Brussels, 31/01/2001 (Agence Europe) - "This debate is part of the wider debate on the future of the European Union, it is the debate over the idea of developing in the EU, solidarity between people and territories" announced the Commissioner for Regional Policy, Michel Barnier, when presenting to the MEPs the second report on economic and social cohesion. This report, adopted on Wednesday by the European Commission, poses the question of cohesion policy after 2007, when the European Union will be enlarged to poorer countries than the present Member States, which will "double" the disparities. There will be, with enlargement, "more disparity, in a scale never seen before", underlines the Commissioner, while recalling the full extent of the problem. If "the centre of gravity of cohesion policy will move towards the East", he underlined, "it is not because we are bringing into the Union poor regions from the East, than the poor regions of the North and South, East (in the present Member States: Ed.) or the peripheral regions, will become from the wave of a magic wand prosperous and rich."
"For the cohesion policy to remain credible, it requires", added the Commissioner, "aims, and the means that are up to them." If the report asks the budget question, it does not answers it more than to request means that are "sufficient". The Commissioner called on the Member States to pay attention to the content before the financing, as opposed to what was done for the "previous negotiations". However, two issues are indivisible, and many questions from MEPs, moreover, covered the financial aspect.
An earlier version of the report gave the figure of EUR 45 billion for a 27-member EU. During the press conference that followed the debate, Commissioner Barnier, who visibly hoped that the report would be more ambitious on this aspect and on others, confirmed that the figure was exact but that the European Commission does not wish to commit itself to any figure. Still on the question of figures, the report has the merit of raising three fundamental issues, even if the Commission does not really come down on the side of any of them:
- Must one continue to allocate a maximum of 0.45% of EU GDP to Structural Funds? On this first point, which affects the overall budget, the report is cautious, stating: "this same percentage must not necessarily be considered as a reference point". The Commissioner believes "we can't go much lower".
- Should the maximum ceiling of annual Community aid be kept at 4% of the GNP of a country? The report speaks of reconciling the aim of cohesion and the absorption ability of candidate countries before concluding that the question should not be raised except in "exceptional circumstances" for specific projects. The Commissioner raised this question to indicate that, with this ceiling, small countries like Lithuania would receive less aid after their accession than before.
- Should one keep the eligibility threshold for aid at 75% of the Community average, and how should this threshold be calculated? This question is also very important because, due to enlargement, statistically, many current EU less developed regions will exceed this threshold, without having caught up the other regions of the Union. The report proposes several solutions, a single threshold whatever the number of countries, the fixing of two thresholds, one for the Fifteen and the other for new members. The Commissioner, speaking personally, would "not press for the creation of two thresholds because this is not the Union's philosophy".
The question of regional policy funding will be raised before the next regional package in 2007, since the first accessions to EU membership may be around 2003. The Commission gives its assurance that all new members will benefit from the current regional policy. The question is that of knowing how. The report stresses that "the scenario differs from that at the base of the Berlin decision. Indeed, in Berlin, in 1999, the Fifteen had foreseen funding for the new members from 2002, in the knowledge that, according to budgetary rules, this money cannot be postponed from one year to the next, or allocated to another use, except through review of the financial perspectives by Council and Parliament. The report raises the question but does not provide a conclusion. Speaking at a press conference, the Commissioner, again speaking "personally", wished to consider the 40 billion earmarked for 2000 to 2006 as an overall allocation. He considers it would be desirable for part of this amount to be used for pre-accession, so that the new members do not suddenly receive very large amounts to manage, but that they receive aid in considerable and gradual amounts. So that they might be able to receive funds and use them fast, the more they are helped upstream, the better, he said.
The report also raises the question of future regional policy instruments. For the Commission, it would seem a secured fact that Objective 1, intended for less developed regions (GDP per habitant below 75% of Community average) must be maintained. On the other hand, for Objective 2, intended for regions under reconversion, the Commission would like to go from the detailed and fastidious determination by the Commission of a list of regions and areas eligible for each country to a more flexible and decentralised system.
Before raising these questions on the future of regional policy, the report gives a detailed and
interesting account of the level of development of the regions of the Fifteen and of candidate countries. It gives less information in the part devoted to the contribution of the other Community cohesion policies, except for competition, with a call for greater coherence between the aid allocated by Community programmes and regional State aid. EUROPE will come back to this in tomorrow's edition.
The debate: MEPs raise questions on the fate of less favoured regions of the current EU
The Commission document was generally well received, but several MEPs stressed the concerns raised mainly, in the disadvantaged regions of the current Union, by the prospect of having to share the cohesion effort between a larger number of countries. "This report states the truth, and I have not waited for 2005 to make the truth known", replied Mr Barnier, noting that he did not have all the answers and that the debate had only just opened and would be conducted in the greatest transparency. There is no need for panic as the fall in the Community average GDP will perhaps be less than the 18 points cited in the report, said the Commissioner. "I shall fight for the continuation of European public intervention", he said, saying that "European solidarity will not be achieved" by allowing market forces to work. In response in particular to German Christian Democrat Georg Jazembowski and to Nea Demokratia member Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Mr Barnier recalled that the report gives, for the problem of countries that run the risk of no longer benefiting from Community funding after enlargement, four different possibilities: - strongly maintaining the 75% threshold of GDP needed to benefit from Objective One assistance; - using a phasing out policy with this threshold, with a substantial amount of money allowing the transition to be facilitated; - increasing the threshold, but this would bring about the question of funding; - providing for two thresholds, one for the current Member States, and the other for the new members. What will happen to regions like Andalusia, Galicia, the Greek regions or the former eastern Germany if an additional financial effort is not made? asked Spanish Socialist Juan Izquierdo Collado. How will the pre-accession instruments be used? asked German Green member Ilka Schroedter. Mr Barnier replied by recalling that, at the Berlin summit, about EUR 39.5 billion had been earmarked for allowing applicant countries joining probably before 2006 to benefit from the current solidarity policies (but that after 2006 these policies would no doubt be different), and that it will be necessary to put to good use the technical aid that the EU can provide in the context of pre-accession (such aid offers the means to carry out prevention and mainly allows assistance to be given to train territorial executives in the future Member States, he noted). Paolo Costa (I Democratici, Liberal Group) asked whether one might not be able to use criteria that are slightly more sophisticated for deciding on the eligibility of regions for Community aid. French Socialist Danielle Darras felt one should take into consideration, for example, the concentration of the population, the breakdown of the population, and its ability to adjust to the new technologies. When one takes per capital GDP as a basis "you are not far from the truth", replied Mr Barnier. Furthermore, the Commissioner told Austrian Christian Democrat Reinhard Rack that he was willing to examine the possibility of a "new Objective 2 policy". He wondered, he said, how appropriate it is to carry out "zoning from Brussels", which means that he has to notify from Brussels that a district or an area is eligible for assistance …