Strasbourg, 13/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - Economic and social cohesion policy should act as a guide until it becomes the most important policy in a new Europe, said the European Parliament when it adopted the report by Francesco Musotto (Forza Italia) on the European Commission's second report on economic and social cohesion. At the same time as the Commission has unveiled an interim report on the future of cohesion policy (EUROPE of 31 January, p.11), Francesco Musotto's report covers the second cohesion policy report that was published a year ago. The issues in the report (what kind of regional policy and for whom after 2006) cover the same ground and the report broadly supports the views put forward by the Commission - it was endorsed by a huge majority (408 to 23 with 10 abstentions).
The European Parliament echoed Commissioner Barnier's view that the current percentage of GDP (0.45%) dedicated to cohesion cannot be reduced without jeopardising the chances of success. The EP also maintains that enlargement should not take place to the detriment of the poorest areas in the EU as it stands at present. The MEPs came out against two of the four options put forward by the Commission - applying a 75% threshold (without aid for regions that would thereby lose Objective 1 status) and applying two eligibility thresholds, one of the current Member States and another for new members. The two remaining options are keeping the 75% threshold but with transitory aid for regions that currently fall under Objective 1 but which would no longer be covered, and setting a looser eligibility threshold.
For "poor" regions that are in the process of "being converted", the Musotto report calls for a revised and better targeted Objective 2 based on a small number of detailed territorial criteria, independent of Objective 1. The EP feel that the maximum level of regional aid that a country can be granted should be kept (4% of GDP of the country in question). Perhaps the only divergence from the Commission's views is that MEPs want eligibility for EU aid not to be calculated simply in terms of GDP per inhabitant but to take account of other factors, like the unemployment rate.
The report on the initiative of Samuli Pohjamo (a Finnish Liberal) on managing regional policy and the structural funds slams the delays and complex procedures for implementing the current programme (for 2000-2006). The European Parliament regrets that on average between eight and twelve months are required to negotiate the programming documents rather than five months, as planned, and it astonished that almost two years after the beginning of the programming period, not all programmes have yet been accepted. MEPs put these delays down to both the Commission and Member States and despite improvements, the EP feels that the Structural Funds are managed in far too complex a manner and demands concrete proposals from the Commission on how to simplify the process. Member States are asked to more closely monitor the programmes and to prevent central government from being too "bossy" with regard to local and regional authorities. The EP suggests that the funds that are subject to the automatic de-commitment mechanism (in other words, a Member State loses funds that it does not use two years after they are budgeted for) to be allocated to more disadvantaged regions that carry out projects properly.