Brussels, 30/01/2002 (Agence Europe) - "With enlargement, inequalities will be the greatest and the most serious, and there will therefore be a greater need for cohesion policy", Commissioner Michel Barnier told the press, presenting the interim report on cohesion adopted on Wednesday by the European Commission. The report takes stock of the debate on what cohesion policy should be from 2007, in a European Union of 25 to 27 members. It confirms that disparities would double with enlargement and that inequalities continue even within the Fifteen, even if they are progressively reduced (see below). It specifically states what regions of the Fifteen could be the most affected by enlargement, because they will be "statistically rich". They could see the Community aid that they receive fall drastically if cohesion policy is limited to the regions of the new members (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.10). The debate "is part of the debate on the future of the Union", stressed the Commissioner, because it raises the question of the Union's solidarity and coherence. Michel Barnier, who is responsible within the Commission for regional policy but also for institutional reforms, asked for "time to be given to this debate" on cohesion policy, "which must not be restricted to finance ministers". The European Commission's detailed and targeted proposals for the next regional policy programming period should be ready end 2003 to allow the new programmes to start up on the ground "as soon as the new programming period begins".
The European Commission considers the future policy should give priority to the poorest regions but that a regional policy should be contemplated for the other regions that need it. Commissioner Barnier admits that there is far from unanimity regarding the continuation of a policy that is not limited to the least developed, but assures that the "idea of a cohesion policy that concerns the whole Union is making headway". It is necessary for it to be "simpler, less bureaucratic and more decentralised", he stressed. The Commission does not hope to keep Objective 2 (aid to reconversion areas) as it is, but to support "several well-targeted objectives" for the towns, the areas that suffer from a natural handicap (mountains), the border regions and the very outlying areas. "This does not rule out the aim of reconversion", for the towns in particular, said Mr Barnier. In favour of abolishing "zoning" (determination by the Commission of eligible areas) under Objective 2, he declared that the Urban programme, which is more targeted and decentralised, is a "good model" for these other accession aids. He also recalled that, in his view, the "threshold of credibility" of cohesion policy after 2007 is a budget that represents at least 0.45% of Community GDP.
Disparities double with enlargement
The report confirms the trends indicated in January 2001 in the second report on cohesion. The gap between the richest and the poorest regions would apparently double with enlargement: the ratio between the 10% of richest regions and the 10% poorest regions increases from 2.6 to 5.8 going from 15 to 27 countries (1999 figures). European GDP falls by 13% over 25 countries, and by 18% over 27 countries. Again, to illustrate the major development differences: 3 million jobs were created in the EU countries in 2000, to reach an employment rate of 63.8% (one point more than in 1999), while 600,000 jobs were lost in the candidate countries, despite stronger growth. Disparities are larger between the regions. The rate of unemployment, 8.4% on average in the Fifteen in 2000, is 9.3% for the 27 countries.
Within the EU, disparities continue to decline, but remain significant: Per capita GDP in Ireland went from 64% to 119% of Community average between 1988 and 2000, while it went on average from 68 to 79% for Spain, Greece and Portugal. The differences are considerable in terms of unemployment, especially if one considers the differences between regions. Thus, unemployment is on average 2.7% in the richest regions and up to 22% in the poorest, said Mr Barnier, who believes "the catching up process remains our long term objective".
The Commission still considers that the future 27-member EU would be formed of three groups (according to national per capita GDP in 2000): the first with GDP of nearly 120% of the average made up of all the Member States of the current EU except for Greece, Spain and Portugal; the second comprised of these three countries plus Cyprus, Slovakia and the Czech Republic (87%); the third formed of all the other candidate countries, with per capita GDP of an average 41% of that of a Europe of 27. In a 25-member Union, 115 million inhabitants would be found in the regions where per capita GDP is lower than 75% of the Community average, that is, 25% of the total population. In regions which are currently eligible under Objective 1, 37 million inhabitants would no longer benefit from this aid.
"For two-thirds of these regions, this situation is said to result from the mechanical effect of eviction due to a reduction in Community means" following enlargement, whereas "the last third are already below the75% threshold, independently of enlargement". In the list of regions that would lose the eligibility for Objective 1 in a Europe of 25 or 27, according to 1997-199 figures, we omitted to mention yesterday those of the United Kingdom. The regions that would lose their status as poor region by a statistical effect are Wales and Merseyside for a calculation on 25 countries, to which would be added Cornwall and the Isle of Scilly for 27. In addition,, in a EU of 15, South Yorkshire, Northern Ireland and the Highlands would no longer be "poor".
Summary of the debate
"There were no proposals to limit Community aid to the new Member States", but nor was there consensus on the level and type of aid to grant the regions of the fifteen following enlargement, the Commission notes in part of the report, intended to make a succinct summary of the debate. Organisations like the CPMR and Eurocities, and the committee of the Regions pleaded in favour of over 0.4% of the Community budget being devoted to cohesion policy, whereas Germany, the Netherlands and others asked for the threshold to be lower. It may be noted that the Commission mentions in the opening of its report the concerns expressed last year by Spain over the statistical effect of enlargement. Many criticisms and suggestions were made on the complexity and cumbersome nature of the procedures. The regions also criticised the fact that the other Community policies (transport, competition, among others) did not take sufficient account of regional problems. Objective 1 regions particularly insisted on maintaining aid, but the question of two thresholds of eligibility (one for regions of the Fifteen, one for new members) "no longer seems to have support". The regions that benefit from other aid (Objective 2, among others) also plead for the experience to be continued. What concerns them is who will decide which areas are eligible, hoping that that will not be up to governments, but also want an end to "zoning" by Brussels.
The report may be consulted on the Internet at the following address: http: //http://www.inforegio.cec.eu.int/wbdoc/docoffic/official/reports/interim1_en.htm . The Second report on cohesion was published last January (EUROPE of 1 and 2 February 2001). It has already been discussed in a large forum (EUROPE 23 May) and at the Informal Council of Namur (EUROPE of 14 and 17 July).