Stopping a guideline in its tracks. When one looks at what has been achieved, one might be tempted to view as positive the section of the initial draft document on the future of Europe penned by the European Commission's department that recommends slashing EU funding for the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy. The draft document has sparked off keen reflection on the importance and significance of the two policies, concluding that they are essential because they are part of what defines the EU and by weakening them, some of the essence of the European project would be sapped. It is significant that reactions to the draft have come not only from the usual suspects directly concerned by the policies in question (umbrella organisations for the farming world and bodies and institutions representing the regions) but that MEPs have also slammed the idea and thrown all their political weight behind ensuring that this aspect of the Reforming the budget, changing Europe programme is well and truly buried (see my column in issue 10059).
Danuta Hübner's ideas. Talking of the cohesion policy, Danuta Hübner, the former EU regional policy commissioner in the Barroso I European Commission, who is now an MEP chairing the EP's regional development committee, has spoken out. She no longer has to keep diplomatic silence as a member of the Commission and in any case had already left the Commission when the draft document penned by the European Commission came out. Wearing her new hat as an MEP, she set out very clearly and briefly her vision of the EU's cohesion policy.
To quote sections of the document she published in the January-March 2010 issue of the Confrontations Europe review (our translation): “The European cohesion policy plays a key role as a restructuring policy based on investment (…) Cohesion programmes are long-term investment programmes based on European priorities.” EU financial resources for these programmes “are often the main source of public investment at regional level”. The European nature of these programmes is essential: “It is not a policy to provide financial aid to the poorest countries - it is a structural policy working in favour of sustainable regional development of all regions across the whole of the EU (…) Implementing a successful structural policy cannot be started up or managed at country level.” To paraphrase Hübner, she smashes the argument that underlies the above-mentioned European Commission draft document: “Some protagonists are fighting for a re-nationalisation of the EU regional policy and suggest replacing it with an open coordination method among countries, without EU funding. Some people believe it is enough to support cutting-edge industries and invest in growth areas and the market will do the rest. I can assure you that re-nationalisation, or one-off measures for engines of growth, or an industry-specific approach will not be able to achieve EU objectives.” The argument long defended by the United Kingdom, supported by Sweden and a handful of other member states, is well-known, namely that EU regional policy should simply send EU cash to the poorest member states for them to spend as they see fit without having to report back to the European Commission. Wealthier member states can deal with their backward regions themselves without any meddling from the bureaucracy in Brussels and its layer upon layer of red tape. This is many leagues away from Danuta Hübner's idea.
Keep it in place and make improvements. Along with publishing her ideas, Danuta Hübner voiced her concerns to the president of the Commission. She says she was “somewhat relieved” at his reactions but urges the EP to keep on its guard: “Any living system changes and has to be revised, improved and adjusted. We are not happy with the effectiveness of regional policy but work to improve the policy must not be used as a pretext to justify dismantling it”. Improve it in what way? Hübner mentions one way herself and I will be returning to it in a later column. I will also be discussing the common agricultural policy side of this polemic, along with another aspect that has been ignored by all EU institutions to date, including the European Parliament, namely the impact on EU cohesion policy and agricultural policy of certain candidate countries joining the EU club.
(F.R./transl.fl)