices48 in relation to the implementation of this Regulation;

- the publication of a yearly overview which provides this information and its submission to the European Parliament and to the Council49.

Two other amendments were adopted by the responsible EP committee (ITRE), but not fully included in the final regulation. The CoR rapporteur also put forward compromise solutions during the trilogue negotiations.

7. Growth, jobs and inclusion

7.1 Social and inclusive growth

In its opinion on European Platform against Undeclared Work50, the CoR called for a bottom-up approach, to tackle the causes of undeclared work at local level and to adapt measures to different social, economic and geographical situations. In particular, it requested that a CoR representative be granted observer status at the Platform. The EP draft report took on board the CoR's request to amend the European Commission proposal accordingly. Documents produced by the EP and the Council at this stage of the procedure also incorporate the CoR's call for the Platform to work towards a methodology for measuring undeclared work and to use better quality data. In the opinion the CoR requests a broader consultation with national stakeholders regarding the appointment of Member State representatives to the platform. The EP is in favour of this.

In relation to the European Commission's proposal for a decision on Enhanced Cooperation between Public Employment Services,51 the CoR's Opinion52 had an important impact on the final text of the Regulation. Several points were incorporated into the final text of the Decision 53 to a significant extent, for example, the inclusion of "decent and sustainable work and occupational mobility on a fair basis" in the network objectives54. The final Decision also retained the reference to the "subnational" level55, the specific reference to the experiences and opinions of local and regional56, and the cooperation of the network with LRAs57.

48 CoR AM49 Amendment 950 CoR 3236/2014. Rapporteur: Dainis Turlais (LV/ALDE)51 Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on enhanced co-operation between Public Employment

Services (PES), COM (2013) 430 final52 COR 5278/2013. Rapporteur: Mick Antoniw (UK/PES)53 Decision no 573/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on enhanced cooperation between

public employment services (PES), OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 32–3954 Article 355 Article 156 Recital 1257 Article 5

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3314

15

7.2 Civil protection

The CoR opinion on the future framework for disaster risk reduction58 has had a considerable impact on key European stakeholders. The main messages conveyed by the opinion (e.g. the role of water treatment facilities, Public Private Partnerships, or the involvement of LRAs in the design and implementation phase) were taken up by the European Commission services and fed into the EU position on the negotiating text. Likewise, the UN local authorities' forum – ICLEI – recognised the importance of these strands and promoted the CoR position amongst its members worldwide.

7.3 Education

The CoR opinion on European Higher Education in the World59 had impact on both the Council and the European Commission:

The relevant Council conclusions refer to European linguistic diversity as a great advantage for education and, more importantly, for the CoR, also ask for the promotion of digital learning in order to guarantee that students that are not taking part in mobility programmes (e.g. from peripheral areas) can also participate and are able to develop other skills.

The European Commission acted on a major point outlined in the CoR opinion, by publishing a 'call for twinning' on 2 July 2014, as part of the Horizon2020 programme. This addressed specific challenges relating to networking gaps and disparities between research institutions in low performing Member States and regions and their internationally-renowned EU counterparts. Similar measures are called for in the CoR Opinion.

The CoR opinion on Opening up Education60 had a major impact as the European Parliament, in its decision on "New technologies and open educational resources"61 shares some of the CoR's concerns e.g.:

it stresses "that it is vital that broadband access become more widespread, including in the rural, mountain and outlying areas of the Member States"62; "schools should also train children and young people in the practical and critical use of digital technologies and the internet"63;

it stresses the importance of access to education and training and IT equipment for all learners in all age groups, as well as for those with disabilities, those coming from disadvantaged

58 COR 2646/2014. Rapporteur: Harvey Siggs GB/ECR)59 COR 5961/2013. Rapporteur: Csaba Borboly (RO/EPP)60 CoR 6183/2013. Rapporteur: Yoomi Renström (SE/PES)61 P7_TA-PROV(2014)0395, from 15 April 201462 Point J63 Point K.

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3315

16

backgrounds, young people currently not in education, employment or training (NEET) and those coming from geographically remote regions, as well as anyone wishing to improve their qualifications64;

it points out that local and regional authorities have a key role to play in developing infrastructures, disseminating and publicising various measures to a wider public, involving other local stakeholders and disseminating and implementing the relevant European initiatives at national, regional and local level65;

it calls on the Member States and the local and regional authorities to use the funding available through the European Structural and Investment Funds to overcome the territorial digital divide by improving infrastructure and networks and promoting training in ICT and the effective use thereof, taking into account the needs of educational institutions, in particular in rural and remote regions66.

8. Multilevel governance, division of powers/devolution and fiscal decentralisation

The Charter for Multilevel Governance in Europe67 had a significant impact across European cities and regions: It was adopted by the CoR on 3 April 2014 and was available for signature on the 9 May (Europe Day), in parallel with the launch of a new website presenting multilevel governance (MLG) principles and registering online signatures. A total of 200 signatures, from 179 LRAs and 21 associations or networks, were collected by January 2015. This represents roughly 81 million European citizens. It received political support from major European figures, such as Mr. Juncker, Mr. Van Rompuy and Mr. Barroso, as well as several current and former commissioners and EP committee chairs.

Furthermore, a report on Multilevel Governance and Partnership68 was drawn up by the CoR Vice-President Luc Van den Brande and was submitted on 7 October 2014 to the Commissioner for Regional Policy – Johannes Hahn. The principle of multilevel governance was then introduced to the legal provisions of the European Structural and Investment Funds for the first time. The report also provided an analysis of adherence to MLG and partnership principles in the Partnership Agreements signed between the European Commission and the 28 Member States.

In 2014, the CoR continued its involvement with the Better Regulation agenda. The CoR's contribution to the work of the High Level Group on Administrative Burdens is visible in the group's final report (its mandate ended in 2014).

64 Point 3765 Point 5666 Point 5767 CoR 1728/201468 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/upload/documents/Commissioner/VandenBrandeReport_08102014.pdf

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3316

17

The amendments proposed by the CoR in its opinion on the EU regulatory fitness (REFIT)69 have greatly influenced the European Parliament's resolution on the EU Regulatory Fitness and Subsidiarity and Proportionality70, which stated that "better law-making should be pursued in the spirit of multilevel governance" and that the REFIT evaluations carried out by the Commission shall "include input from all levels of government in the principal sectors that are of concern to local and regional authorities". The EP also called on the Commission to strengthen the territorial dimension of impact assessments in the forthcoming IA revision process.

9. Environment and Climate Change

9.1 EU strategy for adaptation to climate change

After the publication of the European Commission Communication on the EU Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change in 2013, the CoR issued, after having already worked on the issue in 201371, a third opinion on the EU strategy for adaptation to climate change72. The European Commission agreed to have a clear focus on urban settings and it launched the Mayors Adapt initiative.

9.2 Towards the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy

In 2013, the European Commission launched a round of consultation on EU climate and energy policies 2020-2030. This policy would also be in line with international climate commitments taken by the EU as part of the ongoing United Nations negotiations for a new global climate agreement – to be enforced from 2020 onwards. The CoR adopted a corresponding opinion on 30 January 2014.

As requested in this opinion, the European Parliamentary report also included a call for a closer involvement of local and regional authorities in the new climate and energy framework. Furthermore, it supported more ambition but to a lesser extent. For example, while the CoR asked for a 50% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 as compared to 1990 levels, the European Parliament asked for 40%.

As requested in a referral letter from the European Commission, dated 12 February 2014, the CoR produced the opinion A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 203073. While the European Commission did not support the views expressed in this new CoR opinion, they did welcome its ambitious stance as a tool to help negotiate a balanced solution with Member States. Its ambitious views attracted a lot of interest from stakeholders and the media, and it offered the opportunity to join forces before the UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris in 2015.

69 CoR 1389/2013. Rapporteur: Lord Graham Tope (UK/ALDE)70 P7_TA(2014)006171 CoR 1751/2012 Adaptation to climate change and regional responses: the case of coastal regions. Rapporteur: Ugo Cappellacci

(IT/EPP) and COR 89/2012 Régional specific approaches to climate change in the EU based on the example of mountainous regions. Rapporteur: Luciano Caveri (IT/ALDE)

72 CoR 3752/2013. Rapporteur: Neil Swannick (UK/PES)73 CoR2691/2014. Rapporteur: Annabelle Jaeger (FR/PES)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3317

18

9.3 EU waste policy promoting a circular economy

On 2 July 2014, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal to review recycling and other waste related targets in the EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC, the Landfill Directive 1999//31/EC and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC.

The CoR expressed its views on EU waste policy through 4 opinions: The review of the European Union's key waste targets74

Green Paper on a European strategy on plastic waste in the environment75

Proposal for a Regulation amending the Waste Shipments Regulation76

Proposal for a Directive on Lightweight Plastic Carrier Bags77

The European Commission's legislative proposal reflected most of the key recommendations in the CoR's opinion on the EU's key waste targets (see footnote 74). The three main recommendations incorporated are as follows:- raising the current mandatory target for the recycling of solid municipal waste to 70% (by 2030, whereas the CoR was more ambitious – calling for a target year of 2025);- raising the current mandatory recycling targets for packaging waste;- phasing out landfill sites for recyclable and biodegrable waste by 2025 (CoR called for a target of 2020);

The European Parliament incorporated the following legislative amendments proposed by the CoR opinion on waste shipment regulation:- waste inspection plans should provide information on reporting concerns or irregularities; - the outcomes of inspections, including any penalties imposed, should be made available to the public – also electronically;- Member States shall cooperate, bilaterally and multilaterally, with one another in order to facilitate the prevention and detection of illegal shipments. They shall exchange relevant information on waste shipments, waste flows and operators and facilities. They shall also share experience and knowledge of enforcement measures.

Furthermore, the final regulation – No 660/2014 of the European Parliament and the Council of 15 May 2014 amending the waste shipments regulation – includes the following elements, which the CoR called for in its legislative amendments: Member States have to provide information of the persons or bodies to which concerns or

irregularities can be reported (amendment to Annex IX);

74 CoR 1617/2013. Rapporteur: Michel Lebrun (BE/EPP)75 CoR 3751/2013. Rapporteur: Linda Gillham (UK/EA)76 CoR 5880/2013. Rapporteur: Paula Baker (UK/ALDE)77 CoR 8067/2013. Rapporteur: Linda Gillham (UK/EA)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3318

19

the outcomes of inspections, including any penalties imposed, should be made available to the public, including electronically (amendment to Annex IX);

Member States shall cooperate, bilaterally and multilaterally (…). They shall exchange relevant information (…) and share experience and knowledge on enforcement measures (…). (new wording of Art. 50(5)).

All of the aforementioned opinions, including the opinion on plastic waste in the environment, have been able to influence the "Circular Economy Package"78 published on 2 July 2014. This consists of the communication "Towards a circular economy" and a legislative proposal that revises several waste directives.

Both the communication and the legislative proposal reflect some of the CoR's recommendations:

the ceasing of EU funding for landfill and incineration. EU funding will only be allocated to energy recovery if this forms part of a coherent waste management strategy, which includes sufficient facilities for earlier stages in the waste chain;

the introduction of an ambitious target of reducing marine litter by 30 % by 2020. This applies to the ten most common types of litter found on beaches, as well as to fishing gear found at sea. The list is adapted to suit each of the four marine regions in the EU;

the phasing out of landfilling of recyclable and biodegrable waste by 2025 (the CoR had called for a landfill ban on plastics and highly combustible waste by 2020);

extended producer responsibility, and an accelerated, systematic introduction of economic instruments to the field of waste management by Member States and LRAs. This will be achieved by promoting economic instruments in waste management and compliance plans and by introducing minimum requirements for extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes;

increased targets for plastic packaging waste; new proposed provisions that waste management plans have to include measures to combat

littering, and that Member States shall also address littering through the enforcement of these measures.

78 CoR 4083/2015. Rapporteur: Mariana Gâju (RO/PES)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3319

20

9.4 EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the Aichi targets

With the opinion multilevel governance in promoting the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and implementing the international Aichi Targets79, some considerable impact was achieved at international level: In direct negotiations with the Council, the rapporteur could add a mention that the Council recognises the role of local and regional authorities in achieving the international Aichi Targets and implementing the EU stratigc plans for Biodiversity;with regard to the decisions by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on "Engagement with Subnational and Local Governments, the rapporteur succeeded, via the EU delegation, to have a reference to land-use planning included in this decision adopted by CBD COP 12. Echoing the CoR's opinion, the decision calls on all governments to integrate biodiversity into land-use and infrastructure and encourages local and sub-national governments to undertake sustainable urbanisation and land-use planning. The CoR influenced the "Gangwon/Pyeongchang Resolution for Cities and Subnational Governments" adopted by the "Biodiversity Summit for Cities and Subnational Governments" held in parallel to COP 12. This includes the suggestion that the CBD Decision X/22 "Plan of Action on Subnational Governments, Cities and other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (2011-2020)" should inspire the setting up of a similar process under the UNFCCC80. The resolution was later shared by the Governor of the Province with the parties to the CBD COP12. The CoR successfully contributed to the resolution text, adding several text elements, including that the CBD Decision X/22 "Plan of Action on Subnational Governments, Cities and other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (2011-2020)" should feed into a similar process to be set up under the UNFCCC. Following close contacts between the rapporteur and the European Commisson, the 5th National Report of the EU to the CBD, mentioned: "The EU welcomes the involvement of the Committee of the Regions in the implementation framework. The EU recognises the key role played by local and regional authorities, together with Member States, in the delivery of a multilevel, cooperative and integrated approach towards the Aichi targets and the related targets of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. Several local and regional authorities are actively involved in the programmes for capacity building and sharing good practice supported by the LIFE and cohesion policy, in particular INTERREG programmes. Their involvement is also reflected in the latest opportunities, such as the new ‘Biogeographical process’ and its Natura 2000 communication platform, and the new Natura 2000 Award scheme."The rapporteur succeeded, via the EU delegation, in securing the inclusion of a reference to land use planning in Decision XII/9 adopted by CBD COP 12.

79 CoR 8074/2013. Rapporteur: Kadri Tilleman (EE/EPP).80 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3320

21

10. Agriculture

Following the establishment of a new CAP, the CoR adopted an opinion on information and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries81.

With the new system for information and promotion, the European Commission aims to create a more ambitious promotion policy, which is more focused on the needs of European and third-country markets.

The following CoR requests have been taken on board in the final act, which was adopted by the Council after Parliament's first reading in October 2014:- A reference to the geographical origin of a product;82

- Access to information provisions and promotion measures on the internal market and in the third countries for wine;83 - The involvement of Member States in the evaluation and selection of programmes; - The increase of European co-financing, especially for information and promotion measures during agricultural crises and as regards multi-programmes in third countries84.

The CoR opinion on Organic production85 influenced the position of Member States during the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting on 10 November 2014. CoR concerns were taken up, such as: the need to reintroduce the possibility of mixed organic and non-organic production, the need to maintain exceptional rules which address the significant differences in geographical and socio-economic conditions throughout Europe.

In line with views expressed in the CoR opinion on Agricultural Genetic Resources86, the European Parliament decided to reject the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law)87 and it asked the Commission to submit a new proposal.

81 Rapporteur: Pedro Sanz Alonso (ES/EPP). COR 8096/2013.82 Recital (7), Article 4(2)83 Recital (9). Article 5(3)a)84 Article 1585 CdR Rapporteur: Willemien Hester Maij (NL/EPP)86 CdR 1277/2014. Rapporteur: Giuseppe Varacalli (IT/PES )87 COM(2013) 262

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3321

22

11. Maritime affairs and fisheries

The purpose of the Directive on Maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management88 is to establish a framework for maritime spatial planning. This framework is aimed at promoting the sustainable growth of maritime economies, the sustainable development of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources. In its opinion89 the CoR called for full consideration to be given to the impact and implications of the proposed Directive for local and regional authorities and that areas where the proposed Directive may undermine existing competences and functions of local/regional authorities be highlighted, especially in the field of planning policy. It also requested that recommendations be put forward as appropriate.

The CoR amendments were (partially) taken up by the co-legislators on the following issues:

- the approach to be applied90: - the review by the Member States91;- "enhanced cross-border cooperation" was added92

The European Commission incorporated the CoR recommendation "that reform of the State Aid regulations for fisheries and aquaculture must be undertaken on the basis of supporting and facilitating delivery of the reform of the CFP as a fundamental underlying principle" in its "Draft Guidelines for the examination of State aid to the fishery and aquaculture sector," as part of the public consultation framework93 on State Aid Fisheries and Aquaculture.94

The new guidelines insist on the need for all applicants to respect the rules of the CFP, recalling that sanctions (temporary or definitive ineligibility) are anticipated by the EMFF regulation – with the exception of aid granted in the event of a natural disaster. The Commission also recalls that no aid will be considered as compatible if it relates to operations deemed ineligible under the EMFF. Moreover, export aid will not be deemed compatible.

88 OJ of the EU, L 257, volume 57, 28 August 201489 CoR 3766/2013. Rapporteur: Paul Odonoghue (IE/ALDE)90 Recital 391 Article 6(3)92 Article 1 (2)93 Public consultation open from 21.11.2014 to 20.01.20194 CoR 5293/2013. Rapporteur: Rhodri Glyn Thomas (EA/UK)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3322

23

12. Europe for citizens

12.1 Reconnecting the EU with its citizens

The year 2014 saw elections at the European Parliament and the appointment of the new European Commission. Moreover, the Committee of the Regions stepped up its efforts to promote a decentralized EU communication policy. The CoR opinion Reconnecting Europe with its citizens95, contributed to public debate on rebuilding citizens' trust in the European integration project. The opinion received a lot of direct interest from the EU institutions – the European Parliament and the European Commission – and managed to influence their deliberations on the new multi-annual communication strategies. Following the opinion's recommendation, the CoR organised a series of decentralised communication events in collaboration with other institutions – these were termed "citizens' dialogues" and formed an integral part of the "Europe in my Region" initiative. The first citizens' dialogues were launched in November 2014 and took place in Namur (Belgium) and Zagreb (Croatia).

13. Europe as a global actor

13.1 Enlargement

In a response to the CoR's annual opinion on the EU Enlargement strategy96, the European Commission recognised the CoR's call for the state of local and regional self-government to be included in the Annual Progress Reports of candidate countries, as part of the political criteria for stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy.

13.2 Eastern Partnership

The activities of the CoR's CORLEAP have had a direct impact in neighbouring countries: In 2014, the situation in Ukraine remained a top priority in the EU's Eastern Neighbourhood region. The CoR delegation – led by the CoR president – took part in a high-level dialogue with Ukrainian partners during its two missions to Kiev in January and July 2014. After an appeal made by the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Volodymyr Groysman, at the CoR's April Plenary Session, the CoR committed to a more structured form of cooperation with the Ukrainian authorities. It placed special focus on assisting with state governance reform in order to help achieve greater levels of decentralisation.

With regard to the Eastern neighbourhood region as a whole, the Fourth Annual CORLEAP meeting held in Tbilisi in September confirmed the city's firm place on the Eastern Partnership's political map. The main political outcome of the meeting in Tbilisi was the approval of the recommendations to be put to the heads of state and government gathering in Riga in May 2015, for the EaP Summit. 

95 CoR 4460/2014. Rapporteur: Christophe Rouillon (FR/PES)96 CoR 6834/2013. Rapporteur: Arnoldas Abramavičius (LT/EPP)

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3323

24

In 2014, CORLEAP continued its work on EU funds available to the Eastern Partnership countries under the MFF 2014-2020, in cooperation with its partner organisations: the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). A conference on "Funding and Financing Opportunities" took place in Tbilisi, alongside the annual CORLEAP meeting. CORLEAP subsequently launched a publication on "EU financial assistance available to LRAs in the Eastern Partnership countries," which sums up the essence of the conference. The booklet was published at the beginning of 2015 and it contains a funding guide based on a study by Aston University and an overview of funding tools offered by the EIB and the EBRD.

13.3 Southern Neighbourhood

The ARLEM platform has contributed to several ministerial meetings of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), including meetings on industrial cooperation, the environment and climate change. As a result, LRAs were mentioned. Specifically, they appear in the declarations adopted at the meetings. The UfM's work programme for 2015 specifically refers to ARLEM's capacity building project in relation to urban development.

In 2014, The ARLEM secretariat published a map of decentralisation and regionalisation in the countries to the East and South of the Mediterranean97, thus providing ARLEM with a new tool to analyse and monitor related trends. It also facilitates an exchange of expertise, enabling new partnerships to be established throughout the Mediterranean.

13.4 Development Policy

In 2014, the CoR successfully guided the debate on the role of local and regional authorities in development policy, at what was a very crucial moment, given the ongoing negotiations on the post-2015 Development Framework and the run-up to the 2015 European Year for Development.

The CoR opinion on Empowering local authorities in partner countries for enhanced governance and more effective development outcomes98, received very positive feedback from the European Commission, and directly from Commissioner Pielbags in his letter to the chair of the CoR's CIVEX commission. The CoR influenced the Communication A Decent Life For All: From Vision To Collective Action99 by proposing to include a stand-alone target on urbanisation.

The Commission, in its 56th follow up report on CoR opinions, reiterated its support for local authorities and their associations in partner countries, and confirmed their access to funding under the EU external action financial instruments100.

97 http://portal.cor.europa.eu/arlem 98 CoR 2010/2013. Rapporteur: Hans Janssen (NL/EPP)99 COM/2014/0335 final100 Thematic Programme "Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities in Development" of the Development Cooperation

Instrument (DCI)for the period 2014-2020

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3324

25

The CoR's efforts are also reflected in the European Parliament's resolution on the EU and the global development framework after 2015,101 which includes a specific heading on "Local authorities and national parliaments".

The CoR organised a number of events in this field, including a seminar on localising the post-2015 development agenda, which was organised in July 2014 in collaboration with the UNDP. This event provided a contribution to the corresponding UN reports and results102.

14. Conclusions and Outlook

The Impact Report 2014 has provided a detailed overview of the Committee of the Regions' work and achievements within the European decision-making process. Due to elections at the European Parliament and the setting up of a new European Commission, the legislative work carried out at the other institutions was limited in 2014 in comparison with previous years. During this challenging period, which also coincided with its own end of mandate, the Committee of the Regions highlighted the need to communicate its key messages to the EP and Council. The latter two institutions were trying to complete remaining legislative files before the new term in office.

Many of the points put forward by the CoR were taken up by the other institutions and the CoR continued to play a relevant and coherent institutional role in many fields. It contributed in particular to: budgetary issues, rebuilding citizens' trust in the European integration project, the Fourth Railway Package, the process of modernising the state aid mechanism for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, the Circular Economy Package, information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries and enhanced cooperation between public employment services.

With regard to interinstitutional relations, cooperation with the European Parliament and the European Commission is still very good. The CoR rapporteurs and CoR staff regularly meet with their EP and EC counterparts during the process of drafting and following up on opinions. The new Cooperation Agreement with the European Parliament provides a valuable opportunity to develop political alliances and joint activities between CoR commissions and EP committees in relation to several key areas of common interest. A number of priority files have been therefore identified as offering potential for enhanced cooperation. Closer effective bilateral cooperation between the chairs of the two institutions and between their respective rapporteurs is to be established.

In the past year, the European Commission has dedicated much of its time to preparing and analysing future initiatives and legislative proposals. All pending proposals have been reviewed with a view to confirming or withdrawing some of them and thus lightening the regulatory load. Fewer referrals

101 TA(2014)0059102 Specific CoR reference in the report "Localizing the post-2015 development agenda – Report on stakeholder dialogue on

implementation" by UNDP, UN-HABITAT and the "Global Taskforce of local and regional governments for post-2015 development agenda towards Habitat III"

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3325

26

coming from the European Commission means that the CoR commissions more often react to EC activities through own-initiative opinions or other political activities. This trend will most probably increase next year.

Nevertheless, the main task conferred to the Committee of the Regions by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) is to issue opinions as laid down by the Treaties. The CoR must continue to be strongly committed to making relevant contributions to the interinstitutional decision-making process, and to conveying local and regional perspectives.

With the prospect of fewer new initiatives coming from the Commission, the CoR must consider a more strategic approach to developing its thematic policies and to influencing the decision-making process more proactively. This includes the pre-legislative phase when the Commission considers whether or not it will take action in a particular policy area.

Each of the CoR commissions will focus on developing and implementing thematic policy strategies within their respective areas of responsibility, while ensuring coherence with the institution's overall political priorities set out in the Plenary Assembly Resolutions.

These thematic policy strategies can be developed by the commissions through innovative and proactive working methods (such as organising more debates/hearings and stakeholder consultations within the commission meetings). Their implementation should be supported by involving members closely in new activities and by making better use of individual skills and expertise.

As part of this new approach to consultation, the CoR commissions will need to monitor and politically assess the activities and intentions of the European Commission. They may call on the Commission to act where it might not otherwise intend to. This requires a more thoughtful approach to the preparation of own-initiative opinions. Moreover, qualitative and quantitative data from the CoR's networks and platforms will be able to provide more analytical and evidence-based support. This will substantiate the political messages of CoR commission members which are transmitted to other EU institutions through written and oral consultations.

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3326

27

15. List of CoR opinions with impact in 201315.1 CIVEX

CIVEX-V-020 – VAN DEN BRANDE - Building a European Culture of Multilevel Governance: Follow-up to the Committee of the Regions' white paper

CIVEX-V-040- TOPE -EU Regulatory Fitness CIVEX-V-041 – JANSSEN - Empowering local authorities in partner countries for enhanced

governance and more effective development outcomes CIVEX-V-046 – ABRAMAVICIUS - Enlargement strategy and main challenges 2013-2014 CIVEX-V-047 – HAKANSSON - The future EU policies on Justice and Home Affairs CIVEX-V-048 – GEBLEWICZ - Neighbourhood at the Crossroads: Implementation of the

European neighbourhood Policy in 2013 CIVEX-V-049 – ROUILLON - Reconnecting Europe with its citizens: more and better

communication at local level CIVEX-V-054 – DECOSTER - Efforts to promote genuine solidarity on a real European

migration policy

15.2 COTER BUDG-V-007 – STRUZIK - Execution of the EU Budget BUDG-V-008 – DURDU - Draft EU Budget 2015 BUDG-V-009 – MARINI - Promoting quality of public spending COTER-V-026 - Werner - Airport Package COTER-V-029 - SZWABSKI - Code of conduct on partnership COTER-V-031 – GARVIE - Community led local development COTER-V-036 - MANGIN - The Fourth railway package COTER-V-037 – KALEV- Clean Power for Transport COTER-V-038 - SCHNEIDER - Assessing territorial impacts COTER-V-040 - Nunez Feijoo – Recommendations for better spending COTER-V-041 - COSIMI - Framework on the future EU ports' policy including legislative

proposals COTER-V-042 - HAIJANEN - The added value of macro-regional strategies COTER-V-043 - MARINI - EU Guidelines on State Aid to Airports and Airlines COTER-V-044 - BRANDA - European Union Solidarity Fund COTER-V-045 - MEANEY - NAIADES II package COTER-V-046 - VERKERK- Towards an integrated urban agenda for the EU COTER-V-047 - SPACCA - EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) COTER-V-048 - BORE - Urban Mobility package COTER-V-049 - KEYMER- Mobility in demographically and geographically challenged

regions COTER-V-050 – VAN STAA - An Alpine macro-regional strategy for the European Union

15.3 ECON

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3327

28

ECOS-V-38 – CARS 2020: Action plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in Europe, Christian Buchmann (AT/EPP)

ECOS-V-49– European Long-term Investment Funds, Simone Beissel (LU/ALDE) ECOS-V-51 – EU guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty

(revised opinion), Christophe Rouillon (FR/PES)

15.4 SEDEC EDUC-V-035 – Disability, sport and leisure EDUC-V-036 – Guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks EDUC-V-038 – European Higher Education in the World EDUC-V-039 – Opening up education ECOS-V-046 – Enhanced Cooperation between Public Employment Services ECOS-V-50 – The social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union ECOS-V-60 – A European Platform against Undeclared Work

15.5 ENVE ENVE-V-035 – The review of the European Union's key waste targets ENVE-V-036 – Green Paper on a European strategy on plastic waste in the environment ENVE-V-037 – EU Strategy for adaptation to climate change ENVE-V-038 – Green Paper on Framing 2030 Climate and Energy Policy ENVE-V-040 – Proposal for a Regulation amending the Waste Shipments Regulation ENVE-V-043 –– Proposal for a Directive on Lightweight Plastic Carrier Bags ENVE-V-045 – Multilevel governance in promoting the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

and implementing the international Aichi Targets ENVE-V-047 – A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030

15.6 NAT NAT-V-30 - Framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management NAT-V- 32- State Aid Fisheries and Aquaculture NAT-V-36 - Information provision and promotion measures for agricultural products on the

internal market and in third countries NAT-V-37 - Agricultural Genetic Resources NAT-V-39 – Organic production NAT-V-041 - European strategy for coastal and maritime tourism NAT-V-042 -The post 2015 Hyogo Framework for Action: Managing risks to achieve

resilience_________________________

COR-2015-03204-03-00-NB-REF 3328