Seville, 22/01/2008 (Agence Europe) - During a day of debate and reflection organised by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR) and the Committee of the Regions (CoR) in Seville on 18 January on the future of regional policies after 2013 (EUROPE 9584), Ambroise Guellec, MEP (EPP-ED, France), presented his draft report on the “fourth report on economic and social cohesion”, which is currently under discussion and which raises key issues with a view to broader public debate on the future of cohesion policy after 2013. Guellec's draft report is the European Parliament's response to the theme of the Seville conference. The EP's committee on regional development will be looking at this draft report on Wednesday 23 January. The plenary vote is due to be held on 19 February, in Strasbourg.
The draft report is made up of four parts, Ambroise Guellec said in Seville. These are: (1) an analysis of the 4th Commission report which shows that convergence has improved between member states at the economic and social level but, at the same time, that there are considerable disparities at regional and sometimes infra-regional level, and that in some cases disparities are growing; (2) the relationship between Lisbon regional policy and strategy. This complex subject, he said, is quite difficult simply because the operational programmes adopted show that earmarking funds for the Lisbon strategy has gained resonance. He asked whether this is along the same lines as increased cohesion and whether effectiveness and solidarity currently go well together?; (3) the concept of territorial cohesion. Pending the Green Paper on this subject, which Dirk Ahner, Director General at the European Commission (DG REgio) has promised to bring out in a few months' time, Ambroise Guellec recommends an integrated approach which will place the territorial dimension at the heart of all EU and national policies that have an impact on regional development, including the Lisbon strategy; and (4) the new challenges that have a strong territorial impact such as demographic ageing, climate change, energy issues, and urban concentration. One must see how cohesion policy can provide an appropriate answer to these challenges with a view to convergence between all EU regions.
There are, however, questions that require debate, the rapoprteur said, asserting that 234 amendments have been submitted and 27 compromise amendments negotiated in order to prepare voting. The main points of this draft report subject to amendments are: (1) the refusal to renationalise cohesion policy “as this would prove extremely dangerous”, the rapporterur said evoking the “every man for himself” temptation; (2) the Community budget for cohesion policy must be increased - “it is not enough as it is” - given the objectives set, said Ambroise Guellec, adding: “This also means that territorial cohesion and its content must be very explicit and perceptible to all those who have to pay for the good use of EU financial means”; (3) Is cohesion policy a tool to the service of the Lisbon Strategy? “No. Of course not, both policies must be completely consistent. Of course, cohesion must coincide with Lisbon Strategy, must confirm and uphold it, but it goes further: it is not sufficiently in line with this indispensable competitiveness and this knowledge economy. This also means that, when it comes to strict earmarking, we have a number of observations to make”. A compromise must be reached on these questions, Mr Guellec said; (4) the point under debate is the separation of rural development and regional policy as operated for the period 2007-2013. The rapporteur said: “This does not seem to be the best option. (…) We note in its implementation the many sometimes extremely unwieldy bureaucratic measures, and a lack of visibility which is not always welcome”. MEPs consider they now have “time to think” and that one must sound a note of caution against the two elements of dissociation, the “same policy” and the “integrated approach that makes us say this must be part of the whole”. “It is time to implement territorial cohesion with an integrated approach between sector-specific policies and by also promoting multi-level governance”, Ambrosie Guellec added, saying by way of conclusion: “The debate will be tough”.
In response to Marie Jouen, a member of the cabinet of the Committee of the Regions' president, who wanted clarification about the definition of territorial cohesion as summarised by the rapporteur, namely that this would be the principle for equality between EU citizens “wherever they may be”, Ambroise Guellec said: “There is no definitive definition of territorial cohesion as we are awaiting the work of the Commission to reach a definition shared by all” but “all the examples we have show that enhanced accessibility is a factor of European socio-economic stability”. (G.B.)