Brussels, 30/01/2003 (Agence Europe) - In Thursday's presentation of the second stages report on the future of cohesion policy, European Commissioner Barnier appealed for the continuation of an ambitious policy in order for the "European Union to be more than a market or a bank counter or a directives factory. Following enlargement, the disparities of development will have doubled in the European Union and the adoption of the limited budget will only be afforded to the least developed regions - for the essential of these ten new Member States (see EUROPE 29 January p 2) Commissioner Barnier hammered home the fact that one again the envelope had risen to 0.45% of GDP of the European Union which would be necessary for a "credible" policy, noting that in 2006, after the decisions of Copenhagen Council the EU would devout e 0.4% of its GDP to structural funds. "You know well l that the threshold is not accepted by taxpayers and find it too high, as the same as new Member States find it insufficient. He indicated a few days earlier that he had not convinced the Germans of this policy. Everything would finish with a very hard budgetary discussion, recognised the Commission in charge of regional policy while stressing that he had asked for a debate on the content of the policy. The Commission is expecting to present its proposal son cohesion policy for 2007-2013, next November.
The Commission is expected to give priority to aid to the least developed regions. It will suggest that at least two thirds of Structural Funds should be devoted to Objective 1, reserved for regions whose GDP per capita is below 75% of the Community average. The Commission will propose specific aid for the regions of the current Member States that are to lose their eligibility to Objective 1 aid in the 25-member EU, but that would have kept such aid in an EU with fifteen members ("statistical effect of enlargement"). The very outlying regions are expected to keep a specific status. The Commission is reflecting upon the case of the isolated and scarcely populated regions of Sweden and Finland, Michel Barnier said. The Commission is also expected to call for Cohesion Funds to be maintained, as this supports the major transport and environment infrastructure projects in the least developed countries.
The Commission is expected to take a clear stance for keeping aid beyond the least developed regions, with across the board priorities (employment, information society, etc.) and territorial priorities (towns, mountains, regions in difficulty, etc.). However, it will be necessary to do away with "zoning", to simplify, decentralise and target more. The Urban model, with a national budget and decentralised management, is of great interest to the Commission. Alongside the net contributors who wish to restrict the budget for structural funds, the new member nations may ask for Structural Funds to be solely destined to helping their regions catch up with the others. Michel Barnier told several journalists that candidate countries are not too passionate about Objective 2 but that, as Objective 1 is there to help receivers manage, and that in several years there will be no re-introduction of an Objective 2 that has disappeared, it is in the interest of these countries to seek to maintain it.
The second interim report, as a whole, provides few new elements in relation to the report the Commission approved a year ago (EUROPE of 30 and 31 January 2002). It turns to the state of the debates within the Council and places emphasis on the importance and simplification of programme management, as well as the need for co-ordination with other policies (transport, State aid…). The Commission will already present complete proposals by the end of the year, in the hope that the legislative texts will be approved in 2005 and that programmes will really be able to begin early-2007.
As for the statistical effect of enlargement, the regions that would lose their status of poor region due by statistical effect, according to the 2000 figures of per capita regional GDP, are (the first percentage indicates the situation of the region in relation to the average of the 15 countries, the second in relation to the 25); in Germany: Brandenburg (69,4%; 76,5%), Mecklenburg-Vorpommen (69,4%; 76,5%), Dresden (71,6%; 79%), Halle (70%; 77,2%), Magdeburg (69,1%; 76,2%) and Thüringen (69,6%; 76,7%); in Austria: Burgenland (73,2%; 80,7%); in Finland: Itä-Suomi (74,5%; 82,2%); in Spain: Asturias (70,9%; 78,1%), Murcia (68,7%; 75,7%), and Ceuta y Melilla (68,1%; 75,1%); in Italy: Basilicata (73,2%; 80,7%); in Portugal: Madère (74,4%; 82,1%); in Belgium: le Hainaut (70,8%; 78%), Namur (74,9%; 82,6%); in the United Kingdom: Merseyside (70%; 77,2%), West Wales (70,7%; 78%); South Yorkshire (74,8%; 82,4%). You may recal that this situation may still develop, as the allocation of Objective 1 will be carried out according to the average of the years 2001, 2002 et 2003. These regions could benefit frm phasing out aid "a little longer and a little more substantial than is the case today, as they have not, by far, completed their development", said Commissioner Barnier.