The significance and the need. The revised European cohesion policy has passed its first test- before the European Commission- with flying colours (and it wasn't all easy); it is now up for its second, before the Council, which will be tougher. The Commission has included this policy in the EU's financial framework for the period 2007-2013, and will approve the specific document on this on Wednesday. It's not just a question of money; first of all, the significance of and the need for this policy had to be demonstrated. If it was just a question of numbers, then we could concur with those Member States which have spoken in favour of a more simple formula: rather than a European policy, a Community fund reserved for the least favoured countries, and paid for by the richest Member States, which would give up any European "return" for their less-developed areas, which they would take care of themselves.
This is a respectable position. Countries such as Denmark or Sweden know the meaning of the word "solidarity"; they are among the frontrunners in aid to under-developed countries, and would not deny support to the new Member States. But the aim of the European cohesion policy goes beyond a simple transfer of resources to the poorest countries. Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner in charge of this policy, developed the concept of cohesion policy along with other like-minded Commissioners, as an essential part of the "Lisbon Strategy", completed by the Göteborg conclusions. First of all, a reminder of the text of the Lisbon objective: to make the Union "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth and a quantitative and qualitative improvement in employment and greater social cohesion". Each word has its own weight. Too often, the Lisbon strategy is presented as targeting only the competitiveness of the European economy; the reality is more complex. Sustainable growth, employment and social cohesion are also part of this, on the same scale; and sustainable development was added by the Göteborg Summit. This coherent whole cannot be achieved or usefully continued unless the whole of the Community territory and the whole of the population are directly involved.
A multiple-effect policy. Michel Barnier affirmed that the cohesion policy was "in the very heart of the European project, to make it live and grow". Its effects are manifold:
it adds value to the assets of underdeveloped regions by helping them to overcome their structural handicaps and develop their potential in growth and competitiveness. Certainly, these regions must show dynamism and efficiency themselves. Wherever both factors- EU aid and local impetus- are combined, results are positive and occasionally spectacular; the example of Ireland is the most oft-quoted, but is far from unique (there are also negative examples, in certain parts of the Italian Mezzogiorno);
it affects growth factors deeply, therefore sustainably;
thanks to the stable multi-annual funding framework, it represents a genuine "investment policy" allowing development to be planned over the whole duration (seven years for the programme underway, seven years for the next);
the obligation of co-funding by the beneficiary country makes Member States keep up their national investment efforts even in times of economic slow-down (and in case of budgetary difficulties, investments are the first to be sacrificed, as it well known);
experience shows that cross-border projects are generally penalised, as Member States tend logically to give priority to projects on their territory. The European policy helps get over this handicap and safeguard trans-national projects, which are often the most important and urgent, and promote cohesion of the Union and inter-regional co-operation;
the growth potential in the least-developed countries and regions is often greater than that of regions which are already saturated. Making best use of this potential, thanks to Union regional aid and EIB loans, helps to boost growth in the Union overall;
European controls on the choice and execution of projects are, in certain parts of the Union, more serious and efficient than national controls, and are subject to less pressure (political and otherwise).
Of use to all. The cohesion policy was not approved and wanted solely by the countries which benefit from it directly. Even "net contributors" support it. Luxembourg's Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, called structural funds "the EU's most noble instrument". It is an instrument which is of use to all, even the net contributor countries. Some national authorities have understood this, others have yet to. I will come back to this, and on the essential content of this renewed policy. (F.R.)