The importance of the Committee of the Regions

EU Regional Policy: Theory and Practice

Research paper

By Dumitru Trifan
 The importance of the Committee of the Regions

Content :

1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................3
2. The Official Entity of CoR..................................................................................................................................4
3. The CoR implications..........................................................................................................................................5
4. Inter-institutional Relations..................................................................................................................................6
4.1. CoR as an instrument ?......................................................................................................................................7
5. Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................................8
6. Personal Opinion..................................................................................................................................................9
7. References..........................................................................................................................................................10

2
 The importance of the Committee of the Regions

Abstract

This paper provide an analysis of the Committee of the Regions (CoR), by trying to find the par-
ticularities of CoR's actions in the frame of EU decision making and implementing process, and
highlighting its external and internal impact since it began to work in 1994 for assessing its impor-
tance. The article emphasize these elements in five parts. First one make an introduction to the area
of research and the respective organization. The second focuses on the legal entity of the CoR, de -
fined by the Maastricht Treaty. The third part analyze the implications and first contributions to its
main goals. The fourth part is based on emphasis of inter-institutional relations, how these affect
the work process of CoR and vice versa, and how all these impact EU policy-making. The article
concludes that CoR's importance resulting from its formal entity is minimal, and its real importance
is defined by the cooperation and important implications, actions for subnational and supranational
levels.

3
1. Introduction

European Union is a complicated supranational structure, and in order to implement different

projects in a frame of efficient cooperation, is needed an element that will serve as the link between
central authorities and local ones. Committee of the Regions is the organization that is responsible
on policy application, but the official its official status is weak, the real one is reflected in his pur -
poses: to provide the possibility of sharing best practices and take part in a dialogue with the Euro-
pean institutions, for representatives of regions and cities, to assure that the rights and identity of
minorities is protected in the frame of multilevel governance, to monitor economic, social and terri-
torial cohesion in the EU in the interests of the principles of equity and solidarity, to encourage co -
operation between the regions, and a culture of subsidiarity. This paper make an research, in order
to argue that weak official status does not mean low importance. This structure’s actions, have a
low impact on decision making and implementing processes, but it is significant, in the frame of EU
mainly enforced by the Maastricht Treaty 1. In fact, the results of Maastricht Treaty, give more atten-
tion to the Central European Bank and Court of Auditors, rather than to transform the EU in “Eu-
rope of Regions”2. “Initial prognoses were regularly positive in outlook, looking to the growing im-
portance of structural policy to predict a successful future for the Committee” 3. An argument is that
this organization is a result of “entrenched internal divisions and functional overreach in the ab-
sence of any real influence”4. One important feature of Maastricht Treaty, is that he define partici-
pation rights in the process of EU policy making through CoR, for regional actors.

2. The Official Entity of CoR

The base for CoR actions can be found Maastricht Treaty, 198. The Committee advises the Com -
mission, Council of Ministers. It represents the interest of subnational government on Commission

1
It have to be mentioned that CoR is limited in possibilities, and in that sense, there is a warranty in the Commission,
in order to not profit of the position assigned by Maastricht Treaty.

2
Source: “The Committee of the Regions”. William D. Crawford. Political Science. The Ohio State University. 2001.

3
Data from: “The Committee of the Regions: Europe and British Local Government”. Bill Bowring. Euro-
pean Public Law, 1995.
4
Information from: “Territorial Politics and Institutional Reform in the EU-The Committee of the
Regions at the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference”. Thomas Christiansen. Regional Politics and
Policy. 1996.
4
proposals. Since the EU enlargement of 2007, the number of of CoR members increases from 317
to 344 members plus their alternates. The independence of CoR members is guaranteed in art. 198a,
the members are appointed by Council of Ministers. CoR chose its President (now Mercedes
Bresso, Democratic Party),Vice-President (now Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso), and may offer its own
proposals as well as at the request of the Council or Commission. Maastricht Treaty obliges Euro-
pean Commission and Council of the EU to consult the CoR in specific policy areas. The articles
126, 129, 129d, 130b,130d, and 130e of the Treaty, oblige CoR consultations, by understanding of
consultations in matters of education, youth, vocational training, public health; European networks,
economic and social cohesion; and some aspects of structural funds. The CoR can draw up an opin -
ion, where the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has been consulted, and where it
find a regional or local interest involved (article 198c). The consultative status of this organization
does not ensure that regional and local interests will be always the base or the most important crite-
ria in central decision making process, and that the decisions implemented will be always in the best
interest of local authorities. Council and Commission can impose a limit of one month on the CoR
regarding an referred proposal5. CoR cannot involve policies that have general interest, like, mone-
tary union. From general point of view, the own initiatives influence is weak and position in the
frame of EU decision making process is peripheral. However, the formal position, derived from
Maastricht Treaty, is weak, but an research on the impacts of the Committee's Opinions, suggests a
bigger importance of CoR, that go beyond its official weak position.

3. The CoR implications

First results of its activity (1994 - 1995), was 74 Opinions(9 were supplementary) 6. In its process
of work, CoR must promote as more as possible the interest of regions. Observers argue that ”CoR
has cast its net too wide to maintain its coherence” 7; in order to “avoid radical policy agenda, CoR
has alienated the German La Ènder and thereby lost a key constituency of support” 8. The role of
promoter and defender of local interests, reflected in Opinions, go together with their policy imple-

5
Also Committee don’t have the control on its own budget, it is preserve of the Council and the Parliament.

6
For instance, European Economic and Social Committee, regularly produces over 200 reports a year.
7
Data from: “Territorial Politics and Institutional Reform in the EU-The Committee of the Regions at the
1996 Intergovernmental Conference”. Thomas Christiansen. Regional Politics and Policy. 1996.

8
Source: “Regional Information Offices and the Politics of “Third Level'' Lobbying in Brussels”'. Charles
Jeffery. The EU and the Regions of Europe, Leicester University, 6 October 1995.
5
mentation and economic development roles, also CoR is a tool, used by the local actors in order to
increase their importance in Brussels. CoR drawn 30 of the first 64 Opinions on their own 9, which
can be understood as a significant contribution to European Integration. It have to be mentioned that
Maastricht Treaty establish a priori control of subsidiarity, and a right of appeal this protect the
principle by the CoR. The importance of this element is that is the main instrument of CoR for im-
plementing the principal duty, to defend the role of regions. In 1996 CoR propose one of the most
important opinions on Institutional Reform, forwarded to the Reflection Group for the Intergovern-
mental Conference, but this is not the only one, the CoR also express it position on inclusion of
policy areas, as urban policy, environment policy, also one of the desires was about giving to CoR
members a subnational democratic mandate with the power to prosecute EU actors if they act
against the subsidiarity principle. It have to be noticed that this wasn’t a request for a legislative
role, but an attempt to increase the role of protector of subsidiarity principle and an expansion of
policy areas. However, this shows attempts to increase the role of regions in EU decision making
process together with an increase of the role of CoR.

4. Inter-institutional Relations

It is difficult to evaluate the impact of CoR as a working structure, mainly for the reason of its
double role consultative and supervisor of policy implementation structure. In this context, the abil-
ity to shape outputs of EU decision making process would be too much. The structure of Institu-
tional Cooperation in showed by the Graph 1.

9
Most of own initiatives was with regard to economic and social cohesion (eg. Opinion 1995 on the environment;
Opinion 1994 on agriculture).
6
 Graph 1.

On the more cooperative site we can find the Commission 10, rather than the Council, however the
cooperation with this structure still is. The Council act on CoR's proposals like: the CoR's Opinions
on AIDS, surcharges in the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, the right of EU
citizens to participate in municipal elections in member states that they live but don’t have citizen-
ship, etc. Council can search an alliance with Committee against the Commission or/and Parlia-
ment, in the case of necessity (Morphet 1994). CoR's actions, by initiatives are not only in the
Maastricht Treaty frame, but even outside of it, for example cooperation with Council of Europe. A
positive factor for CoR ability to influence the legal framework is inter-institutional links. Some
points of view express skepticism about CoR's impact on Commission's, who don’t take into ac-
count so much the position of regional governments in policy formulation (Christiansen 1996). Also
important is that CoR influence on Council of Ministers is depended on the ability of use of na -
tional governments instrument (Hooghe and Marks 1994). With European Parliament, relations

10
Regarding the history, Commission is already experienced with organizations like CoR, it worked with Consultative
Council of Regions, the organization form which derived the CoR.
7
have been limited11. However the work process is well organized, but the structure and particulari-
ties of work are dynamic as it was in 2010, as an innovative process.

4.1. CoR as an instrument ?

As it can be understood from previous section the significance of CoR is limited, however, it has
some instruments to influence inter-institutional relations. From one perspective we can argue that
CoR has just symbolic role of representing, local governments on upper level, but it does not affect
policies (Christiansen 1996). In general, the “commentators on the performance of the CoR have
fallen into two camps: academics who have tended to be rather sceptical and critical, and practition -
ers who have been more positive and optimistic” 12. Loughlin express a more pessimistic opinion,
that Maastricht Treaty shifts in favor of subnational authorities by sub-nationalization of EU's insti-
tutions. From the point of view of Christiansen, CoR is an symbolic body that suffers from the ab-
sence of real influence on the EU's policy-making process. “The multi-level governance model ex-
plicitly acknowledges the institutionalization of subnational actors, in the form of the CoR, as an el-
ement of conceptualizing the Euro-polity as a multi-level arena” 13. In this sense, “multi-level gover-
nance is the only model where regions would be a governmental level of importance next to na -
tional, European and local arenas”14, but the entity of organization, “remains largely symbolic” 15.
The studies assessing the CoR's importance and its impact on EU decision-making process (Chris-
tiansen 1995, McCarthy 1997), conclude that CoR's ability influence policies is minimal. Another
point is that the Commission always try to increase its role in relations with the Council, by consul-
tations in the process of drawing up proposals, and in this case CoR would be a partner against the
Council of Ministers. From the perspective of the Commission, CoR is more like an instrument for
indirect legitimacy, due to stipulations in Maastricht Treaty. The Commission limited CoR implica-
11
European Parliament don’t have necessarily to consult with CoR, but can used their arguments in order to amend the
legislation.

12
Source: “Representing regions in Europe: the Committee of the Regions”. J. Loughlin. Regional and Federal
Studies. 1996.
13
Data source: “The Committee of the Regions: an advisory body's tortuous path to influence”. Rosarie E.
McCarthy. Journal of European Public Policy. September 1997.

14
Information from: “Subnational mobilization in the EU”. Liesbet Hooghe. West European Politics. 1995.
15
Source: “Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EU”. G. Marks. The State of the European
Community, Vol. 2: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond. 1993.

8
tion in his work by creating the Secretariat General, who monitor the activities in this sense of each
directorate general with CoR. However, the Commission try to stimulate the relations with the
Committee, by asking comments on subjects that are not prescribed by Maastricht Treaty to CoR,
and sending responses to these comments. In general, these relations are show a future orientation
in a frame of actual reciprocal support.

5. Conclusions

In overall, this organization is something new, created more with the purpose of an instrument,
due to Maastricht Treaty. The Committee of the Regions try to change this role, by improving it, in
a more active sense, but this didn’t give them a more stronger legal status, but just a more coopera-
tive one. The results of its activity on legal framework of EU was limited, however it influence the
policies and facilitate the policy applications. It have to be mentioned that a factor that limited
CoR influence on legislation, is the poor support of the Commission, which have its own interests.
This paper try to argue the importance of this structure, but it omitted to say about the difficult
conditions of work in the regions which can agree or disagree with policies particularities, and they
give the feedback to Committee, which by its poor official status cannot influence so much the
work on upper levels, in this sense, it is difficult to assure fulfilling of the “democratic deficit” 16.
This should be taken into account more like an stimulative factor for improvement of CoR role and
importance. In its first years of activity, CoR empowered its status in relations with Commission
and Council and its role in the frame of European Union. An optimistic future is in the hands of the
Committee, that is in contrary with skeptical opinions from literature.

6. Personal Opinion

In my view, this organization serve as a link between the local and central authorities of the EU,
answering that both: the requirements and proposals will be taken into consideration in decision
making process and that the implementation of the decisions will be executed in the best possible
way. However, the consultative status of this organization does not assure that regional and local
16
Extract from: “Democratic Deficit. Does the Committee of the Regions have a Role to Play?”. Michael
Cuthbert. Birmingham University, 1995.

9
interests will be always the base or the most important criteria in central decision making process,
and that the decisions implemented will be always in the best interest of local authorities.

7. References

“The Committee of the Regions: Europe and British Local Government”. Bill Bowring. European
Public Law, 1(3) 1995.

“Territorial Politics and Institutional Reform in the EU-The Committee of the Regions at the 1996
Intergovernmental Conference”. Thomas Christiansen. Regional Politics and Policy. 1996.

10
“Regional Information Offices and the Politics of “Third Level'' Lobbying in Brussels”'. Charles
Jeffery. The EU and the Regions of Europe, Leicester University, 6 October 1995.

“Democratic Deficit. Does the Committee of the Regions have a Role to Play ?”. Michael Cuthbert.
Birmingham University, 1995.

“Channels of Subnational Representation in the European Union, What Model for the Committee
of the Regions? Past Experiences and Future Perspectives. Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks. Oxford
University Press. 1994.

“Subnational mobilisation in the EU”. Liesbet Hooghe. West European Politics. 1995. 3: 175-98.
“The Committee of the Regions”. J. Morphet. Local Government Policy Making,
Europeanisation.1994.

„A Committee of No Importance? Assessing the Relevance of the Committee of the Regions”.

Alexander Warleigh. Southampton Institute of Higher Education Political Studies Association.
Blackwell Publishers. USA. 1997.

“Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EU”. G. Marks. The State of the European
Community, Vol. 2: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond. 1993.

“The Committee of the Regions: an advisory body's tortuous path to influence”. Rosarie E. Mc-
Carthy. Journal of European Public Policy. September 1997.

“Second thoughts on Europe's "third level": the European Union's Committee of the Regions”, T.
Christiansen. Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 1996.

“Representing regions in Europe: the Committee of the Regions”. J. Loughlin. Regional and Federal
Studies. 1996.

“The Committee of the Regions”. William D. Crawford. Political Science. The Ohio State Univer-
sity. 2001.

The Free Library. Article: “The Committee of the Regions: a committee for Europe”.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ (accessed May 2011)

11
Official website of European Economic and Social Committee.
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/ (accessed May 2011)

Official website of Council of the EU.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu (accessed May 2011)

Official website of the Committee of the Regions, and attached websites.

http://www.cor.europa.eu (accessed May 2011)

The official website of EU.

http://europa.eu (accessed May 2011)

12