Chalkidiki (Greece), 16/05/2003 (Agence Europe) - The Informal Regional Council confirmed on Friday the deep divisions among the Fifteen on the ambition and budget of the Community cohesion policy post 2006. However, six or seven months on from the European Commission's presentation of its formal proposals for regional policy for 2007-2013, a certain consensus is becoming apparent on various outlines of the policy. The main differences of opinion, which are all inter-linked, focus on the overall budget, the share allocated to regions which are not the poorest (non-Objective 1), and the degree of decentralisation or re-nationalisation of this policy. Positions are converging on the principle of aid pursuit outside Objective 1. Consensus is gathering on the granting of aid to regions which will lose their Objective 1 status due to the statistical effects of enlargement, and nobody (or hardly anybody) is talking about granting exceptional transitional aid to regions which would have lost their Objective 1 aid even without enlargement. All participants- including those from the ten accession countries- confirmed their agreement on one point: aid will be granted to the poorest regions as a priority, and the vast majority of these will be from the ten new Member States.
Commissioner Barnier stressed the fact that "even countries that want to reduce it have acknowledged that (the cohesion policy) has been a success". The Greek Economy and Finance Minister, Nikos Christodoulakis, believes that this policy "should continue to be one of the pillars of the European Union". The European Commission again gave details on its proposals, which seem to be very clearly defined.
What policy? "It would be a serious political error not to continue the cohesion policy in the existing Member States after enlargement", Michel Barnier told the Ministers. In fact, the idea of pursuing aid outside Objective 1 (regions with a GDP under 75% of the Community average) has gained some ground, but remains controversial. The Netherlands, who feel that "rich countries would no longer be able to ask for aid under the EU structural funds, which would free up resources to smooth the new Member States' accession", are still showing resistance. The United Kingdom believes that Objective 2 aid should be decided freely, and even funded by the States themselves (EUROPE of 7 March, p.10). Sweden talked of 5-10% of the structural funds envelope. As to the contents of Objective 2, many Ministers raised the Lisbon and Göteborg objectives (employment, information society, sustainable development), putting aid under co-operation between regions. Sweden and Finland insisted on aid to sparsely-populated regions, and Cypriot Panikos Pouros on cohesion funds. The Commission wants one-third of the overall package to go to Objective 2, which Mr Barnier intends will be "more targeted, more decentralised and simpler". Member States' contributions would be calculated on the basis of "objective criteria (population modulated by indicators such as unemployment, GDP per inhabitant, employment rate, handicaps)". Each State would choose its regions to receive aid. The Commission will put forward an "à la carte menu" based on "five priorities" ("innovation; accessibility and services of general interest; employment and training; environment and risk prevention; rural diversification and preservation of cultural heritage"), and specific areas (urban areas in decline, derelict rural areas, areas with natural disadvantages, and extremely remote areas).
What budget? What ambitions? Basically, the content and the impact of this policy will depend on the decision taken by the Heads of State and Government on the budgetary framework for 2006-2013, and any arbitration between the different policies. Mr Barnier emphasised to the Press that he would like firstly to work on the substance of this policy, "then the time will come to set the level of our budgetary ambition". The Commissioner has always based itself on the figure of 0.45% of Community GDP, which it sees as a "minimum". Mr Barnier spoke in Chalkidiki of a "reference point". The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden unambiguously rejected the 0.45% threshold, declaring it "unacceptable". Germany, Denmark, and Austria, which have a restrictive approach to budget, were on the same wavelength. Parliamentary Secretary of State Karl Diller insisted that the policy be taken among all decisions for Agenda 2007: if we only think in terms of regional policy, we should reduce other policies, he warned. He said that Germany did not want to see a percentage, but a set amount. Greece and Spain, on the other hand, insisted on the threshold of 0.45%, or more. Italian deputy Minister Gianfranco Micciche showed greater misgivings, believing it necessary to "assess carefully" the current level, in terms of other budget decisions and the contents of the policy. The Finn Hannes Manninen indicated that his country could possibly accept 0.45%, but no more. France did not take position on the budget.
Italy will call another Informal Regional Council in Rome on 3 October.