The first stage in the battle for keeping a genuine European regional policy after 2006 has been won. The first stage was the European Commission, which is responsible for making proposals; second will be the Parliament (whose positive outlook is already quite evident), the third the Council, encompassing Summit level, because there is a direct link between the prolongation and renewal of regional policy and the new pluri-annual financial perspectives.
An obvious choice, but not for everyone. For many Europeans, it's an obvious choice: regional policy represents the essential instrument to pull the level of development in the various regions of the Union closer together, and is therefore Europe's social cohesion pillar. How could we do without it? There are, however, those who are moving their support away from structured regional policy, and towards a much simpler system of support for less-favoured countries and regions. Let there be no mistake: no Member State or political force wants to do away with solidarity within the EU. This is not a battle pitting the generous against the selfish. But at least three Member States- the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden- believe that solidarity should be expressed by the simple transfer of resources from the richer countries to the poorer, and they themselves are ready to forsake any Community support (two of them, furthermore, are in the vanguard of aid to developing countries). Their generosity is not in question, but they feel that the structures laid down in Brussels, the instruments, the numbered Objectives, the check are all pointless. Why bother centralising considerable financial resources in Brussels, then redistributing them, giving a good bit of it back to the countries which gave it in the first place?
This is a respectable hypothesis, and we know that it was developed in the report by an independent group of University professors and of consultants employed by the Commission itself (see this column of 23 July). But it is the opposite hypothesis which has evidently prevailed, that of keeping a true regional policy; a true one, but quite broadly changed from the one in force. Preparations to update this policy have been underway for a long time, under the initiative of Commissioner Michel Barnier. The announced revision doubtless played an important role in determining which position was retained. In December, or early January at the latest, a week after the communication on the new financial perspectives (see our bulletin of 14 November, page 7), the Commission will present its document on the new cohesion policy, with operational proposals.
Rural development, an essential factor. The Commission's choice was built upon solid arguments against elements of the opposing hypothesis that look attractive at first sight (simplification, less bureaucracy, possible reduction of costs, etc.). Simplification and the reduction of operational costs- which does not mean reduction of donations, which should in fact increase due principally to the needs resulting from enlargement- are already taken account of in the revision. But this is not the main thing. The main thing is the objective of regional planning at European level, first and foremost saving and making new use of rural areas. The concept of "rural development" suffers from a great handicap: its Latin root means countryside, which automatically implies agricultural activity. But it's not just about agriculture. Agriculture only employs some 5% of the Union's population, whereas over half of the European population lives in rural areas. Developing these zones implies a great many other initiatives apart from support to agriculture, if we want the other four-fifths of the European area to stay alive. Opening the European Conference on Rural Development last week in Salzburg, Commissioner Franz Fischler emphasised the fact that in our increasingly urban societies, rural areas "play a crucial role: their agricultural landscapes and their forests are a great treasure for Europe, as are their cultural heritage and the populations who live and work there". He expressed his fears that in the absence of an efficient rural development policy, these areas would suffer "the problems of rural exodus, the ageing population, depopulation and unemployment" (see our bulletin of 14 November, page 11). On the same occasion, Michel Barnier was, as is his nature, more impressive, even sarcastic about "experts, professors and even those holding political responsibility" who believe that cohesion policy is outdated (see our bulletin of 15 November, page 10), concluding: "We will not build the growth of Europe on deserted rural areas and urban fracture", because the citizens of these areas "want to live in their own times but keep their soul".
The Committee of the Regions is, logically, one of the first to defend the European nature of the policy to be implemented and its extension, which it claimed was not restricted to supporting agricultural activities, but also encompassed tourism, support for craftwork and SMEs, access to the information society, services to business and to the population in the area (see Mr Savy's speech in the aforementioned bulletin of 15 November). These are the Commission's choices.
A new Constitutional basis. I must stress that the future Constitution for Europe will give the EU the Constitutional basis to act in favour of the cohesion policy as a whole. How? Michel Barnier has made my job spectacularly easy; I only have to quote him. He explained things thus to the Conference of the Regions "with Legislative Powers" (our translation): "We dreamed it, the Convention did it. After years of progress in economic and social cohesion, the territorial dimension of the cohesion policy has finally been enshrined formally, appearing in article 3 of the Constitution, as one of the European Union's objectives. And it is one operationally, as territorial cohesion comes under the Union's shared competencies (...) Which means that we collectively agree to take into account the objective of balanced development of the whole of the European territory, so that all regions, whatever their specific nature or permanent disability, have equal access to economic development". The instrument of this ambitious plan will be the document the Commission is to propose next month, in the form of the third report on the economic and social cohesion policy.
For a reasonable yet ambitious financial envelope. The foundation for the building must clearly be the financial envelope. Mr Barnier has often said that the "credibility threshold" for an effective cohesion policy is 0.45% of Community GDP. If, however, some of the costs of rural development is used for the common agricultural policy, the percentage of the Structural Funds could drop two or three hundredths to between 0.42 and 0.44% of GDP. The cohesion policy would thus remain at the centre of the Union's political project, whilst being updated in the sense of closer governance to the citizen, and contributing to a better integration of the European territory by focussing on inter-regional and cross-border projects. The global envelope quoted would be given over to:
a) 75% to less-developed regions, whose per capita income is below 75% of the Community average (Objective 1), and with a fair and significant intervention in favour of regions which fall foul of the statistical effect, coming out of Objective 1 due to enlargement, but still in it without (Objective 1a). The destination of these funds, regrouped under the "convergence" objective, will be in line with the slogan "a bit less concrete, a bit more for the Lisbon and Göteborg objectives" (knowledge-based economy, sustainable development). 60% of the funding is already headed for the "Lisbon/Göteborg" projects, and this should increase;
b) around 20% to regional competitiveness, employment and training projects (current Objectives 2 and 3), in non-Objective 1 regions. Priorities will be employment, accessibility (transport, availability of public services), new technologies, quality of the environment, risk prevention. Each Member State will have a national envelope, but will commit to observing a triple concentration: thematic (respecting the priorities mentioned), financial (avoiding spreading the money too thinly between an excessive number of projects), and time (respecting the time-scales planned for the projects on pain of losing funding);
c) 5% to inter-regional co-operation, within a Member State and with its neighbour countries. This aspect should be developed, because enlargement will increase the number of the Union's internal borders, and lengthen external borders considerably (Russia, Ukraine etc). The Interreg, Tacis and Phare programmes should be closely co-ordinated.
An essentially European policy. An action of this kind, covering rural development and the three planks of regional policy, is only possible at European level. A simple mechanism for transferring resources to less-favoured countries could not contain Community rules, the observation of common objectives would not be ensured, projects of Community interest would lose out and there would be nothing to guarantee fair global development. Several Community policies would be compromised, because policies on environment, training, transport and energy infrastructure and technological development are largely paid for by the Regional Funds. Politically and psychologically, furthermore, the partnership between the EU and the regions have become fundamental.
I have just summed up the Commission's guidelines, notwithstanding any final touches or arbitration. Parliament and the Member States will then have their say. Within the Council, the battle will not be so much about the principle of a European cohesion policy (despite the aforementioned reservations of three Member States) as the financial contributions and how they are spent. And the result of the IGC's work on the Constitution will bring its own influence to bear.
(F.R.)