The adoption of the texts governing European Structural Funds and how they are financed until 2013, in my opinion, deserves more emphasis. Europe has confirmed one of the principles justifying its existence: the principle of solidarity. And it didn't do this simply by pouring tens of billions of euros into less developed regions or providing hand-outs to the people there but rather, by confirming at the same time that its support is based on real European policies defined in common.
“Cheques theory” rejected. This wasn't a foregone conclusion. In the toughest phase of the battle on multiannual financial perspectives, a small group of Member States, led by the United Kingdom, called for the dismantling of cohesion policy and its replacement by several cheques paid to less developed Member States. This orientation did not lack a certain logic: why direct money to Brussels if it is then going to be shared out among Member States that provided it? Why maintain a centralised funding system with an ad hoc bureaucracy? This thesis got the support of several academic establishments, with the much hyped “Sapir report” leading the way, which called for the scrapping of two European solidarity policies: the agricultural and cohesion policies. What's just happened to Structural Funds proves that this thesis has been thrown out. It is now certain that over the next seven years the EU will direct 37.5% of its spending on regional, social and cohesion policy; much more than on all the other policies, including agricultural policy.
Credit should firstly go to the European institutions: the European Commission and the Commissioners responsible for these policies (Michel Barnier, in first place, who developed the foundations for a renewal of structural policies; Danuta Hübner, next; the European Parliament and its rapporteurs who were able to demand that the solidarity principle be saved without giving into the demagogic temptation of subordinating the vote in favour of the increases (unrealistic at present) for budgetary payments and the Council which definitively agreed to the main Commission proposals, as well as most of the improvements demanded by Parliamentarians.
Mobilisation of the regions. The attitude of the institutions was crucial. It would not have been enough without a spectacular mobilisation of the EU regions in support of a genuine European policy, elaborated and managed with their participation. Who is old enough (I'm speaking for myself here) to have followed the beginnings of the European regional policy and testify to the radical transformation over the years? At the outset, most Member States did not allow for any freedom of action by the regions and ruled out any visibility in Community action completely; everything had to go via Member State governments. Today, almost all European regions are represented in Brussels and get their voices heard and express themselves in a whole array of different ways. The Committee of the Regions is one of the most active and dynamic European bodies and several regions that have interests partly convergent with or superposed have set up groupings that have won recognition for their efficiency, such as the “Conference of the Peripheral and Maritime Regions of Europe”. Some of the more larger regions also have increasingly more visible individual profiles, such as Catalonia (very active linguistically and culturally) and Bavaria (whose centre in Brussels is spectacular). The result is recognition of the role of the regions at a European level as partners in development strategies and environmental policy, and as bridges between Europe and its citizens at a political and psychological level.
Jacques Delors' message and example. The road undertaken has not always been easy. Jacques Delors, taking part recently in a seminar organised by the Socialist group at the European Parliament, pointed to the chequered history and the stakes at play in cohesion policy. In the 1980s he was himself the promoter of change in the character and dimension of these policies: the amount of Structural Funds was €5 bn in 1985 but was massively increased in the two “Delors packets”. Today it stands at €40 bn a year (308 bn for 2007-13). Jacques Delors affirmed (in a paper signed with Martin Schulz, president of the Socialist group) that cohesion policy is “essential if the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies are to succeed…Following the recent enlargement and the increases in differences in the quality of life in Member States, maintaining this instrument is a necessity for safeguarding our European model”. He also explains that structural policy, “through cooperation, the networks set up, the visibility of the projects, multiannual programming, partnership and focusing actions, provides more value to national and even local efforts made, wherever citizens directly confront the reality of an interdependent world and a capitalism that is constantly changing”. In words he summed up his message with two slogans: 1) “we have to choose between a few cheques to certain Member States and a real partnership that covers the whole of Europe;
2) “without wanting to displease Gordon Brown, there is something in between the nation and the world: it's called Europe”.
Fighting abuses and waste. The votes in the European Parliament make European action definitive (legally until 2013 but one hopes that it will be for longer) in support of cohesion between Member States and between regions, the basis of European solidarity. Parliament voted on the different reports, gaining overwhelming majorities (for the three operational regulations, 533 votes for, 41 against, with 53 abstentions). Voices against came from the Euro-sceptics (but those from a number of central and eastern European countries did not reject Union financial support, far from it) and some of the more incorrigible personalities who believe the payments are too low. Who wouldn't have liked higher payments? Danuta Hübner was the first to regret cuts made to the amounts, as requested by the Commission (€342 bn requested as opposed to the €308 bn obtained). I would like to know who really is satisfied in these cases. In order to carry out its programme, despite the reductions in the overall amount, the Commission is planning to go to the financial institutions: European Investment Bank, EIB, in pride of place and to invite private investors to make as many commitments as possible. An effort will also be made to reduce administrative and management costs. I am convinced that private investors can in some cases make a greater effort and that costs due to the bureaucracy can always be brought down but I refuse to consider that the reduction initiated by the Council and agreed to by Parliament, is a disaster, especially so given the essential factor it has had added to it: the radical and definitive fight against waste observed in some Member States. Certain deviations from the rule and abuses observed in some Member States have been outrageous, added to which is the fact that in the phase that will soon be ending (2000-06), more than €500 million remains unused.
Fighting against and punishing abuses and waste will be more effective than continuously calling for additional funding.
Orientations and funding. The new regulation introduces a number of innovations and significant modifications, discussed at length and prepared in light of the experience gained. I'm not going to go into detail on the contents of the new orientations, which have been broadly commented upon in our bulletin during the months and months of work and debates (which began in 2001). I'll just point out that cohesion policy covers the whole of the EU, the older and new Member States. Given the scale of the development deficit, the main beneficiary will be Poland (almost €60 bn for seven years), followed by Spain (31.5 bn), Italy and countries from central and eastern Europe. Funding criteria have been revised in favour of innovation and competitiveness and target projects that comply with priorities rather than the zones themselves. Most of the funding will, however, continue to support the convergence objective (between the zones lagging behind and the Community per capita average income). The second significant payment is destined for the “competitiveness and employment” objective. The way in which this intervention is managed will be changed, with greater concertation between European authorities and those of the Member States. Greater stress will be put on the regional and local authorities. Urban zones will receive particular attention. The environmental dimension will be compulsory in all interventions: the principle of sustainable development is now at the centre of all cohesion policy.
Immediate activation. With the basic texts being approved (they will be published in next week's Official Journal or at the end of the month), attention will now focus on creating the conditions necessary for the new policy to effectively begin next January. “Strategic Orientations” will be proposed by the Commission in the next few days, Parliament is expected to speak about the matter in September and the Council at the beginning of October. The first example, therefore, of “the Europe of Results” will be in place, together with the hope of public opinion being informed about it and that the professional detractors of the European reality acknowledge it.