Brussels, 03/09/2003 (Agence Europe) - By adopting the reports of Emmanouil Mastorakis (PES, Greece) and José Javier Pomés Ruiz (EPP-ED, Spain) on Tuesday on cohesion policy, the European Parliament has confirmed its support for the continuation and reform of this European policy after 2006. Opposing the re-nationalisation of this policy, Parliament has taken the same line as the European Commission faced with the concerns expressed by several Member States, especially the United Kingdom. (In connection with the intervention of Commissioner Barnier see EUROPE yesterday p 12).
The Mastorakis report looks at the support for "the Commission's rejection of re-nationalisation attempts of regional policy". Focusing on the second stage report of the Commission on reform of the cohesion policy, it was approved by a very large majority - 452 votes for, 56 against and 23 abstentions. MEPs share the Commission's position on the budget, which should benefit from this policy. The Mastorakis report says that the 0.45% GDP level of the community is a "threshold below which it is impossible to descend". The EP supports the idea that Objective 1, reserved for regions whose GDP is less than 75% of the Community average, "maintains political and economic priority". MEPs are requesting specific provisions for the regions that lose their eligibility for Objective 1, whether or not this is due to the entry of the poorest countries into the EU (statistical effect). MEPs also support the continuation of a remodelled Objective 2, which would encourage "regional competitiveness" and sustainable development. The EP "stresses to what point it is urgent that sector policies contribute more to attaining the cohesion objective" and that they highlight more clearly agricultural, fishing, transport, research and education policies.
The Pomés Ruiz report (443 votes for, 42 against and 30 abstentions) defends Community support for structurally disadvantaged areas (islands, mountainous regions, low density population areas). MEPs are requesting that the specific handicaps of theses regions are recognised in the next structural fund programming period (2007--2013), judging that those that do not benefit from Objective 1 have access to Objective 2. They also believe that the rules restricting access to State Aid have to be made more flexible for these regions. In parallel, this report calls on the IGC to included the notion of territorial cohesion in the future treaty alongside the objectives already mentioned in economic and social cohesion. But although the plenary is in favour of the regions being assisted, it opposed several amendments that would give them privileged status. Therefore MEPs rejected the idea of these areas should receive a "more particular support" from European solidarity. They did not adopt an amendment form the PES to request the setting up of a specific financial instrument for regions that suffer from geographical handicaps (280 against, 231 for with 30 abstentions). An amendment submitted by the GUE/NGL group to give "all the EU archipelagos" the same advantages as the regions benefiting from the remote region status was also thrown out.
The European Commission submitted a detailed inventory of the situation and the initial directions for reform in its second stage report on cohesion policy (EUEOPE 29-31 January 2003). In a third stage report for November or December, it is expected to present complete proposals for reform and programming for the 2007-2013 period (EUROPE 18 July 2003). Member States have begun to discuss the Commission's ideas. Although the continuation of Objective 2 alongside Objective 1 gained ground, Member States are still very divided on the budget for this policy and its possible re-nationalisation (EUROPE 17 May 2003).