Inadmissible is the first adjective that came to mind when I found out about the report, "An agenda for a growing Europe", elaborated at the request of Romano Prodi by an "independent high-level group" Chaired by Professor André Sapir from the Free University of Brussels". The adjective does not refer to the quality of the scientific part of the report (all the contributors are university lecturers of a high level and the name of their group is proof of that) but rather to the offhand way in which it calls on the European Union to practically call a halt to its action in two essential areas of Community activity: a) regional and cohesion policy, which is not simply an annual cheque paid by the richest countries in the Union to the poorest; b) a genuinely common agricultural policy that directs and manages the activity in this fundamental sector.
Banality and demagogy. It's the lack of awareness. From this point of view, the Sapir report is nothing but a bureaucratic document put together by theoreticians, which has no idea of what the calm elimination of these areas of activity would mean for Europe. Regional policy is solidarity. One of the essential values of European construction linked to the goal of providing a character and a consistent structure to how territory is managed. Agriculture is quite simply one of the pillars of our civilisation. Certain expressions in the Sapir report indicate a glaring lack of knowledge about what agriculture represents in our traditions, our landscape, for the protection of nature and bio-diversity; they employ sentences that are inept, banal and demagogic and which are too often bandied about, such as: the EU spends 40% of its budget on "declining activities" or that it reserves 70% of its resources for agricultural policy and regional policy and that the EU budget is just a "relic from the past". We could say that the authors of the report have never heard of the years of European debates that aim to recognise the multi-functional character f agriculture (the adjective is ugly and pedantic, I can't do anything about that but the University professors ought to be able to understand. They should also understand the need for a European management of the markets to safeguard "Community preference", an indispensable condition for agricultural activity in Europe.
It is true that in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), as well as in regional policy, there have been a lot of mistakes and the abuse and shortcomings have been numerous. The former CAP has left only fond memories. But its most serious mistakes have been corrected and the CAP has just been reformed in a way that should be supported and helped by all those who have an idea of what Europe is and its responsibilities and ambitions, which are not limited to the obsession with competitiveness. I've nothing more to add on the agricultural aspect as I have the feeling that my indignation is now exhausted. But the holidays will recharge my batteries and for my most patient readers, I'll be back in September. On the other hand I have a few remarks to make about regional policy.
Conclusions from reflection on cohesion policy. Recently, European regional policy has been the subject of a real "examination of conscience" in an attempt to assess its effects and its perspectives. Commissioner Michel Barnier and his directorate general have organised a wide and open debate that has enabled the interested parties to express themselves. The result is a far cry from the narrow conclusions and lack of drive in the Sapir report. At the end of the year the European Commission will present its proposals for the next period of "financial perspectives" and I forecast that in the light of the result from the long and detailed reflection period, it will be radically different from those in the Sapir report. Without waiting for this deadline, Michel Barnier has already presented an initial document (see our bulletin of 18 July p 10) and made his views known on several occasions. On 8 July to the President of the regions of the Union, he declared, "The debates of the last two years demonstrate the need for a permanent policy for all the regions of the Union to support sustainable development and competitiveness. Enhancing cooperation must now take on another dimension and contribute to better territorial integration…Cohesion policy must remain at the heart of Union policy, together with governance that is closer to the citizen and a financial dimension that is strong and credible". What financial dimension? Here is the opinion of Michel Barnier, ""I believe that 0.45% of community GDP is the credibility threshold for a cohesion policy of an enlarged Union". Subsidiarity (involving respect for the competencies of regions and countries) "should not lead to the absence of rules in the use of Community funds", the Commission must have a strategic function for priority projects to support and for controlling their efficiency, in harmony with Community and regional priorities. The Commissioner considers that, "the other option, that of sending cheques, is out of the question: cohesion policy is not welfare assistance or charity". This is what I'd call a political vision, between this and the Sapir report, the choice is yours.
The independent competitiveness authority rebounds. A third aspect of the conclusions of the Sapir report implies a political choice, which at first glance, has nothing to do with the group's mandate: its support for the creation of an independent authority for decision-making on competitiveness. The debate is an old one and the Sapir report recommendation is rather abrupt. I believe that the independent authority represents a choice that should not see the future development of the Commission as an abstraction. If the relationship between appointing the President of this institution and the result of the European elections becomes very narrow and if the Commission becomes a politically orientated institution based on this result, then the creation of an independent authority would be opportune, as the decisions on mergers or agreements, should not be "Socialist" or "Liberal" but neutral and objective. If the Commission keeps, between the different political tendencies, a balance that (despite a few episodic slippages) has been characteristic of it since it was created, then the current situation appears the best because the independent character and its indispensable legal fortitude regarding decisions in this area means that it also has the opportunity for a full and political debate within it, with final decisions being decided by the College.
Positive points of the report. Everything written so far is undoubtedly unbalanced and therefore partially unfair as I have only mentioned the aspects of the report that I disagree with and I have ignored the good and useful points. The macro-economic analysis received the compliments of Pedro Solbes. The recommendations on the dynamism of the market, developing investment in research and knowledge, as well as better coordination of national economic policies bring the fruit of an additional reflection on the guidelines of Jacques Delors, made a number of yeas ago and which is supported by the institutions. The functioning of the Stability Pact has been at the centre of the European debate for months and this still continues; the suggestions of the report go, to a certain extent, in the direction of a certain flexibility and deserve some reflection. The new structure proposed for the Community budget highlights in a timely fashion the expenditure and initiatives that are likely to stimulate growth. The fundamental thesis is that the current budget structure does not enable the two essential and priority objectives to be pursued in Europe, namely, successful enlargement and the Lisbon Strategy. But the price to be paid, with the mutilation and "gradual elimination" of agricultural spending is in my opinion irresponsible; I'll go back to what I said.
Discontent of some Commissioners. A final point has to be made, as it has raised a number of eyebrows and comments. The way in which the report was presented in the Commission by President Prodi, caused a certain amount of discontent (this is putting it mildly) among several Commissioners who found themselves confronted with some opposing choices, not only with regard to their options but with regard to everything they have supported and prepared over a long time. It is true that the President said that the report does not mean that the Commission should be committed to it and that its objective is to open a "healthy and open debate", which is now to be had and which he welcomed. He also highlighted the totally independent character of the high level group. But certain elements prove the close link between Romano Prodi and those responsible for the report. André Sapir explained to a Spanish newspaper that he is a "temporary official" at the Commission (until next year) and a member of the "Policy Advisor group", led by Ricardo Levi, who is Prodi's closest advisor. And in the report presentation letter, André Sapir explains that the document is not only the collective work of a "extraordinary team") but also that of Ricardo Levi.
Romano Prodi considers that he is carrying out his Presidential role in this affair just as in previous affairs such as the "Penelope project" and the restructuring of the Commission. Some Commissioners believe on the other hand, that the collegial principle should receive more respect and that all of the Commission should be associated with initiatives such as the three I have just mentioned.
(F.R.)