Brussels, 22/04/2005 (Agence Europe) - The split in positions regarding the cohesion policy chapter of the next financial perspectives (2007-2013) was confirmed during the meeting on 20 April of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Member States with the EU (Coreper).
After discussion on the other parts of the EU budget (EUROPE 8929 and 8923), Coreper continued examining proposals on the next financial framework by looking at Heading 1b on cohesion to the service of growth and employment. Some Member States in favour of an EU budget that does not exceed the 1% of Gross National Income (GNI) level in an enlarged EU, including Germany and the Netherlands, repeated that they hoped aid to cohesion policy would essentially be of benefit to the poorest Member States. On the other hand, a group of countries (Spain and Greece in particular), in favour of the Commission's proposal, stressed that some regions of the EU15 Member States still needed support under cohesion policy. Given the attacks against its strategy, the Commission warned against a compromise that could endanger the architecture of cohesion policy with its three objectives (convergence, regional competitiveness and employment, territorial cooperation).
The new negotiating paper drafted by the Luxembourg EU Council Presidency, the last version of which was finalised on Thursday with a view to the General Affairs Council meeting on 25 April (see other article), foresees a slightly different breakdown in the allocations: 81% of funds allocated to the “convergence” objective (Cohesion Fund, regions for which aid is being phased out, and additional financing for very outlying regions), 15% of funds allocated to the objective “regional competitiveness and employment” (including “phasing in” regions), and 4% for the “territorial cooperation” objective. We recall that the Commission suggests the following breakdown: 78% convergence, 18% regional competitiveness and employment and 4% territorial cooperation. In this context, the Luxembourg foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, wrote to his counterparts to explain that, in order to reach an agreement, there must be reductions in each of the spending categories but the size of these reductions will not be the same for each heading. The approach adopted by the Presidency is based on the principle of solidarity, in the general aim of ensuring that resources are focused on those who are most in need, Asselborn said, confirming moreover that discussions on own resources are at a standstill.