Policy Committee

COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS EUROPEAN SECTION OF UNITED CITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

POLICY COMMITTEE

Reykjavik, 5 May 2008

ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page n°

Draft European Charter of Regional Democracy (at 13.3.08) ...... 3

Supporting documentation to nominations received for the new Chair of the twinning network ...... 17

CEMR's response to the Green Paper on adaptation to climate change ...... 21

CEMR's response to the Green Paper on urban mobility ...... 35

CEMR’s response to the Public Consultation on the Active Inclusion of People Furthest from the Labour Market ...... 47

CEMR's response to the consultation on the future of EU cohesion policy ...... 55

List of signatories of the European Charter for Equality of Women and Men in Local Life (at 17th April 2008) ...... 61

VNG/Municipal Alliance for Peace detailed proposal for strengthening and institutionalisation of MAP ...... 67

Euro-Arab Cities Forum, Dubai (10-11 February), report and final declaration ...... 71

The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities

APPENDIX

Draft European Charter of Regional Democracy

(version of 13 March 2008)

Preamble

The member states of the Council of Europe [and other states], signatory hereto,

Democratic developments in Europe

1. Believing that the strengthening of local and regional democracy is one of the Council of Europe's major concerns and that all the member states are under constant pressure to adapt their territorial structures of government;

2. Noting that the right of citizens to participate in the conduct of public affairs at all levels of government is one of the democratic principles that are shared by all the member states and that the exercise of that right at regional level contributes to the entrenchment of democratic values and the rule of law;

3. Recalling the results of the Conferences of European Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government held in Helsinki in June 2002, in Budapest in February 2005 and in Valencia in October 2008;

Identity and regional culture

4. Believing that regional democracy helps to balance the effects of globalisation in the member states, particularly through regional policies of economic stimulation, social solidarity, cultural development and safeguarding of regional identities;

5. Taking into account the benefits of regional action in the fields of integration of minorities as well as in transfrontier and interregional co-operation;

6. Considering that regional entities bear witness, through their identities, to Europe’s diversity and contribute to the enrichment of European cultures with due regard to national and regional traditions;

7. Bearing in mind the objectives of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages regarding promotion of the regional linguistic heritage;

8. Affirming that regional democracy presupposes the existence of a level of regional authority endowed with democratically elected and freely organised decision-making bodies possessing a wide degree of autonomy and sufficient resources with regard to their responsibilities and the ways and means by which those responsibilities are exercised;

Regional democracy and central government

9. Respecting the diverse ways in which Europe's regions are organised and each state's competence for determining the scope of regional democracy and the conditions governing its exercise;

10. Recognising the interest of states which are at the start of a regionalisation process in gradually developing regional democracy;

11. Aware of the obligation of regional entities to respect in all their actions the principles of sovereignty, national integrity and the safeguarding of key national interests in the European integration process;

4 12. Considering that regional entities must contribute by their actions to stability and peace between European nations and peoples;

Regional democracy and local authorities

13. Bearing in mind the European Charter of Local Self-Government of 15 October 1985, which is complementary to the present Charter;

14. Asserting that regional democracy must not be achieved at the expense of the autonomy of local authorities;

Regional democracy and Human Rights

15. Aware of the importance of upholding the fundamental rights embodied in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Have agreed as follows:

Article 1:

Each Party undertakes:

- to apply without reservations the principles and rules set out in Part I of the Charter;

- to consider itself bound by one of the paragraphs a), b) or c) under each of the six sections in Part II;

- to consider itself bound by at least 27 of the 41 paragraphs in Part III.

Article 2:

Each Party shall, in its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, specify the communities or authorities within its borders which qualify as regional authorities within the meaning of this Charter.

Part I: Key elements of Regional Democracy Article 3: Principle of democratic governance

The recognition and exercise of regional self-government is one of the elements of democratic governance, which means that regional authorities must be founded on democratic principles, on respect for human rights and on the pursuit of objectives of peace, stability, prosperity and solidarity-based durable development.

Article 4: Citizen participation

Regional authorities shall encourage the exercise of citizens’ right to participate in the management of public affairs and shall aim to bring the administration closer to the public.

Article 5: Principle of subsidiarity

The allocation of public responsibilities to regional authorities shall be governed by the principle of subsidiarity, as applicable to the relations of competence among all tiers of government, which means that regional authorities shall assume those responsibilities which are best exercised at regional level on account of their scale, their nature and the requirements of efficiency and economy.

Article 6: Principle of good governance and administration

6.1 The exercise of regional self-government shall comply with the principles of informed decision-making and evaluation of decisions made, as well as pursue aims of flexibility, openness, transparency, participation and public accountability.

6.2 The performance of public tasks at regional level shall comply with the principles of good administration and good quality of public services.

Article 7: Concept and definition of a regional authority

7.1 For the purposes of this convention, regional authorities are entities between central government and local authorities.

7.2 The present Charter does not preclude regional authorities from being considered a type of local authority within the domestic legal order, or a single authority from exercising the combined competences of both a local authority and a regional authority.

Article 8: Relations with local authorities

8.1 The relationship between regional authorities and local authorities shall be regulated according to the principles of local self-government as set out in the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

8.2 There is not explicity hierarchical relationship between regional authorities and local authorities, unless the country’s constitutional or legal order so provides.

8.3 Regional authorities shall co-operate with local authorities in the pursuit of objectives of general interest and to meet citizens’ needs.

Article 9: Principle of loyalty and respect for territorial integrity

9.1 The relationship between regional authorities and central government shall be based on the principle of mutual loyalty and equal dignity and shall entail respect for the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state.

9.2 Regional self-government necessarily entails compliance with the rule of law and the respect of the territorial organisation of every state whether in relations between central government and regional authorities, relations between regional authorities and other territorial authorities or relations between regional authorities and citizens.

9.3 Regional authorities shall take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from the Constitution or the law.

Article 10: Principle of cohesion

The exercise of regional self-government shall contribute to the central government’s economic and social cohesion objectives and to central government activities aimed at achieving comparable living conditions and balanced development throughout national territory, in a spirit of solidarity between regional authorities.

Article 11: Constitutional or legal basis of regional self-government

11.1 The principles of regional self-government and the existence of regional authorities shall be established by the Constitution, by law or by international treaty.

11.2 The conditions governing the creation, modification or abolition of regional authorities shall be determined by the Constitution or by law. Regional authorities shall be consulted before any measures are taken concerning their existence or changes to their territorial boundaries.

11.3 Regional competences shall be defined by the Constitution, by law and by the regional authorities' statutes.

Article 12: Scope of regional self-government

12.1 Regional authorities shall have the legal competence and the effective ability, within the limits of the Constitution and the law, to regulate and manage all matters of regional interest which are not excluded from their competences or attributed to another authority by the Constitution or by statute,under their own responsibility and in the interests of the population.

12.2 Regional authorities’ own competences shall be full and exclusive. Within the limits of these competences, regional authorities shall have decision-making and administrative competences.

12.3 Within the statutory limits, competences may be delegated to regional authorities by central government, local authorities or other public authorities.

Article 13: Right of initiative

Regional authorities shall have full discretion to exercise their initiative in an area of responsibility which is not assigned to any other authority by the constitution or by law.

Article 14: Regional elected bodies

The right of regional self-government shall be exercised by assemblies elected through direct, free and secret suffrage. This provision shall in no way affect recourse to assemblies of citizens, referendums or any other form of direct citizen participation, where it is permitted by law, or, in exceptional, temporary circumstances, to assemblies democratically elected by other tiers of authority.

Article 15: Conditions of office of elected representatives composing regional bodies

15.1 The conditions of office of regional elected representatives shall provide for the free exercise of their functions, without prejudice to any mandates assigned to them by the authorities they represent. Members of the council or assembly shall have the right to express themselves freely.

15.2 Any functions and activities which are deemed incompatible with the holding of regional elected office shall be determined by law.

15.3 Only sanctions provided for by law may be taken against the elected members of regional bodies. They shall be proportionate to the importance of the interests they are intended to protect and shall be subject to judicial review. Suspension and dismissal shall be provided for solely in cases where the body concerned is unable to function or where serious breaches of the Constitution or the law have been found by a judicial or appropriate administrative authority independent of the body of which the elected representative is a member.

Article 16: Resources of regional authorities

16.1 Regional authorities shall have the right to own property.

16.2 Regional authorities shall be entitled to financial resources that are provided for by law, foreseeable and sufficient for the effective exercise of their competences and responsibilities.

16.3 Regional authorities’ resources shall be sufficiently diversified and, on the one hand, provide them with reasonable stability and, on the other, enable them to keep pace with the real evolution of the cost of carrying out their tasks.

16.4 Financial transfers to regional authorities shall be governed by rules established by law and based on objective criteria relating to regional competences.

16.5 Any transfer of competence to regional authorities shall be accompanied by a transfer of corresponding financial resources.

16.6 State transfers to regional authorities should in principle not be earmarked.

Article 17: Self-organisation of regional authorities

Regional authorities shall freely determine their internal structures, their administrative system and their organisation, within the general framework defined by the Constitution, by law or by regional statutes.

Article 18: Right of association, interregional co-operation and external relations

18.1 Regional authorities and other territorial authorities may, within the limits of the law and in matters within their competence, define their mutual relationships and co-operate with each other. They shall be entitled to form associations, including with other territorial authorities.

18.2 Regional authorities shall also have the right to be members of international organisations of regional and/or local authorities. Regional authorities may engage in interregional and transfrontier co-operation with territorial authorities of other countries, within the limits of their competence and in compliance with the law and the international commitments and foreign policy of the state.

18.3 Where the need arises regional authorities shall be involved in the activities of European and international institutions or be represented therein through bodies established for this purpose.

Article 19: Right to be consulted

Regional authorities shall be involved in all decision-making that affects their competences and essential interests.

Article 20: Supervision of regional authority acts

20.1 Any supervision of acts relating to regional authorities’ own competences may be exercised only according to the procedures and in the cases provided for in the Constitution, by law or by statute. Such supervision shall be exercised in such a way as to ensure that the intervention of the supervisory authority is kept proportionate to the importance of the interests which it is intended to protect. Such supervision shall be exercised only ex post facto.

20.2 Any supervision of regional authorities concerning the exercise of their own competences shall be aimed solely at ensuring their activities' compliance with the law and with constitutional principles. However, the supervision of the implementation of delegated powers or tasks of execution entrusted to them may include an appraisal of expediency and efficiency.

Article 21: Protection of regional self-government

8 Regional authorities shall be entitled to apply to a judicial authority to ensure respect for the free exercise of their powers and the principles of regional self-government enshrined in the Constitution or in law.

9 Part II

Article 22: Different forms of organisation of regional authorities

The regional democracy promoted by this Charter may find expression in different organisational forms: a federal system, a system of decentralised regional authorities or a local authority cooperation structure. In order to comply with the principles set out in Part I, the Contracting Parties agree to be bound by one of the paragraphs, a), b) or c), of each of the six sections below.

Article 23: Guarantee of existence a) The existence of regional authorities is guaranteed by the Constitution. The existence or territorial boundaries of a regional authority may be interfered with only under the rules and procedures provided for by the Constitution. b) The existence of regional authorities is provided for by the Constitution or by law. The existence or territorial boundaries of a regional authority may be interfered with only under the rules and procedures provided for by the Constitution or by law. c) Regional authorities can be set up in the form of groupings of local authorities according to conditions defined by law.

Article 24: Functions a) The functions of regional authorities are determined by the Constitution. In the areas relating to their own functions regional authorities are fully empowered to exercise standard-setting (legislative or regulatory), decision-making and administrative powers. Where functions are delegated to regional authorities by other public authorities, regional authorities must be able to adapt their exercise to the conditions specific to the region. b) The competences of regional authorities are determined by the Constitution or by law. Regional authorities have decision-making and administrative competences of their own. These powers must enable them to adopt and implement policies specific to them. c) The competences of regional authorities are determined by law or by their statutes. States and other public authorities may delegate competences to them or assign implementing tasks to them.

Article 25: Resources a) Regional authorities' resources and the conditions of their use are determined by the Constitution. b) Regional authorities must have resources of which they can dispose freely. A significant proportion of those resources must derive from taxes and charges whose rates they are empowered to determine within the limits provided for by law. c) Regional authorities’ resources and their conditions of use are determined by law or by their statutes. These resources can consist of contributions from member authorities.

Article 26:. Principal bodies a) Regional authorities have an assembly elected by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot. The bodies responsible for exercising executive functions are accountable to this assembly.

10 b) Regional authorities have an assembly elected by direct universal suffrage. Executive bodies are appointed or elected by the assembly or elected by the population. They report on their activities to the assembly. c) Pending reform relating to the direct election of the regional assembly, it shall temporarily be made up of elected representatives of the local authorities composing the region.

Article 27: Supervision a) Central government supervision of regional authorities must be provided for by the Constitution and must aim only to ensure that their action complies with the rules governing them. It must be possible to refer any dispute between central government and a regional authority to a constitutional judicial authority. b) Supervision of regional authorities must be provided for by the Constitution or by law. c) Supervision of regional authorities is determined by law or their statutes.

Article 28: Co-operation with other levels of public authorities a) Regional authorities may be vested with competences to organise, assign functions to and supervise local authorities, while complying with the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. b) Regional authorities exercise no supervision over local authorities. c) The relations between regional authorities and other public authorities are determined by law or by their statutes.

Part III – Forms of regional organisation

Article 29: Areas of responsibility of regional authorities

29.1 Regional authorities shall be responsible for promoting regional culture and defending and enhancing the region's cultural heritage, including regional languages.

29.2 Regional economic development shall constitute an important aspect of regional responsibilities, to be carried out in partnership with economic operators in the region.

29.3 Regional authorities shall help to adapt education and training facilities to employment development requirements in the region.

29.4 Social welfare and public health shall be among the areas of activity of regional authorities, which shall also be responsible for promoting social cohesion in the region.

29.5 Balanced development of the territory shall constitute a major objective of any action by regional authorities affecting the territorial organisation of the region.

29.6 Regional authorities shall be responsible for protecting and enhancing natural resources and biodiversity and shall ensure the sustainable development of the region, with due regard for local, national, European and international policies in this respect.

Article 30: Shared responsibilities

In areas where responsibility is shared, dialogue, arbitration and co-operation mechanisms are set up to ensure the coherence of public policy and respect for regional competences.

Article 31: Delegated responsibilities

31.1 The instrument delegating responsibilities shall, in so far as is reasonable, include a definition of resources, in particular material and financial resources, for the effective discharge of the responsibilities delegated to regional authorities.

31.2 Regional authorities shall, as far as possible and within the limits of the law, be allowed discretion to adapt the discharge of delegated responsibilities to the conditions specific to the region.

31.3 Within the limits laid down by the Constitution or by law, regional authorities can contribute to the management of competences assigned to other territorial authorities.

Article 32: Assignment of executive tasks

Pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity and within the limits of the law, regional authorities may be assigned responsibility for performing, at regional level, tasks which fall within the competence of the national government.

Article 33: Exercise of ownership

33.1 Regional authorities shall be entitled to own and utilise property and to transfer ownership or management thereof to inter-regional co-operation structures, public services or other bodies, in the exercise of their competences and responsibilities in the public interest and within the limits of the law.

12 33.2 Where permitted by law, compulsory acquisition of regional authority assets shall be carried out only in accordance with a legal procedure, for the public benefit and in exchange for fair compensation.

Article 34: Application of the principle of concomitant financing

34.1 The principle that the financial resources of regional authorities shall be commensurate with their competences and responsibilities and sufficient for the effective discharge of their responsibilities shall be laid down in the constitution or by law.

34.2 Revenue losses incurred by regional authorities as a result of decisions by higher authorities to abolish or reduce regional taxes or decrease the tax base shall be offset with stable, adequate equivalent resources.

34.3 In the event of a transfer of new responsibilities, the resources transferred shall be at least equivalent to those that the authority which originally had these responsibilities allocated to their discharge; these resources may include financial resources, property and/or staff.

34.4 The obligation to transfer adequate resources or authorise the raising of new resources shall also apply in the case of decisions resulting in changes in general cost factors such as wages and salaries, social security costs or environmental protection standards.

Article 35: Own financial resources

35.1 A substantial proportion of the financial resources of regional authorities shall be derived from charges which they are free to set and from regional taxation (whether exclusive or shared) the level of which they are able to decide, where appropriate within limits predetermined in accordance with the law.

35.2 The proportion of own resources shall be sufficiently large to give regional authorities a real margin for manoeuvre in the discharge of the responsibility incumbent on them in respect of the exercise of their own competences.

Article 36: General and specific grants

36.1 Systems of general and specific grants shall assure regional authorities of economic and financial stability and take account of factors such as economic growth, cost increases, wages and salary increases and changing social and environmental minima.

36.2 Grants to regional authorities intended to finance specific projects shall be limited in number and shall concern, in particular, cases involving investment and the discharge of delegated responsibilities.

36.3 If grants are conditional on contributions from the regional authorities in receipt of them, the level of contributions shall take account of the financial capacity of these regional authorities.

Article 37: Financial equalisation

37.1 Financial equalisation is aimed at reducing, on the one hand, disparities due to structural factors inherent in regional authorities and, on the other hand, differences in regional authorities' overall financial capacity.

37.2. Equalisation criteria and procedures shall be defined by law and shall be objective, clear, transparent, foreseeable, verifiable and non-discriminatory.

13 37.3 Equalisation procedures shall aim to achieve an equitable level of equalisation and shall not undermine the exercise of regional self-government or hamper the free administration of regional authorities.

Article 38: Remuneration and protection of elected representatives

38.1 The conditions of office of elected representatives shall provide for an allowance and/or adequate financial compensation for expenses incurred in the exercise of the office in question as well as, where appropriate, full or partial compensation for loss of earnings or remuneration for the work done and corresponding social welfare protection.

38.2 Regional bodies and elected representatives shall have the right to apply to a court or independent administrative authority against any dissolution, suspension or dismissal decision. Pending the outcome of the judicial proceedings, no sanction shall be taken save in exceptional circumstances provided for by law.

Article 39: Conditions applicable to staff

39.1 The conditions applicable to regional authority staff shall be such as to permit the recruitment of high-quality staff on the basis of merit and competence, without discrimination on any ground. To this end, they shall afford adequate training opportunities, remuneration and career prospects.

39.2 Without prejudice to more general statutory provisions, regional authorities shall be entitled to determine the administrative structures whereby the services they offer shall be supplied.

Article 40: Information and consultation of the public

40.1 Regional authorities shall ensure that the public is informed of their activities and guarantee access to documents concerning decisions and policies for which they are responsible.

40.2 Within the limits of the law, regional authorities shall use all means at their disposal to promote the involvement and/or consultation of the public and associations representing the public in their various areas of activity.

Article 41: Transfrontier and inter-regional co-operation agreements and bodies

41.1 Within the limits of the law and their competences and with due regard for the obligations of the State, regional authorities may enter into transfrontier and/or inter-regional co-operation agreements with public bodies in other States.

41.2 Regional authorities may set up joint transfrontier and/or inter-regional co-operation bodies with legal personality in accordance with the law and, where appropriate, bilateral, multilateral or international treaties governing the establishment and activities of such bodies.

41.3 Regional authorities should be able to benefit from financial resources from the State, European or international institutions and other public bodies designed to finance transfrontier and/or inter-regional co-operation projects.

Article 42: Involvement of regional authorities in decisions concerning them

42.1 Any decision by an authority at a higher level concerning regional authorities which has or could have a significant impact at regional authorities shall be adopted in accordance with a procedure entailing, at least, prior notification of the regional authorities concerned of the decision envisaged, the right of the latter to obtain access to the relevant administrative documents, their

14 entitlement to state their own positions within a reasonable time and the obligation to give reasons for the decision, taking account of the positions they have made known.

42.2 Any decision by a higher authority concerning the balancing of regional authorities' expenditure and the resources at their disposal and the conditions and criteria applicable to financial equalisation and general and specific grants shall be the subject of prior negotiations between the higher authorities and the regional authorities. The negotiation procedure shall always be set in motion before a higher authority takes any decision whereby regional authorities must help to implement policies of interest to various tiers of government.

42.3 Regional authorities' entitlement to be represented by representative associations or other bodies in the various consultation, negotiation and co-operation processes with higher authorities shall be recognised by law.

Article 43: Participation in European and international affairs

43.1 In so far as the constitution and/or law allow it, regional authorities shall be consulted, through appropriate procedures or bodies, about international negotiations by the State and the implementation of international treaties in which their competences and responsibilities, their essential interests or the scope of regional self-government are at stake. The same shall apply when they are responsible for implementing provisions adopted at European level.

43.2 In order to promote or defend their interests, the regions shall have the right to set up, either individually or collectively with other regional or local authorities, offices abroad responsible for liaising with European organisations active in their spheres of competence.

Article 44: Power of substitution

44.1 Higher authorities' power of temporary substitution to act in lieu of regional authority organs may be exercised only in exceptional cases and under the procedures provided for by the constitution or by law. This power shall be confined to specific cases where regional authorities have seriously failed to exercise the competences vested in them and shall be utilised in accordance with the principle of proportionality in the light of the interests it is designed to protect.

44.2 The decision-making power resulting from a substitution measure shall be entrusted to staff acting solely in the interests of the regional authority concerned, except in the case of delegated responsibilities.

Part IV: Final provisions

45. Each state shall be free to amend its system of regional self-government in accordance with the principles and rules laid down herein.

46. Each state may, at the time of its accession, determine a transitional period necessary to bring its national law into conformity with this Charter.

47. Each Party may specify parts of its national territory to which the Charter shall not be applicable.

48. None of the provisions of this Charter may be construed as restricting the rights guaranteed to regional authorities under the national law of a state party or provided for in bilateral or multilateral international agreements to which that state is a party.

15 49. This Charter shall be open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe. It shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

50. This Charter shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which five member States of the Council of Europe have expressed their consent to be bound by the Charter.

In respect of any member State which subsequently expresses its consent to be bound by it, the Charter shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.

51. After the entry into force of this Charter, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may invite any State not a member of the Council of Europe to accede to this Charter.

In respect of any acceding State, the Charter shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of deposit of the instrument of accession with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

52. Any Party may at any time denounce this Charter by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Such denunciation shall become effective on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of six months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary General.

53. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the member States of the Council and any State which has acceded to this Charter of:

a any signature; b the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession; c any date of entry into force of this Charter; d any notification received in application of this Charter; e any other act, notification or communication relating to this Charter.

In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Charter.

Done at Strasbourg, this ... day of ..., in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of Europe and to any State invited to accede to this Charter.

16 Janusz MARSZAŁEK, Mayor of Oświęcim

adres e-mail: [email protected] Janusz Marszałek was born in Oświęcim in the year 1955. Married. Economist (economical cybernetics, informatics; Economical Academy, Cracow). Since 1987, when he has seen in Germany an example of Children’s Village (Kinderdorf), was preparing implementation of this idea in the area of Oświęcim. He established the foundation to run Janusz Korczak Children’s Village in Rajsko (located south of Oświęcim). Since 1994 till 2002 he was the president of Maja Co., small private enterprise organized for two reasons: - to bring additional resources for the Village, - to create jobs for young inhabitants of the Village, entering adult life. Today 26 children live in the Village. New houses are under construction. Active also in other welfare activities. In 1998 elected member of Oświęcim County Council. In 2002 – during first direct election of mayors in Poland, elected the Mayor of Oświęcim. Re-elected in 2006 for the second term. As a Mayor of Oświęcim he has to join work for the local development of the town and benefit of its inhabitants with the special role of the municipality where former German Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau is located. Amongst other activities he is active in UN network Cities – Attorneys of Peace. Since 2007 Co-chairman of Polish - German Committee (created by German Section of CEMR and Assn of Polish Cities for co-ordination of municipal cooperation – there are existing ca 600 pairs of twins between German and Polish municipalities). Group consist now of ca 60 German and ca 30 Polish mayors. Languages: German, English Hobby – playing piano.

17 18 19

20 COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS CONSEIL DES COMMUNES ET REGIONS D’EUROPE

Green Paper Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action COM (2007) 354

CEMR RESPONSE

Brussels, November 2007

Conseil des Communes et Régions d'Europe • Council of European Municipalities and Regions 15 Rue de Richelieu F-75 001 Paris 1 Square de Meeûs B-1000 Bruxelles tel : + 33 1 44 50 59 59 [email protected] - www.ccre.org Tel : + 32 2 511 74 77

21 CEMR’s response to the GREEN PAPER on Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action COM (2007) 354

KEY POINTS

CEMR:

⇒ Welcomes the Green Paper on Adapting to climate change;

⇒ Points out that adaptation issues are intimately linked to the local level;

⇒ Underlines that a multi-level governmental approach and a coordination of policies at all levels is indispensable;

⇒ Stresses the need to integrate mitigation and adaptation policies together;

⇒ Identifies issues and challenges at the local and regional level;

⇒ Emphasizes that local and regional authorities are willing to take their responsibilities but they also need the right support, notably financial;

⇒ Proposes actions to be taken at local, regional, national and EU level.

22 GENERAL REMARKS 1. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) is the European umbrella organisation of 49 national associations of local and regional authorities in 36 European countries. CEMR is very involved with sustainable development and particularly active on issues related to climate change such as environment, energy and transport policy. In a publication published in March 2006 “Save energy, save the climate, save money. Guide for local and regional government1” CEMR proposes guidance to local and regional authorities on how to contribute to the mitigation of climate change. 2. Climate change is now firmly set on the political agenda at the national, European and international levels. However, the success of such policies relies to a great extent on their implementation at local and regional level. Local and regional governments can contribute to mitigation policies against global warming (and are already doing so) and they are in the frontline when it comes to measures to adapt to climate change. 3. CEMR generally welcomes the approach of the Green Paper. The document rightly recognises the prominent role of regional and local authorities. It underlines that there is no "one fits all" solution: CEMR indeed believes the principle of subsidiarity is here particularly relevant, as adaptation measures will be intimately connected to the local conditions and needs. We therefore support the multi-government-level approach proposed by the European Commission. 4. In our response to the Commission’s Green Paper we would like to ex- plore what are the issues regarding the adaptation to climate change at the local level and what approach and potential actions should be taken. Nevertheless, CEMR would like to insist that an integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation is indispensable. Many measures can contribute to both objectives, and the mitigation agenda should remain among the top priorities. 5. The Green Paper rightly exposes the importance of integrating adaptation criteria into all public policies. CEMR would like to stress the need to improve the coherence of EU policy in terms of mitigation. For instance, some policies aim to promote sustainable transport and energy savings, while others encourage the construction of motorways and the consumption of energy. Climate change is a challenge that requires EU and national authorities to truly integrate mitigation and adaptation requirements together into their public policies. 6. CEMR welcomes the establishment of a European Advisory Group on Adaptation to Climate Change and calls on the European Commission to officially invite representative organisations of local and regional authorities. CEMR and its member associations would like to express their willingness to contribute to the further activities and initiatives aiming to achieve the objectives.

1 available at: http://www.ccre.org/bases/T_599_34_3524.pdf

23 IDENTIFYING ISSUES 7. The Green Paper offers a satisfactory concise assessment of the situation in Europe and of the challenges that we are facing. It rightly stresses that plain areas will be affected too, and not just, as some believe peripheral areas such as coasts, mountains and the far North. 8. In addition to the problems exposed in the Green Paper, CEMR members have identified the following issues more directly related to the local and regional levels: 9. Some disturbances caused by extreme weather conditions can be highly problematic for daily municipal services and jeopardize citizens’ welfare and health as the negative aspects can concentrate on those who have the less means to adapt individually (the most vulnerable; the poor, elderly, isolated etc.). In sudden situations of emergency people will likely ask for the help of local authorities, which are closest to citizens. The adaptation and mitigation issues might therefore become a significant social question to be solved locally. 10. These extreme weather events, when they affect public property, can represent potential important costs to local and regional authorities. Municipal and regional property consists of infrastructure such as buildings, parks, buses, roads, electricity or IT networks, water, wastewater and district heating pipelines and utilities. 11. Many European cities are in river basins or estuaries, or prone to storm surges which makes them vulnerable to flooding. As an example, it is estimated that France has about two million households in flood risk areas. CEMR members from many countries report that too many construction permits are still given in zones at risk. There is a need for local and regional authorities in these areas to work together with national governments to ensure plans are in place to provide flood risk management to protect both the cities and surrounding low laying areas.2 12. Some of the threatened regions (e.g. in the Netherlands) fear the negative consequences of possible declining faith and loyalty on the part of industry and civilians. 13. Urban areas are likely to particularly suffer from warmer summers since they experience even higher temperatures and have lower air quality3; but rural areas will be disrupted too. Heat waves and other disasters can also highlight problems of solidarity, healthcare services and social organisation. 14. Water issues: vegetation is stressed by what seems to be increasing variations in rain patterns and by heat waves. Many European countries so far spared from water scarcity problems have had to face this

2 For instance, London authorities have teamed up with the Environment Agency to scope the challenge, and plans for adaptation are well underway 3 For instance, in France, the 2003 heat wave brought about, according to the INSERM Insti- tute, an over mortality of + 60% for the whole of the country (15 000 more deaths for this period than usual), but the over mortality was 130% in the very urban Ile-de-France region

24 problem in recent years. Local authorities cooperate with other services (water agencies, national government, police etc.) to introduce and monitor water use restrictions. 15. Climate change can have adverse effects on the building stock (mould growth in dwellings, subsidence and heave, slope instability, damage to the building fabric, particularly cladding, wind-related damage, effects on roof drainage etc.). This directly affects local and regional authorities, for their own public buildings and for the well-being and property of their citizens. 16. Climate change is likely to increase the migration pressure from affected areas to less affected areas. Local and regional authorities will have to manage this potential new influx of migrants. 17. Changes in touristy patterns can have a huge impact for many local and regional authorities, which rely on tourism as their main source of income and jobs; on the other hand, a warmer weather can develop tourism in other parts.

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS 18. Adaptation to climate change is a new policy issue. There are currently several obstacles for local and regional government to act that need to be overcome: 19. Uncertainty: although the occurrence of climate change is now scien- tifically proven, and recognised politically almost across the board and at all levels, there are still important uncertainties as regards the scale, timing and consequences of the change to come. As a result, it is difficult for public authorities to develop measures in this context. 20. The lack of information, knowledge and expertise at local and regional level and the lack of guidance to the local and regional authorities is, in part, a consequence of the previous point and also hinders policy- making. In this area the EU and national governments can play a crucial role, by developing methodologies for assessing the impact and designing cost effective adaptation policies as well as acting as a “clearing house” for information and the exchange of best practices. 21. Political will: given the uncertainty, the novelty and the long-term perspective of the challenge, tackling climate change requires strong political will. This will is growing but still lacking in many places. 22. Lack of support: the local and regional level is very often singled out as the level where a lot needs to be done – but hardly ever gets extra funding to do so. 23. Another barrier to the implementation of climate change policies at the local level is the barrage of often conflicting programmes, strategies and policies that municipalities and regions face from the EU and national levels.

25 GENERAL APPROACH TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE 24. CEMR members report that, although many local and regional authorities are eager to tackle climate change, they do not always know what to do or where to start. In terms of mitigation policies, local and regional authorities can encourage (and develop for themselves) policies for using less fossil fuels and for using energy more efficiently. They are already doing so in many places4. 25. Nevertheless, adaptation policies require a different approach. The problem is that future climate is the driver and it is uncertain in its timing, magnitude, frequency and location. Because of the uncertainty a case for action cannot be fully developed and adaptation remains so far largely an academic discipline. 26. To get out of this dead end we tend to expect governments to legislate/regulate because that is what the mitigation agenda tells us is the right thing to do. But governments operate at national level and are not likely to provide the right solutions for the local and regional level. Local and regional authorities need something to operate at the local level where the impacts are felt and local solutions negotiated with local communities are appropriate. The Green Paper rightly points out the important role local authorities have to play in terms of knowledge on the local natural and human conditions.

Therefore CEMR would like to propose the following: 27. An integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation is indispensable. Many measures can contribute to both objectives, and the mitigation agenda should remain one of the priorities, at all levels of government. Local and regional authorities are responsible for delivering many public services and for maintaining infrastructure such as roads, energy, water, waste etc. Land use planning done by local and regional authorities can greatly influence the preparation to potential extreme weather events. Those same planning elements and policies can lead to energy saving and reduction of greenhouse gases emissions from traffic, housing and buildings for decades ahead. 28. The other start point should be to work on vulnerability. We need to know where we are before we can identify where we want to be. An idea would be to develop the concept of a local “vulnerability map” which identifies not only those areas sensitive to current climate conditions (the present climate driver) but the present adaptive capacity of communities, settlements, etc. (the socio-economic driver) and of habi- tats, ecosystems etc. (the environment driver). The map would be based on climate change and risk criteria (increased risks of flood, drought, storm, wind, heat, fire…notably based on existing occurrences and observations).

4 the CEMR Guidebook“Save energy, save the climate, save money. Guide for local and regional government, mentioned in paragraph 4, contains many examples of good practice

26 29. The map could draw from existing sectoral assessments (eg; water situation) but would present the vulnerability picture in an integrated way. The map would create a catalogue/map of locations, communities, ecosystems etc. that are vulnerable to present climate conditions and allow assessing what is being done to protect against current vulnerabilities. Then actions can be taken to climate proof the vulnerable items against both today's climate and what we might expect in the future. Indeed, once a vulnerability map is drawn then local and regional authorities know where to prioritise their actions. The aim should be to eliminate vulnerability to current climate and then consider the impact studies to make sure the measures climate–proof the solutions for future climates. 30. The local vulnerability map would constitute a bottom up rather than top down approach. The map should be developed on a voluntary basis. It would provide evidence to the local and regional authorities to apply for support from the national and EU authorities for the development of adaptation policies. 31. National adaptation plans have proven (e.g. in the Netherlands) to be a useful tool for a systematic approach towards adaptation to climate change. These may include measures in the fields of water management, risk management and heat protection in the cities. Furthermore, the experience of some of our members has shown that systems for emergency response to extreme weather can be valuable preemptive measures. CEMR proposes more specific actions in its responses to the questions of the Green Paper, in the annex.

FINANCING In light of the climate change challenge, and as demonstrated in the Green Paper, it is very likely that local and regional authorities, in the near future, will have to develop costly adaptation measures. In this context, specific financial support will be needed, like: 32. Emergency funds to respond to natural disasters: the European Union Solidarity Fund, set up after the disastrous floods in Central Europe in 2002, has already proved its usefulness in recent disasters such as the floods in Bulgaria and forest fires in Portugal. Even though it is quite well funded (1 billion euros a year), in light of the increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, it will likely have to be increased. 33. Investments to gradually adapt infrastructures and services to changing climate conditions: here cohesion and structural funds can play an important role; as such CEMR is satisfied by the recognition in the Green Paper that these funds must integrate adaptation needs (mitigation requirements must be integrated too). National governments also have, naturally, an essential role in helping to update public infrastructures.

27 34. A specific funding line for preventive measures would increase the visibility of the subject and reduce possible reluctance on the part of responsible authorities.

CONCLUSION 35. Adaptation to climate change constitutes a new challenge, and, as such, requires new approaches, strategies and policies. Currently the making of these strategies is hampered by the uncertainty on the scale, timing and consequences of the change to come. 36. This is why CEMR proposes an approach by which we draw vulnerability maps and adopt an integrated approach of mitigation and adaptation policies. Thanks to this work public authorities will be then able to identify and prioritise their actions and create the best synergies. At first, such initiatives should be voluntary for local and regional authorities. If national governments, or the EU, decide to take broad actions on adaptation, and to ask the local and regional level to assess the problems and needs throughout the territory, and to take actions, adequate funding should be provided to the local and regional authorities for doing so. 37. As for other broad challenges, a strategic vision is needed that must be underpinned, in its implementation, by good coordination and cooperation between the different levels of government. The impact of climate change is both global and local. Climate change requires broad policies but also actions at the local and regional level. The impact is global, but a multitude of various local impacts are expected, requiring different solutions. Flexibility at the local level is therefore a prerequisite. 38. By developing a coherent approach to mitigation and adaptation, and actions, local and regional authorities can also benefit in terms of saving energy and money, improving overall environmental performance, enhancing the living conditions of local residents and protecting local people from the threats posed by our changing climate.

* * * * *

Part II: Responses to questions in the Green Paper

Please find below our answers to the questions that we found the most relevant for local and regional authorities. 1) What will be the most severe impacts on Europe's natural environment, economy and society? 2) Which of the adverse effects of climate change identified in the Green Paper and its Annex concern you most? 3) Should further important impacts be added? If yes, which ones? see also § 7 Local and regional authorities and their citizens throughout the EU face an increased frequency of extreme weather events (floods, heat waves, storms, droughts) with potential dire social, economic and environmental consequences (deaths, diseases, water scarcity, damage to private housing and infrastructure, crop losses, damage to vegetation and biodiversity etc.). Local and regional authorities will have to face the potential social impacts of climate change as the negative aspects can concentrate on those who have the less means to adapt individually (the most vulnerable; the poor, elderly, isolated etc.).

4) Does the green paper place the right urgency and emphasis on the matter of adaptation in Europe? Yes. It is timely and open. It puts the right level of urgency.

5) What should be the different roles of EU, national, regional, local authorities and the private sector? 6) Which economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change should be addressed at EU level as a matter of priority? 9) How do policy priorities need to change for different sectors? Which policy approaches should be taken at national, regional or local level? Where is European action needed? see also § 10 to 13 Whilst EU and national authorities may set strategic targets, local and regional authorities are best placed vehicle for making assessments of which areas and communities are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Measures are needed to require local and regional authorities to include assessments of vulnerability in their strategic land use plans so that resources are diverted towards the communities where they may be needed. Local and regional authorities should: - Develop or introduce stringent construction regulation for flood risk ar- eas5. In some countries or regions, even knowing which areas are likely to flood has not stopped local spatial planners from making development

5 e.g. in Scotland flood risk maps and flood protection programmes must be drawn, and, as part of the regulation on land planning, a flood risk assessment must be done before any new construction is undertaken.

29 plans for major parts of the flood-prone areas. Spatial planning is very important, but in many cases locally performed without the full strategic overview of the situation at hand, more focusing on short term economic gains. There is a necessity to increase the level of awareness and responsibility of politicians and practitioners about land use planning; too many construction permits are still given in zones at risk. The local and regional level climate risk management should be integrated with other municipal or regional existing risk management activities (e.g. flood risk management plans, civil emergency plans, health crisis plans, water management etc.). Indeed it does not matter if the risk is caused by climate change or other reasons: the impact is the same, and the plans should be integrated. - Behavioural changes are necessary (e.g. shut the windows during heat waves, use less water, grow plants that require less watering, drink more water during heat waves etc.). Local and regional authorities can contribute to push citizens to change behaviour. They can run, with the support of national governments or the EU, public information campaigns. Education should play an important role here too. - New buildings can be made to take into account climate change, and, where possible and if necessary, old buildings should be retrofitted to adapt (and mitigate). Buildings should retain coolness in summer, be well insulated to retain warmth in the winter, and, generally, reduce the use of energy. National programmes can provide incentives to citizens and local and regional authorities to adapt their buildings. - Cooperation with the private sector: in some countries (e.g. Sweden) insurance companies are helping with the planning process in the sense that they will not insure houses / buildings that are built in areas at risk for flooding. Insurance companies can in this case be a positive factor in securing “climate proof” local spatial planning. - Increase shade in urban areas. More trees, more parks, more green roofs en other forms of shadow in the public areas can contribute to cool the air and improve the climate in the summer. National governments and the EU should: - Continue and strengthen active mitigation policies (national, EU and international emission policies); CEMR encourages the European Com- mission to monitor the implementation of a strong EU emission trading system (with ambitious national allocation plans that will allow Member States to achieve their Kyoto targets) and to continue to lead the international negotiations on climate protection, notably by making sure the Kyoto Protocol is correctly implemented and by pushing for strong post- 2012 measures. - CEMR also calls on the Commission to develop strong EU emission policies (vehicle emission standards, and, generally, tackling emissions from the transport, energy and industrial sectors); these offer the advantage of also contributing to the objectives of EU legislation on air quality. CEMR also recommends that EU institutions continue to take actions for developing further renewable energies, including biofuels and biomass.

30 - National governments and the EU should develop action plans and strategies on adaptation to climate change, preferably in a concerted way, and in cooperation with local and regional authorities. - Governments and the EU should run public information campaigns on climate change and on adaptation, and should support local and regional authorities to also do so. - The EU should “climate proof” its legislation and policies. The fight against climate change, as well as adaptation, need to be mainstreamed into existing policy frameworks, including trade, external and development policies. - The EU should act as a facilitator for better sharing and diffusing knowledge and information within the EU about adaptation. A system of exchanges of information, experience and good practice should be set up. The Commission could play a great role in building adaptive capacity through such actions and through awareness rising and could help to prevent duplication of effort. - Research on adaptation should be stepped up, notably on the identification of vulnerability. The dissemination and the application of the results need to ensure a high benefit at the relevant level. - National governments should make sure that major national infrastructure is climate proofed for the long term (e.g. flood and sea defences, but also transport and energy infrastructures). Generally, they should mainstream climate change into infrastructure planning and development. - Governments should reinforce civil defense and protection, and disaster relief mechanisms. The EU should strengthen the European Solidarity Fund for disaster relief. - National governments should regulate the distributional consequences of climate change – making sure that the poor, disadvantaged, uneducated, old, young and infirm do not suffer disproportionately (e.g. the Afro American experience after Katrina).

7) Apart from the main priority areas identified in the four-action approach, are there other areas that have been missed out? If yes, which? see § 7-8

8) Does section 5.1 correctly and comprehensively identify the needs and policy priorities for early adaptation actions that should either be taken or coordinated at the EU level? - Climate change is likely to increase migration pressure; this should be addressed in the Green Paper and in EU policies.

11) How should the EU express its solidarity with regions suffering most heav- ily from the consequences of climate change? - The EU could create a “adaptation fund” within the European Solidarity Fund in order to help the most vulnerable areas protect against the effects of climate change. Structural funds should be made available for

31 actions aiming to adapt to climate change where justified. The European Solidarity Fund should also help areas and public authorities struck by direct effects of climate change.

14) What will be the consequences of climate change for Member States' potential energy mix and for European energy policy? - EU and national energy policies must clearly reflect the mitigation agenda and priorities. The European Council sent the right signal in March 2007 by adopting, for the first time, binding EU targets on renewable energies, and a general (indicative) target on energy savings. CEMR welcomes the flexible approach proposed by the European Commission and validated by the Council (nationally differentiated targets according to potential and starting point). - The EU must renew its effort on energy efficiency. The EU action plan on energy efficiency must deliver its announcements and lead to the adoption of strong energy efficiency standards on energy using products. Similarly, energy-efficiency labels must be strengthened and extended to more products. It must also deliver a strong strategy for the promotion of passive houses. - The Commission should also strongly encourage local revolving funds for energy efficiency schemes, as set out in the plan, and introduce measures to promote the connection of decentralised energy production to the general grids. - The directive on energy end use efficiency and energy services must be strongly implemented; national governments must adopt meaningful national action plans on energy efficiency, and as far as possible, in the spirit of the directive have their public sector lead by example. - Prices must reflect the cost of energy use to the environment and the climate, and push the consumers to save. Today, promising lower energy prices is an anachronism and makes the EU policies incoherent. The liberalisation of markets can have some positive effects (notably on the development of energy services and of renewable energies) but it should not be used as a tool to promote lower energy prices. Some social mechanisms can help the lower income groups to cope with higher energy prices. Social housing should be among the priority buildings to be retrofitted in order to use less energy.

16) What are the possible synergies between adaptation and mitigation measures? How can these synergies be strengthened? - All adaptation measures should be “mitigation-proofed” (or carbon- proofed), at all government levels.

23) Do the listed research areas address the most important knowledge gaps? - Yes

32 25) How should research results be communicated and made available to decision makers and a broader public at local, national, EU-level and interna- tionally? - Research results which are practical (i.e. recommendations and guidance to local decision-makers and citizens on how to adapt) should be made available in all EU languages diffused as broadly as possible

28) Would the establishment of a European Advisory Group on Adaptation be helpful in further exploring an EU response to the effects of climate change? See § 6 If yes, which areas should such an Advisory Group concentrate its work on? - how to integrate mitigation and adaptation policies - how to assess vulnerabilities and prioritise adaptation measures - who does what? Identify the roles of the different levels of government and study how to ensure a good coordination between the different levels and create the best synergies

* * * * *

COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS CONSEIL DES COMMUNES ET REGIONS D’EUROPE

CEMR response

to the consultation on the

Green Paper on Urban Mobility

Brussels, 7 March 2008

Conseil des Communes et Régions d'Europe• Council of European Municipalities and Regions 15 Rue de Richelieu F-75 001 Paris 1 Square de Meeûs B-1000 Bruxelles tel : + 33 1 44 50 59 59 [email protected] - www.ccre.org Tel : + 32 2 511 74 77

22 ’ 10 0

1. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) is the umbrella organisation gathering 49 national associations representing local and regional government in 36 countries. CEMR's members represent local and regional authorities in both urban and rural areas. 2. CEMR has an active working group on transport, which has been working on the issue of sustainable mobility for a long time. In October 2004, CEMR published a “Manifesto on sustainable mobility for Europe’s regions, towns and municipalities”1. As well, CEMR has actively contributed to the making of the Aalborg Commitments and to their promotion, in particular through the Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign. It was also a partner in the NICHES project, of which objectives were to identify and dissemi- nate excellent, transferable examples of innovative urban transport con- cepts. CEMR is currently involved in the ELTIS project whose aim is to provide information and support a practical transfer of knowledge and exchange of experience in the field of urban and regional transport in Eu- rope. 3. CEMR calls for EU sustainable mobility policies to be placed at the core of European, national, regional and local actions. Sustainable mobility implies a modal shift towards more sustainable modes of transport, including public transport, cycling and walking, as well as the development of clean and energy efficient urban transport. 4. For environmental and health reasons, the decoupling of road transport growth from economic growth should remain a priority of EU transport policies in the future. 5. CEMR believes the EU can bring some added value in policy areas and challenges that are common to EU cities. However, urban transport policies are local by their very nature. A strong level of Subsidiarity must therefore be respected. Local decision-makers know best the local conditions and needs, and what suits their citizens. 6. At their meeting on 4 and 5 December 2007, the members of CEMR’s Pol- icy Committee engaged in a debate on urban transport and adopted the “Stuttgart Declaration on urban mobility “. Mayors and elected representatives emphasised the essential role of European local and regions governments to address sustainable mobility challenges2.

"Towards a new culture for urban mobility” 7. CEMR welcomes the aim of the Commission’s Green Paper on urban mobility: to debate with citizens and all relevant stakeholders at local, regional, national and European level what a European policy on urban mobility should look like. 8. CEMR welcomes the procedure chosen with a consultation phase, in which it participated actively, leading to a Green Paper, which again

1 CEMR Manifesto on urban mobility (2004): http://www.ccre.org/bases/T_599_21_3524.pdf 2 CEMR Stuttgart Declaration (2007): http://www.ccre.org/docs/stuttgart_urban_mobility_en.pdf

opened this second consultation phase to identify actions that will be in- cluded in an Action Plan on Urban Mobility. 9. We are pleased to find many of our answers to the first consultation in the Green Paper and would welcome further exchange of views with the Euro- pean Commission. 10. CEMR is pleased that the Action Plan on Urban Mobility will propose concrete actions at all levels, including citizens and economy, with clear responsibilities and tasks and a timetable for action. However, it is crucial that the Action Plan respects the principle of Subsidiarity, thus supporting local and regional authorities in their transport policies, but not imposing solutions on them. The Action Plan should not lead to further EU regulations implying obligations and financial burden for local and regional authorities. European cities, regions, transport authorities and operators should be closely involved in the drawing of the Action Plan. 11. CEMR believes the EU, when considering further actions related to urban mobility, should take into account the link with existing legislation having a direct or indirect impact on local transport policies (for instance legislation setting technical standards, on air quality, noise pollution, etc.). 12. CEMR welcomes the integrated policy approach promoted by the Green Paper. We are pleased that the problem of urban conglomerations, the urban-rural interface and the trends towards urban sprawl and suburbanisa- tion are addressed, as well as the demand for coordination between authorities and the integration of different policy sectors such as urban planning, transport, economic and social affairs. Comprehensive mobility strategies must not only address transport, but also take into consideration the cultural, economic, social and territorial dimension. In this sense, we believe there are also opportunities to better integrate European transport policies into other community policies. 13. CEMR supports the creation of a new culture for urban mobility, both amongst citizens and decision makers. Education and awareness raising are key to this and actions at EU level can have an important impact. 14. CEMR considers that the role of employers should not be omitted in the Action Plan. The EU and public authorities at all levels have a role to play to support employers in launching initiatives to help their employees to move in a sustainable way. 15. CEMR observes that the Green Paper does not refer to air, maritime and fluvial transport. Even if specific EU policies address these issues, they also have to be considered in light of inter-urban transport of goods and passengers. 16. CEMR is disappointed by the low profile given to modal shift in the Green Paper. We are convinced that it needs strong measures to achieve a significant change, and the appropriate level to impose rules on this matter must be the EU.

Subsidiarity in urban transport policies 17. There is a need for a real EU policy on urban transport, not just benchmarking and exchange of best practices. The European Union has a major role to play in favour of sustainable urban mobility, empowering cities while fully respecting the principles of Subsidiarity and Local Self-Government, in line with the Council of Europe’s Charter on Local Self-Government. 18. CEMR welcomes that the Green Paper honours the Subsidiarity principle and the clear statement that local authorities are in the lead in defining and implementing urban mobility policies, but that the EU can support them, without imposing solutions. 19. However, since the aim of the Green Paper is to offer options for local decision makers and not to present solutions, much will depend on the follow-up and the announced Action Plan. The latter must take into account the diversity of competence levels and administrative organisation in the Member States. In view of the diversity of local situations throughout Europe, there cannot be “one for all” solutions. Targets should thus, in general, not be mandatory and binding, but indicative. 20. CEMR broadly agrees with the identified obstacles to successful urban mobility and the key issues and main challenges highlighted in the Green Paper. In CEMR’s opinion, the main barriers at local level to improving urban transport and mobility are insufficient funding; insufficient public involvement and support; lack of appropriate structures and allocation of responsibilities between local, regional and national level; insufficient inter- connection between transport networks and services; insufficient coordination between neighbouring cities, and insufficient coordination between transport services and the individual and varying transport needs of cus- tomers. Public transport must adapt to the new customer needs. 21. The EU can add value by, for instance : • providing clear legal frameworks that set common principles while respecting Subsidiarity and Local Self-government • setting technical standards (e.g. vehicles, equipment, fuels etc.) and ensuring interoperability • promoting research and the exchange of data and good practice • support actions aiming at changing mobility behaviour: launching campaigns to raise awareness and promote the implementation of the Aalborg commitments • integrating urban transport issues into sectoral EU policies and integration within different levels of government • providing guidance of a non-binding nature to cities on how to develop sustainable urban transport plans and how to implement EU legislation that closely relates to urban transport, such as air quality directive • providing help in transport demand management

• ensuring strong financial frameworks for urban transport (structural funds, EIB loans, dedicated fund, etc.), with priority given to public transport and sustainable modes of transport • supporting clean vehicles through legislative measures targeted at manufacturers and financial incentives for public bodies. On this last point, CEMR takes note of the recent Commission’s directive proposal on clean and energy efficient vehicles and will examine it in detail.

Questions from the Green Paper

1. Should a "labelling'" scheme be envisaged to recognise the efforts of pioneer- ing cities to combat congestion and improve living conditions? CEMR supports the idea of recognising the efforts of cities on sustainable mobility. A labelling scheme might be a positive contribution to this aim. Neverthe- less, this labelling must take into account the wide variety of local and regional situations throughout Europe and should recognise progresses as compared with the situation of the city at an earlier stage, not a pan-European benchmarking between cities where the situation is not comparable. However, the most important point should remain the sharing of experiences, not the recognition of efforts.

2. What measures could be taken to promote walking and cycling as real alternatives to car? Measures could include attractive, secured and safe zones dedicated to pedes- trians and cyclists, implementation of innovative solutions, awareness raising campaigns and charges on car transport. The intermodality with other transport modes and the integration of walking and cycling should play a major role in Sustainable Urban Transport Plans. The EU can facilitate the exchange of best practice and promote walking and cycling through the upcoming guidance on Sustainable Urban Transport Plans.

3. What could be done to promote a modal shift towards sustainable transport modes in cities? CEMR calls on the European Commission to renew its efforts to better balance the modal split of the transport of passengers and goods in the EU. CEMR is disappointed that the revision of the White Paper on transport in 2006 has weakened this essential objective of the original 2001 White Paper. CEMR considers it is essential to promote both restrictive measures to discour- age the use of cars (e.g. creation of Green Zones, reduction of accessibility to the city centre, etc.) and incentives measures, such as the development of competitive and coordinated alternatives, embracing a diversity of modes (e.g. investment in public transport, car-sharing, car-pooling, etc.). Actions directed at citizens and business should also aim to alter lifestyles, atti- tudes and perceptions so that European society becomes less reliant on car and road use, particularly in cities.

What could be the potential role of the EU? CEMR supports the development of new tools at European level for the internalisation of external costs and warmly welcomes the intention of the Commis- sion to strengthen and support networks related to urban mobility within net- working activities like URBACT and Regions for Economic Change. CEMR suggests the organisation of a European public awareness campaign on activities regarding sustainable urban mobility together with stakeholders active in that field, as well as an annual European conference on “advanced urban transport solutions”. A wide room for manoeuvre should be left to local and regional authorities to favour a balanced modal split, whilst at the same time planning for the interoperability between different transport modes. Nevertheless, the EU could play a role by offering guidance and financing opportunities to support their efforts.

4. How could the use of clean and energy efficient technologies in urban transport be further increased? Economic incentives are needed to promote cost-effective, greener public transport solutions, as well as guidance to cities on how to cut pollution from transport by sharing good examples. The EU should encourage Member States to reform national vehicle taxation regimes so that they support cleaner vehicles. As well, CEMR supports strong EU-wide measures on vehicles emissions, in particular strong EU emission standards on light and heavy vehicles (strong Euro V and VI norms) and legislation on CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. CEMR welcomes that the Commission wants to support the market introduction of clean and energy efficient vehicles by green public procurement. However, the integration of lifetime costs of energy consumption, CO2 and pollutants emissions as award criteria can have detrimental effects on public transport. Budgets are limited and the extra initial costs of vehicle procurement, even though compensated in the long term, should not lead to cuts in public transport services. National and EU authorities should financially support the purchase of clean vehicles by local and regional authorities. While the public sector should set a good example, it is important that the private economy and citizens are not relieved from their responsibility.

5. How could joint green procurement be promoted? CEMR would welcome a wider application of the Commission’s support for the development of joint green procurement schemes by public authorities through pilot projects. The EU could also promote the exchange of experience by widely disseminating the evaluation of these pilot projects and its handbook on green public procurement. The EU should facilitate the joint procurement of clean vehicles through an adaptation of the rules for green public procurement, through the possibility to in- sert external costs criteria in public tenders and through a general principle of prevalence of the environmental criteria over economic criteria where they are in conflict.

6. Should criteria or guidance be set out for the definition of Green Zones and their restriction measures? What is the best way to ensure their compatibility with free circulation? Is there an issue of cross border enforcement of local rules governing Green Zones? In general CEMR welcomes a common approach to Green Zones and supports a single vision for Green Zones which is sufficiently flexible to allow local variations. In this context, it would be useful to develop a uniform traffic sign to mark environmental zones, recognisable in every Member State. We also request the European Commission to support the exchange of best practices, for instance in the area of technologies for visual recognition of vehicles. However, this must not prevent from the possibilities of cities to enforce alternative, stricter or greener rules where appropriate, considering the diversity of situations at local level. Ensuring a free flow of traffic cannot be pursued to the exclusion of managing mobility in a sustainable manner overall. Certain cities experience difficulties to carry out enforcement of local rules governing Green Zones, difficulties increased in case of cross border enforcement (e.g. identification of car owner, recovery of penalties). The EU has a major role to play in order to find a proper solution for decriminalised traffic offences. In particular, it could facilitate exchange of best practice and provide guidance on the practical and legal aspects of this enforcement.

7. How could eco-driving be further promoted? Some cities have developed projects on eco-driving and gathered quite good experiences. The EU could facilitate the dissemination of good examples and organise awareness campaigns by EU citizens on the impacts of driving behav- iours on the environment and quality of life. The EU could also support the use of vehicles coherent with eco-driving, as well as innovation regarding car equipment. CEMR also considers that the EU should encourage Member States to promote eco-driving as part of their national driving test procedures.

8. Should better information services for travellers be developed and promoted? Reliable, attractive and accessible information services are essential to favour urban, rural and regional mobility and intermodality. The integration of information services related to transport and events of the local life (e.g. cultural or sports events, demonstrations , etc.) can make it easier for travellers to move in a sustainable way. Innovative solutions including different transport modes could be promoted by the EU through its research pilot projects and exchange of information activities.

9. Are further actions needed to ensure standardisation of interfaces and interoperability of ITS applications in towns and cities? Which applications should take priority when action is taken?

CEMR supports the use of Intelligent Transport Systems and open standards for interfaces and interoperability (of technology and between transport modes, various functions, areas and countries). Innovative demand management is a good approach. EU should remove barriers and ensure such approaches are applied consistently across the EU and at all relevant levels. While ITS can be good tools, they cannot solve the main problems.

10. Regarding ITS, how could the exchange of information and best practices between all involved parties be improved? The Commission should support a wider dissemination of good practices and data in the field of ITS, as well as a voluntary framework for ITS deployment in EU towns and cities to address the interoperability issue.

11. How can the quality of collective transport in European towns and cities be increased? CEMR welcomes the new regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and road, which allows local and regional authorities to define public service obligations and the imposition of social tariffs. We are also pleased that public authorities can introduce selection and award criteria with respect to the quality of transport services. The Commission could support the exchange of information on the implementation of these tools provided by the regulation to improve the quality of transport services. The EU should provide legal certainty for inter-communal cooperation and in- house organisation of public transport. CEMR believes that local elected representatives are in the best position to choose the economic model which best ensures delivery of high quality public transport that meets the citizens' needs. While increased competition may indeed have positive effects, particularly economic, we are concerned that such benefits may come at the expense of quality and effective coordination between different transport modes. CEMR agrees with citizens’ demand for high quality, efficient and accessible public transport and that the lack of this can be an obstacle to a modal shift from private to public transport. To resolve this, however, national authorities have to provide the local and regional level with sufficient financial resources. Other- wise, restraint local budgets hinder public transport of high quality.

12. Should the development of dedicated lanes for collective transport be encouraged? CEMR is in favour of dedicated lanes for collective transport, provided that local authorities are free to choose in the end the best solution adapted to local circumstances. As this might implicate high costs for cities and the resistance of private car users, the EU and national governments should support measures both financially and through information and behavioural campaigns.

13. Is there a need to introduce a European Charter on rights and obligations for passengers using collective transport? CEMR sees the danger that such a Charter does not recognize the various situations and needs of the different cities throughout Europe, and the principle of Local Self-government. On the other hand, if the Charter remains on a quite general level, it might not bring any added value. In line with the principle of Subsidiarity, such a Charter should be left to the regional or national level.

14. What measures could be undertaken to better integrate passenger and freight transport in research and in urban mobility planning? CEMR is pleased that the Green Paper addresses urban freight transport and is interested in further exchange of good practices in this field. CEMR believes this issue should be addressed in the upcoming guidance on Sustainable Urban Transport Plans. Cities and agglomerations could be encouraged to produce urban mobility plans including both the question of passenger and freight transport. The commercial mobility needs should be addressed as well. Research could be promoted by including this theme in European programmes and projects. For instance, the EU could create a collaborative work platform on sustainable mobility dealing both with freight and passenger transport, like the existing platforms for the rail transport (ERRAC) and the road freight transport (ERJRAC). As well, attention has to be paid to the implementation and the ap- plicability of research results.

15. How can better coordination between urban and interurban transport and land use planning be achieved? What type of organisational structure could be appropriate? CEMR supports the development of better policy and strategy links between mobility, spatial and economic planning at all levels of governance. In particular, local and regional authorities must cooperate closely to guarantee efficient and coherent transport policies. National governments and the EU should support and encourage this cooperation, set the frame and contribute financially. As governance is the key to sustainable urban transport, the EU should promote the transport competences of local and regional governments. The EU can encourage national governments to improve transport governance and planning, as well as the cooperation among the local, regional and national levels (better connecting urban transport with regional and national transport services, better integration of land use, urban and interurban planning). CEMR wants the issue of land use to be more prominently addressed in the upcoming Action Plan which will follow the consultation on the Green Paper. CEMR welcomes that the Green Paper also addresses the issue of agglomerations, not just cities. However, the focus on agglomerations and related issues, such as the question of commuters, should be even stronger in the Action Plan.

16. What further actions should be undertaken to help cities and towns meet their road safety and personal security challenges in urban transport?

CEMR welcomes the proposed more intensive and structured dialogue with local and regional stakeholders and Member States on new technologies for increasing safety. Concerning the problems of safety and security in urban transport, the EU has a relevant role to play. The EU level can promote campaigns on behavioural change and exchange of practices, legislate on vehicle and infrastructure safety standards, support the introduction of safety technologies, encourage the im- provement of alarm systems and emergency planning procedures and give guidance to local and regional authorities to enforce traffic rules.

17. How can operators and citizens be better informed on the potential of advanced infrastructure management and vehicle technologies for safety? European information campaigns adapted to local circumstances and guidance to local operators might be a good way to go.

18. Should automatic radar devices adapted to the urban environment be developed and should their use be promoted? 19. Is video surveillance a good tool for safety and security in urban transport? While automatic radar devices and video surveillance surely can be meaningful in some circumstances and to some aim, they cannot solve all safety and security problems. It is also important to consider the question of data protection in this context. It should be up to national authorities in cooperation with local and regional authorities to answer these questions.

20. Should all stakeholders work together in developing a new mobility culture in Europe? Based on the model of the European Road Safety Observatory, could a European Observatory on Urban Mobility be a useful initiative to support this cooperation? Without all stakeholders working together, a new mobility culture in Europe will never become reality. Mobility is one of the policy issues presupposing an active cooperation between public authorities at all levels, as well as citizens, business and other relevant actors. CEMR supports the proposal of European data collection on urban mobility sta- tistics, which should be easily accessible to local authorities. This would clarify the challenges related to urban mobility, enrich the Eurostat database and make comparisons possible. CEMR also considers that the creation of a European Observatory on Urban Mobility should be explored, provided this does not imply additional administrative burden. Further details and information have to be provided, in order to assess the opportunity to set up such an Observatory.

21. How could existing financial instruments such as structural and cohesion funds be better used in a coherent way to support integrated and sustainable urban transport? Financing for public transport should be considered as a one of the priorities of the regional development policy. The more broad and solid basis for financing

urban and collective transport under the current programming period is welcomed as well as the new reference to integrated strategies for clean transport in the ERDF and Cohesion Fund regulations. However, potential project beneficiaries may not be aware of the extent to which Structural funds can be used to transport initiatives outside of "convergence areas", so that information on funding should be improved. The mid-term review of the Operational Programmes could also be the opportunity to consider better support to urban transport. CEMR welcomes the numerous EU programmes and projects that investigate innovative transport policies and organise exchanges of good practices. How- ever, CEMR regrets that the European Commission does not offer financing to help cities and regions to develop strong alternatives to car use. CEMR would have welcomed, as part of the Thematic Strategy on Urban Environment, offers to finance the implementation of sustainable mobility plans in selected EU cities. CEMR considers the CIVITAS programme as most useful and is looking forward to seeing the suggested development based on the CIVITAS approach for a dedicated EU support programme for financing clean urban transport activities outside the research framework.

22. How could economic instruments, in particular market-based instruments, support clean and energy efficient urban transport? CEMR supports the idea that all stakeholders at all levels, including users, must contribute to financing urban mobility. National governments must guarantee important, stable and long term financing for public transport investments at local, regional and national level. Market- based instruments can support sustainable urban transport, but not replace public funding. CEMR supports the promotion of new funding tools that can be implemented by local authorities. Road pricing schemes, environmental taxes, taxes on energy, taxes on CO2 and urban congestion charges can provide additional resources for sustainable transport modes. But these innovative economic instruments can also act as a financial incentive to trigger the shift of consciousness towards an increased use of public transport or clean and energy efficient modes of transport. CEMR stresses that those additional resources should be used in priority for investment in public transport and sustainable mobility solutions.

23. How could targeted research activities help more in integrating urban con- straints and urban traffic development? The EU should conduct further studies involving more partners on a wider transport infrastructure system. CEMR underlines how essential it is to ensure a wide dissemination of the results of these research activities and to provide the information in several languages. Local decision makers should be aware of the existence of this information and be able to access it easily. In order to be effective, it is also important that the results can be practically used by local decision makers.

24. Should towns and cities be encouraged to use urban charging? Is there a need for a general framework and/or guidance for urban charging? Should the revenues be earmarked to improve collective urban transport? Should external costs be internalised? CEMR welcomes the better taking into account of external costs by the Eurovi- gnette directive and supports the introduction of an urban dimension on the occasion of the next revision of the Eurovignette directive, so that road charging applies to all types of vehicles and infrastructures. CEMR considers the EU should promote road pricing schemes. The choice of introducing urban charging should be the responsibility of the local and regional authorities, which have to assess its benefits and impacts. As well, local and regional authorities should be able to decide themselves what the revenues of road charging are to be used for. The EU can help the local decision-makers to overcome the reticence of citizens. For instance, it should organise the exchange of information and experiences on congestion charging. CEMR supports the internalisation of external costs and the announcement of a common EU methodology for calculating external costs. In parallel, coordinated efforts to reduce the production of external costs (e.g. negative environmental impacts of transport) are crucial. 25. What added value could, in the longer term, targeted European support for financing clean and energy efficient urban transport, bring? Sustainable mobility policies represent a great financial challenge for local authorities. In many cases, European support for financing clean and energy efficient urban transport is a precondition that local measures can be implemented. In other cases, European support has important impacts on national, regional and local policy and financial priorities. So that CEMR strongly supports the setting up of a dedicated and flexible fund for urban transport projects.

* * * * *

COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS CONSEIL DES COMMUNES ET REGIONS D’EUROPE

CEMR Response

To the Public Consultation on the Active Inclusion of People Furthest from the Labour Market

Brussels, February 2008

Conseil des Communes et Régions d'Europe• Council of European Municipalities and Regions 15 Rue de Richelieu F-75 001 Paris 1 Square de Meeûs B-1000 Bruxelles tel : + 33 1 44 50 59 59 [email protected] - www.ccre.org Tel : + 32 2 511 74 77 47

CEMR Response to the Public Consultation on the Active Inclusion of People Furthest from the Labour Market (COM (2007) 620 final)

Summary

On 17th October 2007, the European Commission launched the second stage consultation on Modernising social protection for greater social justice and economic cohesion: taking forward the active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market.

The consultation covers a broad and complex issue which is at the heart of local and regional government’s responsibilities and competences. Active inclusion concerns municipalities and regions in their unique role of service providers and planners, promoters of economic development as well as local employers. For this reason, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) have elaborated the present response to express our members’ views on the proposals outlined by the Commission in its Communication.

As it regards local and regional authorities as employers, CEMR and its Employers Platform (CEMR-EP) is a recognised partner in the European sectoral social dialogue for local and regional government. In this context, a joint CEMR/EPSU response has been adopted within the framework of the sectoral social dialogue committee on regional and local government, which provides the common views of both employers and unions in the regional and local administration on the issues covered by the consultation.

The Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) is the umbrella organisation of local and regional authorities federated through 49 national associations of local government in 36 European countries.

General comments

1. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) regards active inclusion as a key priority to ensure economic, territorial and social cohesion in Europe and therefore welcomes the Commission’s second stage consultation on Modernising social protection for greater social justice and economic cohesion: taking forward the active inclusion of people furthest from the labour market.

2. CEMR supports the three pillars approach to active inclusion, proposed by the European Commission, which focuses not only on employment-related measures but also recognises the role of public services and the need to ensure sufficient resources for a decent life.

3. CEMR endorses the proposed common principles on the three aspects of the active inclusion strategy (income support, inclusive labour market and quality public services), which are in line with the social inclusion and activation strategies already developed by local and regional authorities.

4. We would however like to stress that active inclusion can be effectively achieved only through regional and local-based solutions. Therefore, the definition of more detailed principles and standards should be agreed at regional or local level, taking account of the different social and economic contexts, institutional arrangements and traditions.

5. CEMR particularly welcomes the Commission’s recognition of the fundamental role played by local government in promoting active inclusion.

6. We agree with the Commission’s view that the active inclusion approach requires an integrated approach not only in terms of its components (the three pillars) but also with regards to its implementation through a partnership and inclusive implementation process, which should involved all relevant stakeholders, both public and private.

7. In line with the previous statement, we call on the Commission to ensure Member States establish an adequate and long-term dialogue with local and regional governments on those policies related to active inclusion and, more generally, to the EU social inclusion process.

8. With regards to action at EU level, we consider greater support is needed for the promotion of exchange of experiences and the benchmarking of best local and regional government practices in the areas of promoting social inclusion and increasing quality and accessibility of public services at local level.

Introduction

1. CEMR welcomes the debate launched by the present consultation, which stimulates reflexion on the importance and multidimensional nature of active inclusion. Addressing the needs of disadvantaged groups and supporting those who are ‘outsiders’ in the labour market represent a major challenge to all actors involved in the task of creating cohesive and inclusive societies.

2. Regional and local authorities play an essential role in this respect, as main responsible for a wide range of services aimed to promote active inclusion (welfare services, employment measures, education and training programmes, childcare, etc.). Municipalities and regions are not only responsible for the planning and provision of services but are also main actors in the promotion of economic development, job opportunities and well-being in their communities, working in partnership with other local stakeholders. They are therefore particularly concerned by the current EU debate on supporting the active inclusion of those furthest from the labour market.

3. The ever increasing responsibilities of local and regional authorities in supporting the most vulnerable groups respond to the recognition that social inclusion measures can be better designed and implemented at the government level closest to the citizens.

4. Vulnerable groups and those at the margins of the labour market suffer in most cases multiple disadvantage requiring personalised, sustained and intensive support. Their knowledge of local circumstances and their closest contact with the citizens allow municipalities to better address the specific needs of the most disadvantaged.

5. Over the past decades, municipalities and regions have been compelled to respond to the challenge of an increasingly diverse and changing population. The emergence of new social risks (due to changes in the family models, labour market transformation which has lead to a greater demand for high-skilled workers and have tightened the link between employment and skills/education, the increase in women’s participation in paid work, an ageing population, changing migration patterns, etc.) demands from public authorities at regional and local level to think creative and to find new solutions in order to tackle them.

6. CEMR and its members have expressed on numerous occasions their commitment to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable and to provide them with the support they need. The European Charter for Equality of Women and Men in local life1, signed by over 500 local authorities across Europe, and the Declaration of The Hague on the regional and local dimension of citizenship and integration2 are examples of this commitment.

1 Note: The European Charter, which has been elaborated and promoted by CEMR, contains a wide range of commitments to promote gender equality, across the range of services and responsibilities of local authorities. It thus pleads for an integrated approach to gender equality in local life. 2 The Declaration was launched in November 2007 in The Hague on the occasion of the joint CEMR/VNG conference on integration of migrants and active citizenship.

Active inclusion as part of local development and inclusive labour market policies

7. Regional and local authorities act as catalysts of local development, mobilising all resources and actors to promote socio-economic development in their territories. Their initiatives to promote local employment, regeneration or business entrepreneurship with a view to create jobs and growth in their local areas are in many cases targeted at the most disadvantaged who lack the skills or whose personal or family circumstances do not allow them to access the labour market.

8. With their knowledge of the local economy and the socio-economic context of the area, local authorities are instrumental in matching the skills demanded by the local labour markets with those offered by local residents.

9. In doing so, it is crucial to engage successfully with the business community. Private companies, alongside public authorities and community organisations, have a responsibility towards the well-being and the development of their communities and therefore should play their role in supporting those who face difficulties in accessing the labour market.

10. A high proportion of the disadvantaged concentrate in deprived areas. Consequently, measures to support those individuals who are furthest from the labour market cannot be dissociated from action to promote the development of their neighbourhoods and communities, with high levels of social exclusion and deprivation.

11. Together with national and local funding programmes, EU cohesion instruments are important tools for the economic and social development of those regions and municipalities lagging behind. In our response to the public consultation on the future EU cohesion policy, CEMR has reiterated its support to a continuing and ambitious EU cohesion policy and has called for an increased involvement of Europe’s local and regional authorities in the planning, administration, delivery and monitoring of regional development policies and instruments.

12. In particular, the European Social Fund (ESF) can make a substantial contribution to help the disadvantaged overcome the barriers to access the labour market. In this respect, CEMR supports the Commission’s intention to promote a more integrated approach in the use of ESF.

Access to quality services as a key instrument for active inclusion

13. CEMR welcomes the Commission’s recognition of the crucial role played by public services in promoting active inclusion. We reiterate our outstanding support to ensuring affordable and quality public services to all citizens, including those with specific needs.

14. Municipalities and regions are engaged in a continued effort to improve the quality of their services. In doing so, they have already developed and implemented quality frameworks and standards designed both at national and local level. We consider that for quality framework and standards to be effective they need to be based on a bottom-up approach and adapted to the local context.

51 15. Citizens’ demands as well as financial restraints are leading to a continuing process of modernisation of public services at local and regional level. This process is led by the aim of making services more effective and responsive to the needs of all citizens.

16. The challenge of responsiveness of public services is even more true when it comes to address and respond to the specific needs of the disadvantaged. The situation of multiple disadvantage most of them experience requires the development of personal action plans and services tailored to their needs. Mainstream services and programmes are not sufficient to provide them with the adequate support.

17. Responsiveness means ability to adapt to different demands. To do so, regional and local authorities should have the discretion and flexibility to decide on the best way to organise, commission and deliver their services. In this respect, we should note the increasing impact of EU internal market rules on public services.

18. CEMR does not believe that the Commission’s Communication on “services of general interest, including social services of general interest”, published in November 2007, and the accompanying document with questions and answers, are the right instruments to address and solve the problems at stake.

19. We therefore hope that following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the European Union, in close cooperation with the stakeholders concerned, will develop a solution providing a reasonable framework for local and regional authorities to organise, finance and deliver their services to all citizens.

20. On the other hand, we are most concerned that the responsibility for providing an increasing range of services for people in most need is often not coupled with additional financial resources, placing greater strain on local finances. In order to allow regional and local authorities to fulfil their role, sufficient financing should be secured to the regional and local government. This should be part of the criteria to define the quality of services.

21. As main providers of welfare services, the responsibility of supporting vulnerable groups falls to a large extent on the shoulders of municipalities and regions. This is particularly true in countries like Greece where there is not a minimum income scheme. In other countries, the tendency of employment services to focus on those closer to the labour market places additional pressure on welfare services provided by local authorities.

Towards an integrated approach

22. CEMR welcomes the balanced and integrated approach to active inclusion, based on the proposed three pillars. This approach shows that social inclusion does not only concern access to employment but a wider set of measures.

23. We consider this integrated approach should be reflected across the EU policies and initiatives (lifelong learning, flexicurity debate, etc.). We therefore call for greater synergies between the Lisbon and the EU social inclusion process.

24. At national level, an integrated approach requires taking into account the interferences and interactions between the different policy measures, mainly employment measures and benefits. In order to make work pay for those who are

52 furthest from the labour market, local authorities should be given greater discretion over the distribution of benefits with a view to allow for further flexibility and better account of the local circumstances. In this respect, the experiences of Dutch and German local authorities show the way forward.

25. CEMR fully supports the idea that an integrated approach demands strong partnerships and strengthened cooperation between all actors at all levels. Recent positive developments in some countries (for example, Norway and Finland3) seek to create more integrated approaches by bringing together employment and welfare services, involving both national and local agencies. These represent a challenge in terms of ensuring good coordination, defining common priorities and establishing a clear distribution of responsibilities between central and local administration. Close cooperation and partnership work are therefore essential.

The EU strategy on active inclusion

26. CEMR endorses the proposed common principles on active inclusion, which constitute an adequate framework for active inclusion policies. However, we consider that further work on more detailed principles is to be carried out at national and local level.

27. We agree that the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) is the best tool to take forward the EU strategy on active inclusion. The OMC has contributed so far to gain a common understanding on social inclusion issues across Europe. It has however lacked greater visibility and impact on the local and regional level.

28. We consider that the OMC needs to reconnect with the regional and local level. CEMR calls on the Commission to urge Member States to strengthen the dialogue with local and regional authorities on those issues covered by the EU strategy for active inclusion and, more generally, by the EU social inclusion process. This would allow for a better monitoring of progress on active inclusion by reinforcing the mechanisms existing at national level.

29. Bringing the OMC closer to the regional and local level should also mean greater possibilities for regions and municipalities to benefit from mutual learning and exchange of experiences. Learning from the good practices and experiences from other regions and municipalities is crucial to ensure future work builds on the lessons learnt and contributes to identify innovative and alternative ways to deal with common challenges.

30. CEMR has initiated work on transnational benchmarking of services with its members, which is proving to be very useful for local and regional authorities, and will continue this work in the future.

31. The proposal for the establishment of a Network of Local Observatories could contribute to this mutual learning process among regions and municipalities. In order to avoid duplication, CEMR is of the view that the Network should not lead to

3 In Norway, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Organisation (NAV) was established in July 2006 as a result of the merger of the National Insurance Organisation, the National Employment Service and the local Welfare system. The new system is currently being rolling out. It is expected that by 2009 there will be a local NAV office in each municipality. In Finland, the so-called Labour Force Centres have been established since 2004. They provide multi- professional support bringing together social and health services of local authorities, the national employment administration and the social insurance institution of the country.

53 the creation of new structures but it should aim to improve the existing mechanisms both at national and EU level. It could constitute a flexible instrument for those interested regions and municipalities to carry out peer reviews, benchmarking exercises and exchange of experiences. As a European platform of regional and local government, CEMR would be pleased to be involved in further dialogue on the practical implementation of a Network of Local Observatories.

* * * *

54 COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS CONSEIL DES COMMUNES ET REGIONS D’EUROPE

CEMR Response

to the Public Consultation on the future of EU Cohesion Policy: Growing Regions, growing Europe

Brussels, January 2008

Conseil des Communes et Régions d'Europe• Council of European Municipalities and Regions 15 Rue de Richelieu F-75 001 Paris 1 Square de Meeûs B-1000 Bruxelles tel : + 33 1 44 50 59 59 [email protected] - www.ccre.org Tel : + 32 2 511 74 77

55 Key Points of CEMR’s response

1. The challenges to be faced in the future affect not only the regions lagging behind but all regions in the EU.

2. The future cohesion policy should support all local and regional authorities, in order to foster development and territorial potential of all EU’s localities.

3. Any future EU cohesion policy should be based on the principles of subsidiarity and territorial solidarity and aim to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion across the whole European Union. 4. The cohesion policy should include at its heart the principal objectives formulated by the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas as key guidelines.

5. Further thought and discussion is needed on how to allocate the limited resources.

6. A wider set of criteria should be considered beyond the traditional GDP/GNI-based indicators used so far.

7. CEMR welcomes the increased focus on territorial aspects as the third pillar of European convergence, together with economic and social issues.

8. Within the future debate, it is necessary to take into account the territorial impact of all EU sectoral policies. 9. We also emphasise the importance of urban development issues and of focusing towards the urban-rural interface.

10. It is especially necessary to achieve more complementarity between the regional and the rural development programmes, where, in future, rural development might become an integral part of a coherent territorial cohesion policy.

11. The principle of partnership should be emphasised and more responsibilities could be allocated to local and regional authorities.

12. However, we would strongly reject any tendencies on a “re- nationalisation” of the cohesion policy to the member states.

56 Introduction

1. The Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) welcomes the European Commission’s public consultation on the future of EU Cohesion Policy, reaffirms its strong support and underlines the need for a continuing, ambitious and comprehensive pan-European cohesion policy. 2. CEMR has already noted with concern in the response to the Commission’s 4th Report on Economic and Social Cohesion1 that despite convergence at national and regional level, large disparities remain not only between individual regions of the EU, but also within the regions itself, where they are hidden behind statistical averaging. 3. CEMR underlines, that any future Cohesion Policy should be based on the principles of subsidiarity and territorial solidarity. The focused care for the development needs of least developed territories and of lagging regions should continue also in the future, towards an economic, social and territorial cohesion of the whole European Union. 4. We recall that the debate on the future shape of the cohesion policy after 2013 has just started and that there is still sufficient time for in-depth analyses and continuous dialogue with all stakeholders, before any final conclusions and decisions shall be made. 5. In line with the previous statement, we would like to contribute to the launch of the debate on the future of EU Cohesion Policy with highlighting several issues and principles important for our members, based on the views and experiences of Europe’s cities, municipalities and regions and loosely structured according to the questions published in the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion2.

Challenges for the future

6. The 4th Cohesion Report addressed various challenges, which affect our regions throughout the EU’s territory and CEMR agrees, that the future Cohesion Policy should be reformed in view of the new challenges. The potential impact of the various challenges on cohesion should be thoroughly evaluated and incorporated into the strategic guidelines and programming documents for the post-2013 cohesion policy.

1 CEMR Response to the European Commission’s Communication: Growing Regions, Growing Europe. Fourth report on economic and social cohesion. Brussels, September 2007 2 Growing Regions, growing Europe: Fourth report on economic and social cohesion. Communication from the Commission, May 2007.

57 7. CEMR reiterates that these challenges do not affect only those regions lagging behind but to differing degrees all regions across the European Union. CEMR therefore holds that the future EU cohesion policy should continue to support all local and regional authorities across the EU in the preparation and adaptation in the best possible manner to these challenges which the EU is facing. This implies a shift from a purely redistributive policy focusing on overcoming disadvantages, to a policy of supporting also development opportunities and territorial potential across the diversity of the EU’s localities. 8. Among the key future challenges, which will have to be addressed within the context of a future EU Cohesion Policy, we note the growing importance of the following: a. environmental issues – global climate change including its causatory agents and resulting effects, disbalanced water cycle and the resulting droughts and flooding, or the decline of biodiversity; b. demographic issues – patterns of migration between and within countries, ageing population, rising demand for labour with high education and skills levels with a simultaneous reduction in the demand for manual labour; c. energy issues – increased energy prices, need for environmentally friendly energy sources and improved energy efficiency; d. territorial issues – interface between urban and rural areas, increased urbanisation in Europe and depopulation of rural areas. 9. Many of these challenges should be assessed in view of the ongoing development efforts in line with the Lisbon agenda3 and the Gothenburg agenda4. The principal objectives contained therein should be maintained as key guidelines for the future, notwithstanding the fact, that these strategic documents are formulated with a perspective until 2010.

Lessons learnt

10. CEMR recalls its standing support to a cohesion policy with a prominent convergence objective. Continuing focus on the least developed regions should improve Europe’s cohesion and integration and is a manifestation of the principle of territorial solidarity. 11. In spite of the fact that for the current programming period of 2007–2013 regional policy is the EU’s second largest budget item,

3 Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon European Council, 23–24 March 2000 4 Presidency Conclusions, Göteborg European Council, 15–16 June 2001

58 we share the view published in a recent OECD study5, that the available funding is too small to cover all necessary disparities. Therefore it yet remains to be analysed, how the objectives set for the current programming period (2007–2013) achieve the desired targets and results. However, bearing in mind the limited resources available, future priorities have to be defined both thematically and geographically. 12. Another related implication thereof is the necessity to include the discussion on a future of the cohesion policy in a broader discussion on the future EU budget in order to balance the financial allocations with the addressed challenges. 13. Bearing that in mind, further thought and discussion is needed on how to allocate resources and on the best type of support measures for non-convergence regions, taking into account the lessons learnt during the current funding period. 14. We have noted an emerging consensus, that a wider set of criteria may be considered for the allocation of funding, beyond the GDP/GNI indicators used so far. Among the proposed indicators of “regional happiness” are socio-economic indicators (rate and quality of employment, decentralisation and accessibility index, infrastructure and transport provision), socio-cultural (e.g. the U.N. human development index), socio-demographic (rate of births, divorces or suicides, migration patterns) or socio-environmental (environmental comfort index, days of rainfall, air quality, oxygen and carbon dioxide production etc.).

Growth and jobs in the new context

15. CEMR welcomes the increased focus on territorial aspects as the third pillar of European convergence, together with economic and social issues. Within the Network of Territorial Cohesion Contact Points we actively participate in the implementation process of the European Territorial Agenda as exemplified by the ongoing work within the framework of the 1st Action Programme. We also closely follow the intergovernmental process following the adoption of the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. 16. Progressive urbanisation of Europe's territory allows for the formation of secondary poles of growth, yet inherently results in disbalance of the regional development. CEMR therefore emphasises the importance of targeting towards the urban-rural interface and the need for further strengthening of the link between rural and urban areas in the future, as well as increased focus on integrated urban development. 17. Within the debate on a future Cohesion Policy we deem necessary to take into account the territorial impact of all sectoral policies and

5 OECD Policy Brief: Economic Survey of the European Union, September 2007

59 their role in fostering economic, social and territorial cohesion. A closer synchronization of the cohesion policy is necessary with both the Europe-wide strategic objectives and programmes as well as with development strategies at regional and local levels. 18. CEMR sees noteworthy in this respect, that many of the urgent challenges addressed by the ongoing review of the Common Agricultural Policy are of the same or very similar nature as those addressed by the regional policy, whereby the solution proposed by the CAP review to tackle these issues is through the Rural Development policy6. CEMR would see a need for more complementarity between regional development instruments and rural development instruments, where in the future rural development might become an integral part of a coherent policy of territorial cohesion. In this respect, we remind, that farming enterprises in agriculture and forestry can only be successful in a vital rural context.

Policy management

19. The implementation of the 2007–2013 programmes started only recently and we yet have to follow and evaluate the whole process. The experience of Europe’s cities, municipalities and regions with the programming and preparation of National Strategic Reference Framework documents as well as Operational Programmes can be summarised as follows: 20. On behalf of the stakeholders CEMR calls for increased emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity. Europe’s local and regional authorities would welcome the allocation of more responsibilities in order to increase their involvement in the planning, administration, delivery and monitoring of regional development policies and instruments. 21. In this context, however, we would strongly reject any tendencies on a “re-nationalisation” of the cohesion policy to the member states. 22. Also the principle of partnership should be maintained and manifested within a multilevel approach to governance of a post- 2013 cohesion policy. To this end, we would envisage a process of early dialogue with the relevant local and regional actors and the inclusion of local and regional aspects into national programming documents.

*****

6 Communication from the Commission: Preparing for the 'Health Check' of the CAP reform, 20 November 2007 Conseil des Communes et Régions d'Europe • Council of European Municipalities and Regions 15 Rue de Richelieu F-75 001 Paris 1 Square de Meeûs B-1000 Bruxelles tel : + 33 1 44 50 59 59 [email protected] - www.ccre.org Tel : + 32 2 511 74 77 60

Italie/Italy 318

Portugal/Portugal 117

Suisse/Switzerland 78

Espagne/Spain 46

France/France 40

Suède/Sweden 25 Chypre/Cyprus 21

Norvège/Norway 18

Autriche/Austria 17

Allemagne/Germany 10

Finlande/Finland 6

Grèce/Greece 5 Hongrie/Hungary 4

Roumanie/Romania 3

Lettonie/Latvia 1

Malte/Malta 1

Moldavie/Moldova 1

Royaume-Uni/United Kingdom 1 Serbie/Serbia 1

Slovaquie/Slovakia 1 TOTAL 714

Last updated on 17 April 2008 Elaborated by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) Elaboré par le Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (CCRE)

61 Allemagne - Germany (10)

Borken, Gersdorf, Heidelberg, Kaiserslautern, Mainz, Plettenberg, Westerstede, Göttingen (Landkreis), Neunkirchen (Landkreis), Städtetag Rheinland-Pfalz

Autriche – Austria (17)

Engerwitzdorf, Frankenburg am Hausruck, Innsbruck, Knittelfeld, Leibnitz, Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge, Mistelbach, Oberpullendorf, Purkersdorf, Saalfelden, Salzburg, Sankt Nikolai im Sausal (Marktgemeinde), Schwaz, Ternitz, Weitra, Wien, Zell am See

Chypre – Cyprus (21)

Aradippou, Athienou, Ayios Athanasios, Ayios Dhometios, Engomi, Kyrenia, Kythrea, Lakatamia, Lapithos, Larnaca, Latsia, Limassol, Lysi, Morphou, Nicosia, Pafos, Paralimni, Polis Chrysochous, Strovolos, Yermasoyia, Yeroskipou

Espagne – Spain (46)

Abadiño / Abadiano, Abanto y Ciérvana / Abanto-Zierbena, Albacete, Amurrio, Arrigorriaga, Azuqueca de Henares, Balmaseda, Barakaldo, Basauri, Berango, Bilbao, Busturia, Calatayud, Dénia, Donostia - San Sebastián, Elorrio, Ermua, Gavà, Gernika-Lumo, Gordexola, Huelva, Laudio / Llodio, La Vall d'Uixó (Vall d'Uxó), Legorreta, Leioa, León, Molina de Segura, Muchamiel / Mutxamel, Mungia, Muskiz, Ondárroa, Petrer, Pineda de Mar, Pizarra, Sagunto (Sagunt), Sax, Sopelana, Terrassa, Tolosa, Totana, Ugao-Miraballes, Villena, Zalla, Cáceres (provincia), Jaén (provincia), Federación Aragonesa de Municipios, Comarcas y Provincias

Finlande – Finland (6)

Kuopio, Oulu, Turku, Vantaa, Ostrobothnia (region), Uudenmaa (Uusimaa) (region)

France – France (40)

Aigueblanche, Althen des Paluds, Aubignan, Azay le Rideau, Barsac, Besançon, Chateauneuf du Rhône, Civrieux, Corps Nuds, Dijon (communauté d'agglomération du Grand Dijon), Duclair, Echirolles, Evry Grégy sur Yerres, Grenoble Alpes Métropole (communauté d'agglomération), La Rochelle, Montchanin, Nantes, Nolay, Paris, Puteaux, Ranville, Rennes, Saint Jean de la Ruelle, Sainte Florine, Sceaux, Vif, Charente (département), Finistère (département), Gard (département), Isère (département), Martinique (département), Saône et Loire (département), Val de Marne (département), Vaucluse (département), Bourgogne (région), Bretagne (région), Champagne Ardennes (région), Midi Pyrénées (région), Pays de la Loire (région), Picardie (région)

Grèce – Greece (5)

Agios Ioannis Rentis, Athènes, Kalymnos, Melissia, Nea Penteli

Elaborated by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) Elaboré par le Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (CCRE)

Hongrie – Hungary (4)

Alsózsolca, Magyarmecske, Ormosbánya, Zebegény

Italie – Italy (318)

Abbadia San Salvatore, Acerenza, Agliana, Alessandria, Amiata-Val d'Orcia (comunità montana), Anghiari, Arese, Arezzo, Asciano, Aulla, Badia Tedalda, Bagnone, Barberino di Mugello, Barberino Val d'Elsa, Barchi, Bibbiena, Bibbona, Biella, Bientina, Borgo a Mozzano, Borgo San Lorenzo, Bracciano, Brognaturo, Bucine, Buggiano, Buti, Calci, Calcinaia, Calenzano, Camaiore, Campagnatico, Campagnola Emilia, Campi Bisenzio, Campiglia Marittima, Campo nell'Elba, Camporgiano, Camposano, Cantagallo, Capalbio, Capannoli, Capannori, Capoliveri, Capraia e Limite, Capraia Isola, Carassai, Cardinale, Careggine, Carrara, Casale Marittimo, Casciana Terme, Cascina, Casentino (comunità montana), Casola in Lunigiana, Castagneto Carducci, Castel del Piano, Castel Focognano, Castel Maggiore, Castel San Niccolò, Castelfiorentino, Castelfranco di Sopra, Castelfranco di Sotto, Castell'Azzara, Castellina in Chianti, Castellina Marittima, Castelnuovo Berardenga, Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, Castelnuovo di Val di Cecina, Castiglion Fibocchi, Castiglion Fiorentino, Castiglione d'Orcia, Castiglione della Pescaia, Cava de' Tirreni, Cavriglia, Cecina, Cerreto Guidi, Certaldo, Cetona, Chianciano Terme, Chianni, Chiesina Uzzanese, Chitignano, Chiusdino, Chiusi, Cirigliano, Civitella in Val Di Chiana, Collesalvetti, Comano, Coreglia Antelminelli, Corigliano Calabro, Cortona, Cossignano, Crespina, Cutigliano, Dicomano, Empoli, Fabbriche di Vallico, Fauglia, Fermignano, Figline Valdarno, Firenze, Firenzuola, Fivizzano, Foiano della Chiana, Follonica, Forte dei Marmi, Fosciandora, Fosdinovo, Fratte Rosa, Frontone, Fucecchio, Gaiole in Chianti, Gambassi Terme, Garfagnana (comunità montana), Gerocarne, Giuncugnano, Greve in Chianti, Grosseto, Guardavalle, Guardistallo, Incisa in Val d'Arno, Lagonegro, Lajatico, Lamezia Terme, Lamporecchio, Larciano, Lari, La Spezia, Lastra a Signa, Laterina, Lecce, Licciana Nardi, Livorno, Londa, Lorenzana, Lucca, Lucignano, Magliano in Toscana, Maltignano, Manciano, Maratea, Marciana, Marciana Marina, Marliana, Massa e Cozzile, Massarosa, Melandro (comunità montana), Melfi, Molazzana, Moliterno, Monasterace, Monsummano Terme, Montaguto, Montaione, Montalcino, Montale, Monte Argentario, Montecarlo, Montecatini in Val di Cecina, Montelupo Fiorentino, Montemarciano, Montemurlo, Montepulciano, Monteriggioni, Monteroni d'Arbia, Monterotondo Marittimo, Montescudaio, Montespertoli, Montevarchi, Monteverdi Marittimo, Monticiano, Montieri, Montignoso, Montopoli in Val d'Arno, Mugello (comunità montana), Orciano Pisano, Ortignano Raggiolo, Palaia, Palazzo San Gervasio, Palazzuolo sul Senio, Peccioli, Pelago, Pergine Valdarno, Pescaglia, Pescia, Pescopagano, Pian di Scò, Piazza al Serchio, Pienza, Pietrasanta, Pieve a Nievole, Pieve Santo Stefano, Piombino, Pisa, Pistoia, Piteglio, Pitigliano, Podenzana, Poggibonsi, Poggio a Caiano, Pomarance, Pomarico, Ponsacco, Pontassieve, Pontedera, Pontremoli, Poppi, Porcari, Porto Azzurro, Portoferraio, Portogruaro, Porto Sant'Elpidio, Prato, Pratovecchio, Quarrata, Radicofani, Radicondoli, Rapolano Terme, Reggello, Rignano sull'Arno, Rio Marina, Rio nell'Elba, Rionero in Vulture, Riparbella, Ripatransone, Roccastrada, Roma XX, Rosignano Marittimo, Rotonda, Rufina, Sambuca Pistoiese, San Casciano in Val di Pesa, San Costanzo, San Gimignano, San Giovanni d'Asso, San Giovanni Valdarno, San Giuliano Terme, San Godenzo, San Leo, San Marcello Pistoiese, San Martino Valle Caudina, San Miniato, San Piero a Sieve, San Romano in Garfagnana, San Severino Lucano, San Valentino torio, San Vincenzo, Sansepolcro, Santa Croce sull'Arno, Santa Fiora, Santa Luce, Santa Maria a Monte, Sant'Onofrio, Sarteano, Sarzana, Sassetta, Savignano Irpino, Scandicci, Scansano, Scarperia, Seggiano, Serravalle Pistoiese, Seravezza, Serravalle Pistoiese, Serrungarina, Sestino, Sesto Fiorentino, Siena, Signa, Sinalunga, Sorano, Sorrento, Stia, Subbiano, Suvereto, Talla, Tavarnelle Val di Pesa, Terranova di

Elaborated by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) Elaboré par le Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (CCRE)

63 Pollino, Terricciola, Torre di Ruggiero, Torrita di Siena, Trequanda, Tresana, Uzzano, Vaglia, Vaiano, Valtiberina Toscana (comunità montana), Vecchiano, Venosa, Vergemoli, Vernio, Viareggio, Vicchio, Vicopisano, Villa Basilica, Villa Collemandina, Villafranca in Lunigiana, Vinci, Volterra, Arezzo (provincia), Ascoli Piceno (provincia), Avellino (provincia), Crotone (provincia), Firenze (provincia), Grosseto (provincia), Livorno (provincia), Lucca (provincia), Massa Carrara (provincia), Padova (provincia), Pisa (provincia), Pistoia (provincia), Prato (provincia), Ravenna, Salerno (provincia), Siena (provincia), Lazio (regione), Marche (regione), Toscana (regione), Veneto (regione)

Lettonie – Latvia (1)

Skrunda

Malte- Malta (1)

Qrendi

Moldavie- Moldova (1)

Chişinău

Norvège- Norway (18)

Averøy, Grue, Halsa, Hjartdal, Hjelmeland, Inderøy, Kristiansund, Kvinnherad, Marnardal, Ørsta, Rælingen, Sandøy, Skjåk, Suldal, Valle, Verdal, Østfold, Troms (fylkeskommune)

Portugal – Portugal (117)

Abrantes, Águeda, Aguiar da Beira, Albufeira, Alcobaça, Almodôvar, Alvito, Amares, Anadia, Arouca, Arruda dos Vinhos, Aveiro, Baião, Barrancos, Benavente, Bragança, Cabeceiras de Basto, Caminha, Carrazeda de Ansiães, Carregal do Sal, Cascais, Castanheira de Pera, Castelo de Paiva, Celorico da Beira, Chaves, Condeixa a Nova, Coruche, Cuba, Espinho, Esposende, Estarreja, Estremoz, Évora, Fafe, Felgueiras, Ferreira do Zêzere, Figueira da Foz, Figueira de Castelo Rodrigo, Figueiró dos Vinhos, Góis, Grândola, Guarda, Lagoa (Algarve), Lagos, Lamego, Loulé, Lousã, Lousada, Macedo de Cavaleiros, Maia, Mangualde, Manteigas, Marco de Canaveses, Marinha Grande, Matosinhos, Mealhada, Mesão Frio, Miranda do Corvo, Miranda do Douro, Moimenta da Beira, Mondim de Basto, Monforte, Moura, Murtosa, Nordeste, Odemira, Odivelas, Oeiras, Oliveira de Azeméis, Oliveira do Hospital, Ourém, Pampilhosa da Serra, Paredes, Pedrógão Grande, Ponte da Barca, Ponte de Sôr, Portalegre, Portimão, Porto de Mós, Praia da Vitória, Resende, Ribeira Grande, Rio Maior, Sabrosa, Sabugal, Salvaterra de Magos, Santa Comba Dão, Santa Cruz da Graciosa, Santa Maria da Feira, Santarém, Santiago do Cacém, Santo Tirso, São Pedro do Sul, Sátão, Serpa, Sesimbra, Sever do Vouga, Silves, Sines, Sintra, Tavira, Terras de Bouro, Tomar, Vale de Cambra, Valença, Valongo, Vila de Rei, Vila do Conde, Vila Flor, Vila Franca de Xira, Vila Nova de Cerveira, Vila Real, Vila Real de Santo António, Vila Verde, Vila Viçosa, Vinhais, Viseu

Roumanie – Romania (3)

Băişoara, Cumpăna, Cluj (county)

Elaborated by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) Elaboré par le Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (CCRE)

Royaume-Uni – United Kingdom (1)

Chester-le-Street

Serbie- Serbia (1)

Novi Beograd

Slovaquie- Slovakia (1)

Zábiedovo

Suède – Sweden (25)

Alingsås, Älmhult, Båstad, Berg, Eslöv, Falköping, Gävle, Härjedalen, Jönköping, Lessebo, Lilla Edet, Malmö, Lysekil, Norsjö, Nybro, Skara, Skellefteå, Solna, Sölvesborg, Storfors, Strömsund, Timrå, Vaggeryd, Vårgårda, Västmanland (county)

Suisse – Switzeland (78)

Arlesheim (BL), Arzier (VD), Ausserberg (VS), Auvernier (NE), Avry-sur-Matran (FR), Bellinzona (TI), Belmont-sur-Lausanne (VD), Bern / Berne / Berna, Bex (VD), Bogis-Bossey (VD), Brot-Dessous (NE), Bussigny-près-Lausanne (VD), Charmey (FR), Châtillens (VD), Chénens (FR), Chevenez (JU), Chézard- Saint-Martin NE), Chur (GR), Coffrane (NE), Corminboeuf (FR), Corpataux-Magnedens (FR), Corsier (GE), Courrendlin (JU), Crissier (VD), Cureglia (TI), Delémont (JU), Dully (VD), Eggenwil (AG), Epesses (VD), Faoug (VD), Ftan (GR), Grolley (FR), Hilterfingen (BE), Itingen (BL), La Chaux-de-Fonds (NE), La Sonnaz (FR), Lajoux (JU), Lausanne (VD), Le Chenit (VD), Le Glèbe (Rueyres-St-Laurent) (FR), Maroggia (TI), Mollens (VS, Montpreveyres (VD), Môtiers (NE), Muzzano (TI), Neuchâtel, Poliez-le-Grand (VD), Poliez-Pittet (VD), Pontenet (BE), Porrentruy (JU), Randogne (VS), Réclère (JU), Reinach (AG), Reitnau, (AG), Renan (BE), Riex (VD), Riggisberg (BE), Ronco sopra Ascona (TI), Rueyres-les-Prés (FR), Saas-Fee (VS), Sagno (TI), Saignelégier (JU), Saint-Sulpice (VD), Sarzens (VD), Savagnier (NE), Sorengo (TI), Sottens (VD), Tannay (VD), Trachselwald (BE), Vacallo (TI), Vauffelin (BE), Venthône (VS), Vernier (GE), Vuisternens-en-Ogoz (FR), Willisau Stadt (LU), Worb (BE), Yverdon-les Bains (VD), Zürich

Elaborated by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) Elaboré par le Conseil des Communes et Régions d’Europe (CCRE)

MUNICIPAL ALLIANCE FOR PEACE INSTITUTIONALISATON PLAN – PROPOSAL –

Title Institutionalisation Plan – Proposal Responsible Unit MAP Secretariat / VNG Creator (individual) Chris van Hemert ([email protected]) Contributor MAP International Board Subject (Taxonomy) Proposal for strengthening and institutionalisation of MAP Date approved Audience MAP International Board, UCLG Executive Bureau

67 Municipal Alliance for Peace اﺗﺤﺎد اﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺎت ﻣﻦ اﺟﻞ اﻟﺴﻼم ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ הברית המוניציפלית לשלום במזרח התיכון

INTRODUCTION

On 5 September 2007, during the Barcelona conference “The Role of Local Governments in Peace Building”, the MAP Secretariat presented a proposal for the further strengthening and institutionalisation of MAP to MAP’s International Board. This proposal was the product of a meeting between representatives of APLA, ULAI, VNG and UNDP/PAPP in Jerusalem on 9 July 2007. During the meeting in Barcelona, the Board members agreed to the necessity of an institutionalisation plan to turn MAP into a more efficient, more effective and self-sustaining organisation. Although MAP, during the past two years, has been successful in gaining a worldwide reputation through representation in international forums, achievement of the MAP objectives (i.e. realising tri- lateral projects, attracting donors, etc.) has proven difficult. MAP lacked the institutional identity and capacity often necessary to convince potential donors and the institutional structure to effectively work toward realising its objectives. The MAP Secretariat – in cooperation with APLA, ULAI, UNDP/PAPP and VNG – therefore drafted a plan for further institutionalisation. The meeting in Barcelona resulted in a number of modifications to the original proposal. The adapted proposal was discussed by the MAP International Board in Jeju, South Korea on 28 October 2007, during the UCLG World Congress, and presented to the UCLG Executive Bureau the following day. The discussions in Jeju brought agreement on the main elements of the institutionalisation proposal and led to modifications being made, based on input from Board members, the following months, notably during a meeting between APLA, ULAI, VNG and UNDP/PAPP in Jerusalem on 24 February 2008. The present document can be considered the final draft, preceding the foreseen official adoption by the MAP International Board in The Hague in June 2008, and the UCLG Executive Bureau in Istanbul in September 2008. It is important to understand that the goal of the institutionalisation is not to re-invent MAP as a new organisation, but rather to fine-tune what MAP already is, namely an ambitious, but praisewor- thy initiative by the Palestinian and Israeli associations of municipalities, aimed at dialogue. The members of the UCLG Executive Bureau and the MAP International Board are asked to reflect on this proposal so the institutionalisation plan can be implemented.

Determining considerations

The following considerations should be taken into account while discussing MAP’s institutionalisation:

1. ULAI and APLA are the initiators and owners of MAP. Their commitment and input form the rationale of MAP. In order for APLA and ULAI to be able to promote MAP and give sufficient input to the work of the MAP Secretariat, a more specified institutional structure and identity is necessary. VNG performs as chair of MAP at the request of APLA and ULAI. It is the primacy of APLA and ULAI to appoint another chair by mutual agreement.

2. The umbrella function of UCLG is essential in making MAP a success. In order for MAP to truly become a bottom-up municipal outreach programme, the UCLG network is needed for promoting MAP and convincing municipalities to become involved. In turn, MAP could be instrumental in UCLG’s Middle East and city diplomacy strategies. This is however difficult as long as MAP does not have a clear institutional identity. The best way to accomplish this is through establishing MAP as a Platform, with a clear membership base, under auspices of UCLG. The chair of MAP should be in direct communication with UCLG’s Secretary General and Presidency.

3. A modest legal entity is indispensable for raising funds and entering into contracts with third parties. Both from UNDP/PAPP, which finances the operational secretariat in Jerusalem, as well as from other potential donors, we received the recommendation to establish a legal entity

68 Municipal Alliance for Peace اﺗﺤﺎد اﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺎت ﻣﻦ اﺟﻞ اﻟﺴﻼم ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ הברית המוניציפלית לשלום במזרח התיכון

in the framework of MAP.

4. MAP needs to be clear about its goals, values and ethos. Over the past two years, MAP carried mainly an advocacy profile, while it also has a clear implementation ideology. Though the political situation in the region makes joint project implementation extremely difficult, MAP has to do its utmost to develop concrete and visible activities aimed at dialogue and cooperation on the local level.

5. Pragmatism is key in making municipal projects a success. MAP should maintain its prag- matic approach to project identification. No project theme should be disregarded, if the project plan is feasible. Bilateral (Israeli – Palestinian) projects might be considered if the participat- ing municipalities are willing to cooperate without a third ‘international’ partner.

6. MAP should use best practices offered by fellow peace-building organisations and should build partnerships with organisations that share common objectives. Cooperation could be mu- tually reinforcing. MAP’s asset is the ownership by APLA and ULAI and the access this provides to the Israeli and Palestinian municipalities.

Proposal

The institutionalisation plan is based on a number of elements that require confirmation, so that they can be further elaborated upon in an implementation plan for the institutionalisation of MAP. The elements below will be processed into bylaws upon adoption of the proposal. Agreement on these basic principles is necessary before more detailed questions such as the design of an evaluation & monitoring system, a communication strategy and project assessment procedures can be addressed.

Organisational structure 1. MAP will be transformed into a Platform with a clear membership structure under auspices of UCLG. Members can be cities, associations of municipalities and other main stakeholders, such as donor organisations. NGOs cannot be members of the MAP Platform; they can, however, be invited by the General Board or the Executive Board; 2. The highest decision making body of the Platform will be the General Assembly of the membership. A General Board will be elected for strategic decision making and monitoring of the work of MAP. Out of their midst a small Executive Board will be elected to deal with the implementation of the activity plan and ad hoc decision making; 3. The General Board will consist of 15 members. The first General Board will be composed of VNG (chair), APLA (co-chair), ULAI (co-chair), UNDP/PAPP and UN HABITAT, Cités Unies France (CUF), the Italian Coordination of Local Authorities for Peace and Human Rights, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the City of Barcelona, the City of Rome, the City of Cologne, the City of The Hague, and three members to be confirmed1. The Executive Board will consist of 4 members. The first Executive Board will be composed of APLA, ULAI, UNDP/PAPP and VNG as long as the latter two are the host of the MAP Secre- tariat and the requested chair of MAP; 4. Decisions in the Executive Board will be taken on the basis of unanimity. Should unanimity not be acquired, the decision will be transferred to the General Board; 5. A MAP Foundation will be created, which will execute the instructions of the MAP Platform, and will be responsible for holding financial means in trust and performing as contracting

1 The Network of European Local Authorities for Peace in the Middle East will no longer be independently represented in the MAP General Board. Its activities will be integrated in MAP and its interests promoted in the MAP General Board by Cités Unies France.

69 Municipal Alliance for Peace اﺗﺤﺎد اﻟﺒﻠﺪﻳﺎت ﻣﻦ اﺟﻞ اﻟﺴﻼم ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق اﻷوﺳﻂ הברית המוניציפלית לשלום במזרח התיכון

partner. The Foundation will be steered by a Board composed of the chair and co-chairs of the MAP Platform and UNDP/PAPP. 6. Income generation will be ensured through donor funding and an annual contribution of €2000 from Platform members to cover (basic) operational costs and projects. 7. A Quick Intervention Team of two Palestinian and two Israeli mayors will be established. It will be coordinated by a MAP Secretariat Team Leader. (The present MAP Secretariat Team Leader is seconded by the City of The Hague); 8. There will be monthly meetings of the ULAI and APLA management on guidance, support and advocacy for the MAP Platform and its activity plan.

Legal and administrative implications

1. The MAP Foundation is proposed to be officially registered under Dutch national law with its legal seat in The Hague, the International City of Peace and Justice; 2. The administrative and strategic Secretariat of MAP will be located in The Hague, hosted by VNG (depending on co-financing of costs and based on clear benchmarks and performance indicators); 3. The operational project-oriented Secretariat of MAP will be located in Jerusalem, hosted by UNDP/PAPP (depending on co-financing of costs and based on clear benchmarks and performance indicators). 4. An action plan, a budget proposal and a formal invitation letter for potential new Platform members will be developed by the two MAP Secretariats.

Ground division of roles in the MAP Platform

1. The General Assembly will be of unlimited size to ensure maximum involvement and geo- graphical coverage, and will be responsible for determining MAP’s strategy and policy (within the limits of MAP’s objectives). Potential new Assembly members will be formally invited; 2. The General Assembly is the highest decision-making body of the MAP Platform. The Gen- eral Board and the Executive are accountable to the MAP Platform; 3. The General Board and the Executive Board are entrusted by the General Assembly to take strategic decisions based on input of the General Assembly. The Executive Board is entrusted by the General Board to take decisions in case of urgency; 4. Specific responsibilities (e.g. technical committees) might be assigned to certain members of the General Assembly.

70 COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS EUROPEAN SECTION OF UNITED CITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CEMR

REPORT ON EURO-ARAB FORUM DUBAI, 10-11 FEBRUARY

The first Euro-Arab Cities Forum, on the theme “New Dialogue for Development” took place in Dubai on 10th and 11th February, at the invitation of the municipality of Dubai. The event followed up on the previous Euro-Arab Cities Conferences, of Marrakesh (1988) and Valencia (1994).

Despite the particularly complicated preparatory process of this event, it was agreed that CEMR should remain involved as one of the European partners, together with the Congress of the Council of Europe and Coppem, as the initiative had the positive and important aim of developing mutual understanding between local authorities from the European and Arab worlds at this crucial moment in our history. The initiative moreover represented a good opportunity for CEMR to be able to strengthen our relations with the organising partners from the Arab world, and particularly with the Arab Towns Organisation.

The Forum brought together over 200 participants representing some 35 local authorities from European and Arab countries, respectively. Among the different representatives contributing, Mayors from cities such as Madrid, Luxembourg, Tallinn, Malmö, Larissa and Innsbruck participated in the debates from the European side, with the Mayors of Mecca, Rabat, Medina, Sana’a, Tripoli (Lebanon) and Marrakesh bringing the perspectives of the Arab world to the dialogue.

The programme of the Forum allowed for exchanges of views and experiences on key issues for all local authorities such as local governance, environment and water, public transport and city planning, financial instruments to fund partnership projects, the transfer of best practices and innovation, and culture, heritage and tourism. At the end of the Forum, a Declaration was adopted, which is enclosed in annex to this note.

DUBAI DECLARATION

1. We, the representatives of European and Arab cities, associations of local authorities, international Institutions and non-governmental organizations, meeting in Dubai (U.A.E.) on 10 -11 February 2008 for the Euro-Arab Cities Forum – "New dialogue for development”, welcome the high-level participation at the Forum and confirm our determination to pursue our dialogue as the basis for a more peaceful world with a strong local self – government. We recall that this Forum is organised in the context of an initiative which began with the First Euro-Arab towns Conference, held in Marrakech in October 1988, and continued with the Conference in Valencia in September 1994.

2. We reaffirm our commitment to promote and develop Euro-Arab municipal cooperation and dialogue around the following themes, on a number of vital issues on which the Forum has focused, in particular: - Local governance - Public transport and city planning - Innovation and exchange of best practices - Environment and water - Financial instruments to support partnership projects - Culture, heritage and tourism These sessions have been attended by Mayors and experts of European and Arab cities and the following recommendations have been agreed upon: a) The Forum is of the utmost importance for aiming to the development of our communities and adopting best practices and expertise, as well as providing assistance and support for upgrading standards of good local governance, life and services to our citizens. Such fora should be further held in the future.

b) We consider that this Forum held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, is a platform for improving partnership relations among European and Arab cities. It should be convened periodically every three years in an Arab and European city alternatively. c) The Forum recognizes the necessity of exerting further efforts for conserving the environment and realizing balance between the economic social and environmental dimension, taking into account other issues indispensable for sustainable development of our cities. d) The Forum recognizes the necessity of finding integrated solutions for public transportation and of exchanging experiences and projects in the field of the urban planning.

e) We perceive the necessity of cooperation among our cities for finding financial resources for projects development, in the field of infrastructures, public transportation services, housing, clean water resources, waste treatment, environmental protection, cultural heritage, tourism, etc

3. We will work closely together to identify the means and structures to deepen our partnership in the pursuit of these objectives.

4. Convinced of the mutual interest of cooperation in these areas, we undertake to promote and develop activities in our territories (exchanges, studies, conferences) to achieve a common vision, which is a necessary condition for a stable and peaceful world and a greater socio-economic balance, within which the millennium goals can be achieved, with mutual respect for our cultural, political and religious diversity.

73 5. To this end, a Steering Committee will be set up, which will be tasked with implementing the Forum recommendations and preparing the next Forum, to be held in a European city in 2011. The Committee shall be composed of:

Congress of the Council of Europe, Coppem, CEMR, the Arab Towns Organization, the last organizer city and the new hosting city. The committee will undertake the following duties: − Following up the execution of Dubai Declaration recommendations. − Coordinating between the Arab and European cities for facilitating the operation of exchanging expertise and practices. − Coordinating with the European and Arab side for organizing the next Euro-Arab Cities Forum. − Organizing meetings between the Euro-Arab cities and encouraging partnership among cities, holding workshops and training courses. − Taking part in the international and regional forums of cities. All the decisions shall be taken unanimously.

6. We express our thanks and appreciation to City of Dubai and the United Arab Emirates for hosting this Euro-Arab forum, and for their continuous support for such meetings aimed at developing the communities all over the world. Moreover, we express our thanks to the following organizations and institutions which contributed in arranging this event in Dubai: Arab Towns Organization - ATO; Euro Mediterranean Partnership of Local and Regional Authorities - COPPEM; Arab Institute for Urban Development - AUDI; Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe; Council of European Municipalities and Regions; and every party that contributed in making this event a successful one.