REPORT on the Commission's Second Report to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Economic and Social Cohesion
(COM(2001) 24 – C5‑0527/2001 – 2001/2207(COS))
11 January 2002
Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Francesco Musotto
PROCEDURAL PAGE
By letter of 2 February 2001, the Commission forwarded to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions its Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (COM(2001) 24 – 2001/2207(COS)).
At the sitting of 10 December 2001 the President of Parliament announced that she had referred the report to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism as the committee responsible and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities for their opinions (C5‑0527/2001).
The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism had appointed Francesco Musotto rapporteur at its meeting of 20 March 2001.
It considered the Commission report and the draft report at its meetings of 10 July, 11 October, 27 November and 19 December 2001.
At the last meeting it adopted the motion for a resolution by 45 votes to 1, with 6 abstentions.
The following were present for the vote: Konstantinos Hatzidakis, chairman; Emmanouil Mastorakis, Rijk van Dam and Helmuth Markov, vice-chairmen; Francesco Musotto, rapporteur; Pedro Aparicio Sánchez (for Carmen Cerdeira Morterero), Sir Robert Atkins, Emmanouil Bakopoulos, Rolf Berend, Theodorus J.J. Bouwman, Philip Charles Bradbourn, Felipe Camisón Asensio, Luigi Cocilovo (for Luigi Cesaro), Garrelt Duin, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Markus Ferber (for Francis Decourrière), Jean-Claude Fruteau (for Danielle Darras), Robert Goodwill (for Jacqueline Foster), Mathieu J.H. Grosch, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Mary Honeyball, Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado, Georg Jarzembowski, Elisabeth Jeggle (for Giorgio Lisi), Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Brigitte Langenhagen (for Reinhard Rack), Sérgio Marques, Linda McAvan (for John Hume), Arlene McCarthy (for Mark Francis Watts), Erik Meijer, James Nicholson (for Dana Rosemary Scallon), Camilo Nogueira Román, Juan Ojeda Sanz, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Wilhelm Ernst Piecyk, Giovanni Pittella (for Carlos Lage), Samuli Pohjamo, Alonso José Puerta, Marieke Sanders-ten Holte, Gilles Savary, Ingo Schmitt, Elisabeth Schroedter (for Reinhold Messner), Brian Simpson, Renate Sommer, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Margie Sudre, Helena Torres Marques (for Rosa Miguélez Ramos), Ari Vatanen, Adriaan Vermeer (for Paolo Costa pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Demetrio Volcic and Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo.
The opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities are attached; the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development had decided respectively on 15 March, 11 April and 25 April 2001 not to deliver an opinion.
The report was tabled on 11 January 2002.
The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.
MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
European Parliament resolution on the Commission's second report to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Economic and Social Cohesion (COM(2001) 24 – C5‑0527/2001 – 2001/2207(COS))
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the Commission's second report (COM(2001) 24 – C5‑0527/2001),
- having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 158 to 162 and 299, paragraph 2, of the EC Treaty,
- having regard to the rules governing the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the pre-accession structural fund,
- having regard to its resolution of 19 November 1997[1] on the Commission's first triennial report on economic and social cohesion,
- having regard to its resolution of 31 May 2001 on environment policy and sustainable development: preparing for the Gothenburg European Council[2];
- having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2000[3] on the sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and on the development of the regions of the European Union,
- having regard to its resolutions on the Commission documents concerning implementation of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund and on Agenda 2000,
- having regard to the opinions of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions,
- having regard to both the Lisbon and Stockholm Summit conclusions on growth, competitiveness and jobs,
- having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (A5-0007/2002),
A. whereas the European Union has resolved to progress towards an ever closer political Union among its peoples and to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment,
B. whereas one of the European Union's objectives is to promote the overall harmonious development of the Community and to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions, in particular by strengthening its economic, social and territorial cohesion,
C. whereas excessive regional disparities constitute both an economic and a political threat to the European Union,
D. whereas cohesion policy is one of the fundamental policies of the Union and of the European integration process; whereas both the European Community and the Member States have a role to play in attaining social and economic cohesion,
E. whereas cohesion policy, which benefits not only the less-developed regions but the Union as a whole, must be focused on sustainable development as the principal means of tackling the needs of the applicant countries while at the same time, ensuring that actions are focused on the regions of the current Member States which are less developed or undergoing restructuring and, lastly, ensuring improved quality, streamlining and subsidiarity,
F. whereas cohesion policy is a tool for solidarity, cooperation and redistribution, and in this sense it is a European internal policy response to uncontrolled economic globalisation,
G. whereas disparities between the various countries have been reduced in recent years thanks to the cohesion policy, yet at the same time the disparities between the regions in certain Member States have increased so that major economic and social imbalances remain among the European Union's different regions, reflected in unemployment and poverty rates much higher than the Community average, low levels of education and training, inadequate infrastructures, backwardness in research and innovation, and levels of competitiveness lower than in the more advanced regions,
H. whereas regional policy in the individual Member States has in part had very mixed results,
I. whereas the current cohesion policy absorbs scarcely 30% of resources and covers over 30% of the population,
J. whereas the success of the cohesion policy depends to a large extent on sufficient financial resources being made available to fund it and whereas the current rate of 0.45% of Community GDP earmarked for the Structural Funds for the current programming period represents an inadequate level below which it is not possible to go without seriously jeopardising the success of cohesion objectives in the run-up to enlargement; whereas administrative problems still remain in taking up this rate,
K. whereas the EIB has increased its commitment to economic and social cohesion policy, by contributing more resources to structural and regional policy actions,
L. whereas it is essential to reject from the outset any attempt to 'renationalise' the EU's cohesion policy, because this implies that responsibility for overcoming regional disparities is unjustifiably being withdrawn from the EU,
M. whereas the purpose of regional policy is not to establish a number of permanent recipients of aid, but rather to make itself redundant in the long term,
N. whereas, furthermore, the concept of 'territorial cohesion' is an important element of the cohesion process and whereas the European spatial development perspective (ESDP) can make a substantial contribution to the balanced and harmonious development of the Union's territory,
O. whereas, to respond effectively to various imbalances, a regional policy cannot have a reference to the threshold of 75% of average Community GNP as its sole eligibility criterion for regions whose development is lagging,
P. whereas the forthcoming process of enlargement is an essential stage in the construction of Europe, because it is in line with the very purpose of the European enterprise, namely to ensure peace and economic prosperity on the continent of Europe,
Q. whereas, as the Commission's second report points out, enlargement of the European Union will lead to an increase in disparities between rich and poor regions and areas, since the population and the territory of Europe will increase by 30%, while Community GDP will grow by only 5%,
R. whereas following enlargement many Objective 1 regions will, under the existing criteria, for purely statistical reasons exceed the threshold of 75% of per capita GDP in the Union, without this entailing any equivalent improvement in their level of real development,
S. whereas the development of the policy of economic and social cohesion ahead of the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union will require bold political choices to be made, both on the budget and within the framework of improved coordination between the various existing Community policies, and in particular the Common Agricultural Policy, with a view to pursuing the objectives of European integration as set out in Article 2 TEC,
T. having regard to the geographical and natural handicaps suffered by the outermost regions, island regions, rural and mountain areas, and areas of low population density, which affect their socio-economic and structural development and require specific treatment,
U. having regard to the acute problems faced by regions undergoing industrial change and recognising that industrial restructuring continues to be a problem in the existing Member States,
V. whereas the current Common Agricultural Policy often, in fact, works counter to cohesion, as mentioned in the Second Cohesion Report; whereas it absorbs approximately 50% of the EU budget and covers scarcely 6% of the population,
W. whereas, pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty, the Community has the task of promoting the equality of women and men and this objective must also be achieved in the context of the policy of strengthening economic and social cohesion,
Current economic and social cohesion policy
1. Welcomes the results achieved in recent years as regards cohesion and the favourable impact it has had on the European Union's regional policy regarding the reinforcement of economic and social cohesion in the Community as a whole; points out that the principle of cohesion, and thus solidarity, is sanctioned by the Treaties and constitutes one of the foundation stones for integration of the Union’s peoples and territories;
2. Emphasises, however, that the progress made has been uneven and that, specifically, although there has been a recovery in terms of per capita income among the Member States, unacceptable regional disparities remain, and these gulfs are widening instead of narrowing, leading to grave concerns about possible further marginalisation of the most underdeveloped regions; notes that with enlargement differences and disparities between the regions will substantially increase;
3. Considers also that an increase in the effectiveness of regional policy is absolutely essential for the development of the disadvantaged regions and this would be the case even without enlargement; takes the view that all those concerned must contribute to attain this objective;
4. Is convinced that a proper regional development policy must create conditions in underdeveloped areas that will attract new investment and remove the structural factors responsible for delays, instead of restricting itself to merely reducing their effects through the compensatory transfer of resources;
5. Considers also that the development of these regions should be encouraged by improving competitiveness, strengthening communication and transport infrastructures, supplying better services to businesses and the population, specifically promoting SMEs, making optimum use of human resources, investing heavily in research and innovation, protecting and improving the environment, improving the interaction between companies, particularly small businesses, and research centres, universities and public bodies and ensuring that there is sufficient administrative capacity to make effective use of Community funds and instruments;
6. Stresses the need to promote the overall harmonious development of the Community and points out that the European spatial development perspective (ESDP) can make a positive contribution to the development of a polycentric model, with the potential capacity to correct the imbalances deriving from the central-peripheral model;
7. Believes that it is important in this context to underline the significance of cooperation between urban centres, rural areas and peripheral areas; towns, particularly small and medium-sized ones, should be seen as an important prerequisite for growth;
8. Points out that, under Article 159, all Community policies and actions must take into account the objectives of economic and social cohesion. Calls on the Commission, with this in mind, to pursue an aggressive trade policy that will ensure the opening of markets in conditions of reciprocity and safeguard companies’ exporting capacity, especially as this is likely to help maintain a high level of employment in the Community’s least-favoured regions, where most labour-intensive businesses are located, for example in the case of the textile industry;
9. Affirms that actively promoting an equal treatment and equal opportunities policy for men and women is an indispensable condition for achieving genuine economic and social cohesion;
The prospect of cohesion: the principal problems
10. Expresses its concern at the sharp disparities in unemployment which persist in many regions of the European Union, together with inadequate levels of vocational training, and firmly believes that a proper regional development policy with flexible instruments can create fresh investment prospects and job opportunities in the less-favoured areas, as well as helping to make optimum use of existing regional resources;
11. Deplores that partnership has only been partially applied; in fact, some sectors (NGOs, local authorities) have been only consulted at a late stage or have been given limited time to contribute to 2000-06 programming; asks the competent national and regional authorities to apply the "bottom-up" principle at all programming, implementation and evaluation stages, so that local and regional actors are fully involved both in current EU regions and in the applicant countries;
12. Regrets the fact that no penalty can be imposed when Member States infringe the additionality principle; agrees, furthermore, with the recommendation of the Court of Auditors that, for the new programming period, procedures for verifying additionality should be drawn up that are more workable, that are integrated into the programming, monitoring and evaluation frameworks and that are suitable for use with the budgetary and statistical information available; calls on the Commission to supply Parliament as soon as possible with a list of the measures it intends to apply to ensure compliance with this principle;
13. Stresses the need to tackle as soon as possible the frequently raised problem of the contribution made to cohesion policy by other Community policies, particularly those policies which have a strong territorial impact such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Transport policy; calls therefore on the Commission to take vigorous action to re-target these policies, with cohesion as a priority, and a central focus on continued reform of the Common Agricultural Policy;
14. Suggests that in future the policy of increasing economic and social cohesion should, because of its fundamental role in the integration of the Union’s peoples and territories, play a leading part, if not become the primary policy of the new Union; believes that it is important to begin thinking immediately, within the context of the next programming period, about the possibility of creating a single regional development Fund;
15. Requests in this respect that the Commission present at the earliest opportunity a more detailed analysis of the impact of the principal Community policies on economic and social cohesion on the basis of the socio-economic indicators being drawn up; and considers therefore that it is vitally important to implement a system to monitor variations in the impact of the various Community policies on European cohesion;
16. Calls specifically on the Commission to continue its re-targeting of the CAP by making further reforms, in view of the particularly high funding which it receives from the budget and the need to ensure greater convergence and consistency with cohesion policies;
17. Considers that due consideration should be given to the specific problems facing geographically disadvantaged areas, such as the outermost areas, island regions, mountainous areas, sparsely populated areas and areas with a cold climate and long journey times and that they should be included among the priorities of regional policy, notably through the implementation of Article 158 of the Treaty;
18. Insists that the outermost regions must continue to be accorded priority in regional and cohesion policy through fresh progress to be made in implementing Article 299(2) of the Treaty;
19. Bears in mind the fact that fishing activity is a strategic sector for many outlying and Objective 1 regions, upon which the main and sometimes the only industrial and job-creating fabric has been built; points out, therefore, that the instruments introduced to share out access to resources within the EU, such as the relative stability mechanism, must not lead to an increase in inter-regional inequality and that, on the contrary, their aim must be to bring about cohesion; consequently, and given that relative stability must be closely linked to current dependency on fishing in coastal areas, stresses the need to study whether the mechanism needs to be updated;
Greater cohesion: actions and methods
20. Believes, moreover, that it is essential to ensure an extremely high degree of consistency between action taken at a European level under the cohesion policy and Member States’ domestic policies in support of development; calls on the Member States, therefore, in accordance with the principles of additionality and subsidiarity, to support the drive for regional economic convergence which has been undertaken at the European level, by means, for example, of a shrewd investment policy that can act as a basis for European intervention and attract new resources to the most underdeveloped areas;
21. Considers it particularly important, in this regard, when this is possible and desirable, to promote the development of public private partnerships, to finance infrastructures contributing to economic development;
22. Stresses the need to adapt competition policy (particular as regards State aids for regional objectives) and fiscal policy (particularly tax exemption schemes) to regional and cohesion policy; since these policies are essential for the future of regions where development is lagging behind, they should be reformulated to promote growth in these regions, since a regional policy based solely on the Structural Funds is not sufficient to enable them to recover lost ground;
23. Believes that an important prerequisite for improving management of regional policy is to strengthen partnership, particularly through greater involvement of all the economic and social players;
24. Welcomes the decision to review the operation of State aids policy and regeneration initiatives involving private finance as a result of the informal Council conclusions of 8 October 2001 and stresses the need for the Commission to prioritise this review, to allow competition policy to support and enhance regional cohesion policies;
25. Calls on the Commission fully to respect the rules governing the content of the reports on economic and social cohesion, given that the second report does not include an analysis of the effects of national policies on economic and social cohesion;
26. Asks the Commission to establish an internal Cohesion Working Group, to evaluate and improve the role of the other Community policies’ contribution to cohesion policy;
27. Calls for the SME sector to be given better access to risk capital and start-up capital so that innovations can be promoted;
28. Draws the Commission’s attention to the under-utilisation of funds in certain eligible Objective 2 zones and calls on it to take the situation into account in considering the next Structural Fund programming period;
29. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to allocate more investments to evaluation and monitoring activities in the 2000-06 regional programmes as a step towards the promotion of governance at local and regional level;
Cohesion policy after 2006
30. Welcomes the Commission’s second report on economic and social cohesion, and considers it to be a useful and necessary basis for embarking on a broader debate on post-2006 cohesion policy; regrets, however, that sufficient attention is not being paid to the challenge posed by the forthcoming enlargement of the Union, particularly the impact that this challenge will have on the Union as a globally competitive and cohesive community; calls on the Commission, therefore, to continue analysing both the economic and social consequences of enlargement and the social solidarity necessary to meet this challenge; and looks forward to receiving the results of the evaluations of the 1994-1999 programmes and mid-term evaluations for the 2000-2006 programmes as key factors in determining the achievements in cohesion policies and for future priorities; asks the Commission in particular to address the disparities in progress where some regions continue to lag behind and some regions have achieved rapid improvements;
31. Stresses that in the future as well it will only be possible to achieve the objectives of the cohesion policy if there is closer correlation between measures adapted to the needs and potential of the regions concerned, and the requisite financial resources;
32. Proposes that reform of cohesion policy should be directed at achieving, simultaneously, the objectives of giving due consideration to applicant countries’ needs and ensuring continued efforts in the current regions in which development is lagging and those in the process of economic reconversion;
33. Considers that the importance of borders in Europe is to be decreased and the process of integration is to be strengthened and that therefore interregional cooperation is of major importance;
34. Considers that new regional policy must pay more attention – and thus devote more resources – to the quality of investments (particularly human resources, permanent training and innovative capability), devising new regional aid instruments designed for this purpose or making better use of existing horizontal instruments;
35. Stresses, nevertheless, the need to promote territorial cohesion in Europe so as to prevent the population, economic activities, employment and investments from being concentrated in the wealthier central zones of the European Union;
36. Calls on the Commission to complete a study on how cohesion policy benefits the whole of the Community, in addition to the regions which receive aid directly, by opening up opportunities for European firms from other regions, by contributing to turning the single market into a reality, by increasing trade and by making the Union more homogenous;
37. Believes that the Cohesion Fund should be maintained, but it should become an instrument of structural policy subject to the rules of Structural Funds (programming, partnership, etc.);
A larger and more complex Union
38. Reiterates its belief that cohesion policy will play an even more important role in the Union that takes shape after enlargement, since it will be one of the key strategies combating the pronounced imbalances that ensue and pursuing the growth and integration of less developed areas;
39. Looks positively on enlargement which will expand the EU's internal market resulting in an overall increase in output which, in step with a rising level of consumption in the new Member States, will help develop new products and services capable of competing on the world market;
40. Emphasises that enlargement should not be at the expense of the poorer regions of the EU's existing Member States;
41. Considers that major efforts will be needed in an enlarged Union to ensure political, economic and financial solidarity with the new Member States, while it will also be essential to continue giving appropriate support to regions where development is lagging behind at present or where restructuring is under way;
42. Believes that enlargement will widen the development disparities between central and outlying regions, as stressed by the Commission;
43. Notes that the forthcoming enlargement will result in a Union with new and more marked imbalances between central and outer regions; with this in mind, believes that a strategic approach to cohesion policy capable of holding together a larger but also less uniform Union and allowing it to progress must be identified immediately; considers, therefore, that current cohesion policy must be reviewed, improved and adjusted to the needs of an enlarged Union;
44. Commends the Union for its timely introduction of new programmes (ISPA, SAPARD) and review of existing ones (PHARE, INTERREG) in order to prepare the new Member States for taking on board Community policies, acquiring meaningful experience and putting in place the political and administrative structures that will need to be fully operational after accession;
45. Considers that the operational mechanisms to promote coordination between the Structural Funds on the one hand and the EDF, PHARE and MEDA Programmes on the other must be made available as a matter of urgency;
Adaptation of instruments to the challenge
46. Considers that the demands from local and regional levels for broad involvement in the programme work of the Structural Funds and their implementation should be given strong backing;
47. Deplores the repeated delays with programme commencement due partly to the Member States and partly to the Commission; asks the Commission to clarify whether in future the programming periods for objective programmes and Community initiatives could be kept separate so that gaps do not occur between programming periods and the preparation phase and negotiations for all programmes do not take place at the same time;
48. Believes that the goals and objectives of Community initiatives should be incorporated into the Structural Funds, since they are a vital instrument in curbing the problems connected with urban renewal and with the transnational, cross-border (it crosses both land and sea borders) and interregional character of the Union and considers that the appropriate measures must be taken to addressing weaknesses that occur;
49. Considers that new and better rules and procedures should be drawn up to ensure that the principle of the value for money is effectively applied;
50. Considers also that regions undergoing restructuring should be able to benefit from a revised and more specifically targeted Objective 2 based on a small number of precise territorial criteria and applicable only outside Objective 1; stresses the importance of furthering the objectives agreed at Lisbon and Stockholm, namely knowledge economy, competitiveness and innovation, investing in people, combating social exclusion and promoting sustainable economic growth;
51. Believes that greater account should be taken of specific regional and local circumstances in the administration of Objective 3;
52. Believes that better coordination is needed between the urban and rural dimensions of regional development policy;
53. Believes that a reformed agricultural policy must be coordinated with regional policy and promote rural development;
54. Calls on the Commission to bring forward the publication of its third cohesion report to enable Parliament to draft its own opinion before the end of its term and the Commission’s;
Funding the future cohesion policy
55. Reiterates that future cohesion policy must be based on the principles of solidarity, partnership and additionality;
56. Wishes to highlight the problem of financial resources, which must be commensurate with the challenge facing an enlarged Europe; stresses the importance of an increase in the efficiency of the Cohesion Policies;
57. Believes therefore that it is not possible to fall below the level of 0.45% of Community GDP earmarked for cohesion policy without jeopardising the success of cohesion policy objectives and that the funding for the future cohesion policy should be based on a higher level;
58. Reiterates the importance of the principle of additionality, as the only way of ensuring sufficient resources and operational synergies with Member States' governments; with this in view, believes that the ceiling for Community funds should remain at 4% of national GDP for all Member States;
59. Considers that the ‘statistical convergence’ that will occur with the accession of new countries should not be mistaken for ‘genuine convergence’ by existing beneficiaries, since the latter will not automatically become rich merely because poorer regions are joining the Union;
60. Believes, with regard to the eligibility of the Union’s least developed regions as beneficiaries of Community cohesion policy, while not wishing to adopt a final position at this stage on the four options put forward by the Commission, which are not the only ones, that regions which will no longer be eligible in future under Objective 1 should continue to enjoy Community support on the basis of criteria yet to be determined; also believes that options 1 and 4 set out by the Commission are not acceptable;
61. Considers in this regard that, in order to prevent the so called ‘statistical effect’ in future cohesion policy, the per capita GDP criterion should be accompanied by other alternative indicators, first and foremost the rate of unemployment; other criteria should also be taken into account to measure the extent of regional problems and development difficulties, such as remoteness indicators, the state of infrastructures and transport, the extent of research and innovation activities, an indicator measuring the quality of human resources (education and training) and an indicator measuring the diversification of regional productive structures;
62. Calls therefore on the Commission, in cooperation with Eurostat, to put forward without delay new statistical indicators for the regions, which take into account in particular their competitiveness in terms of accessibility, infrastructures, research and innovation, education and training, diversification of production activities and rate of unemployment;
63. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States and applicant countries, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
1. Introduction
It soon became clear that the debate on cohesion policy prompted by the Commission's second report on economic and social cohesion was more than merely a routine evaluation.
This report therefore seeks to put forward a number of ideas for consideration, and should be considered as an initial contribution to the dialogue.
The recent Brussels Forum clearly showed the complex nature of inter-related interests and needs which the Union must face and to which it must provide firm replies. In the true spirit of pluralism it is to be expected that a wide range of views will be expressed and will, in Parliament above all, be given a careful hearing.
2. A major success ...
It must be said from the outset that cohesion policy is a major success story in terms of Community integration. Indeed, it is one of the cornerstones of that process.
The information and statistics contained in the report unambiguously show how much progress has been made: between 1988 and 1998 per capita GDP in Objective 1 regions rose from 63% to 70% of the Community average. This was considerably helped by the knock-on effect of Community funding which mobilised considerable national resources and private investment. Furthermore, the benefits of cohesion will not be limited to direct recipients of related funding, but will also extend to countries which are net contributors in terms of exported goods and services.
... with a few flaws
The undeniable successes cannot - and should not be allowed to - hide the difficulties. For example, in certain Objective 1 regions and regions undergoing restructuring, the rate of unemployment has not fallen.
The convergence at Community level in terms of GDP per inhabitant is offset by considerable divergences at national level between the wealthier and less affluent regions. This may be because national policies do not always pursue the same objectives as Community structural policies.
It is also significant that the percentage of road transport has increased everywhere in the Union while, with regard to the environment – undeniably the primary natural development resource in many sectors of cohesion – structural assistance (for the management of waste, hydrological resources and energy) does not appear to be sufficient to ensure lasting and sustainable development which does not have an unfavourable impact on day-to-day life.
3. The period 1994-1999
Close examination of the implementation of the structural programmes shows that budgetary operations produced favourable results for the period 1994-1999, despite a somewhat shaky start, leading to a decisive improvement over the previous period.
Very favourable results have been obtained from infrastructural investments, particularly in the transport sector, which absorbed a considerable amount of investment, notwithstanding the state of infrastructures which are, in many cases, sub‑standard or completely unserviceable. Accessibility is obviously a determining factor regarding the competitiveness of a given area particularly for outlying and island areas. Efforts in this area have proved to be among the most successful insofar as the most outlying regions have now become less marginalised.
However, not all their needs have been met and remoteness is still a relative concept: reducing infrastructure disparities does not necessarily lead to an increase in competitiveness, given that transport infrastructures are also being improved in the more central regions, enabling them to conserve their relative initial advantage. It is also necessary to take account of the environmental ‘cost’ of certain transport projects. The communications and transport requirements of a growing economy have recently meant that road transport has received preference over other, more environmentally ‘friendly’ forms of transport.
4. Towards a larger and more complex Europe
Cohesion policy as defined in the Treaty is an essential part of the integration process in the Community. In future, however, this policy must be recast to cater for the changed circumstances which enlargement will bring. It is also vital that the future regional policy should be based on the results of the assessment of the current planning period.
4.1. The scope of the challenge
The second report on economic and social cohesion examines the features and problems connected with an enlarged Union. The gap between 'rich and poor' will grow appreciably, as one sixth of the Community population will have an income of barely 40% of the Community average.
In preparation for this new situation, the European Union has drawn up a strategy, the main lines of which are laid down in Agenda 2000. In order to meet a challenge on this scale, preaccession programmes and operational instruments needed to be created to enable the applicant countries to incorporate the Community 'acquis' and put in place administrative structures for implementing Community policies and regional policy.
The ISPA preaccession instrument, modelled on the current Cohesion Fund, and the SAPARD programme, are two concrete examples of the instruments set up to assist the applicant countries.
4.2 Practical problems
The most pressing task concerns the ability to implement and administer structural programmes in the applicant countries. This involves not only the individual States, but the Union as a whole. While it is true that much progress has already been made in the right direction, many difficulties remain. In some States, management structures are still lacking, while in others terms of reference and horizontal and vertical cooperation procedures are not clearly defined.
5. Trends and prospects
5.1. Territorial dimension
In the longer term, the concentration of Europe's wealth in the central area of Europe (a triangle covering the area between north Yorkshire, Franche-Comté and Hamburg, around one seventh of the Union's surface area), could be harmful since it implies that the resources available in the outlying regions that make up most of the Community's territory are not being fully used (the comparison with the United States contained in the report is particularly significant in this respect). Hence the need to promote a genuine regional development policy. The European spatial development perspective, adopted by the ministers responsible for regional development in May 1999 in Potsdam under the German presidency of the EU, is an important source of technical information and a valuable instrument for getting to grips with regional planning at European level, particularly as regards tangible and intangible networks.
With this in view, the development of multi-centre models (rather than central/peripheral development models) should be a vital element of Union strategy for promoting the balanced and harmonious development of the Union's territory.
The territorial dimension should therefore form an integral part of the EU cohesion objective, as laid down in the Treaty. Particular attention should also be paid to the outermost areas, islands, mountain areas and areas with low population density, to ensure that they do not remain on the fringes of the Community integration process.
5.2. Innovation and solidarity
The debate on the future of regional policy should prompt us to consider two basic objectives: solidarity towards the new Member States and protection of those currently benefiting from cohesion policies. In order to achieve a strong and cohesive Union, a major effort must be made regarding political, economic and financial solidarity with the new Member States and it is essential to support the less-developed regions in present-day Europe. The 'statistical convergence' which will be achieved with the accession of less-developed countries must not be mistaken for 'real convergence' by the current beneficiaries, who will not automatically become rich simply as a result of the accession of poorer regions.
5.3. Efficiency and streamlining
The strategy adopted should seek to overcome the numerous obstacles to development in the less-favoured regions. Administrative methods adopted should therefore aim at greater efficiency. This involves in particular:
- clearer demarcation between the Commission and other government levels (national and regional)
- less complex procedures
- more subsidiarity and decentralisation
- rationalisation of support instruments (that is to say fewer funds, which are now too numerous and too fragmented)
- better coordination between Community policies (agriculture, transport, research and innovation, education and training, competition and fiscal policy) and cohesion policy so as to contribute to the development of Union territory as a whole.
6. Beyond 2006
Cohesion policy must remain harmonised, avoiding any attempt at renationalisation in the interests of subsidiarity, since 27 national cohesion policies, however good they may be, cannot be implemented in the single socio-economic framework of the internal market.
Furthermore, cohesion policy beyond 2006 must rest on simple and effective bases:
- maintaining under Objective 1 regions which continue to lag behind in terms of development, measured essentially in terms of per capita income;
- introducing a new Objective 2 for other regions, particularly those undergoing restructuring, based on new criteria and territorial indicators (degree of remoteness, accessibility, infrastructures, research and innovation, education and training, diversification of production activities, rate of unemployment) and on a degressive funding mechanism proportionate to the seriousness of the structural problems encountered.
The future cohesion policy should also take account of the regional cooperation dimension (cross-border, transnational and interregional) and the urban dimension.
Lastly, future cohesion policy should be allocated sufficient financial, resources. The current threshold of 0.45% of GDP is an absolute minimum below which it is impossible to go without jeopardising cohesion policy objectives and the budget needed to fund the future cohesion policy should be based on a higher level.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS
20 November 2001
for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the Commission's Second Report to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Economic and Social Cohesion
(COM(2001) 24 – C5‑0527/2001 – 2001/2207(COS))
Draftsman: Harald Ettl
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs appointed Harald Ettl draftsman at its meeting of 10 April 2001.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 25 June, 12 September, 13 September and 16 October 2001.
At the last meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously.
The following were present for the vote: Christa Randzio-Plath, chairman; José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil and Philippe A.R. Herzog, vice-chairmen; Harald Ettl, draftsman (for Helena Torres Marques); Generoso Andria, Richard A. Balfe, Luis Berenguer Fuster, Pervenche Berès, Hans Udo Bullmann, Benedetto Della Vedova, Jonathan Evans, Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm, Robert Goebbels, Lisbeth Grönfeldt Bergman, Christopher Huhne, Pierre Jonckheer, Othmar Karas, Giorgos Katiforis, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Werner Langen (for Christoph Werner Konrad), Jules Maaten (for Olle Schmidt), Thomas Mann (for Brice Hortefeux), Ioannis Marinos, Ioannis Patakis, Karla M.H. Peijs (for Marianne L.P. Thyssen), Fernando Pérez Royo, José Javier Pomés Ruiz, Alexander Radwan, Bernhard Rapkay, Karin Riis-Jørgensen, Peter William Skinner, Ieke van den Burg (for Bruno Trentin), Theresa Villiers and Karl von Wogau.
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The purpose of the reports on the EU’s economic and social cohesion is not just to analyse the actual state of affairs but also to examine subsequently the quality of control mechanisms in an extremely rapidly changing economic environment. Only mechanisms and policies which can be used flexibly and which help prevent the regions drifting too far apart will be able to prevent conflicts and crises, particularly in view of the enlargement of the EU.
Part I Situation and trends
Although cohesion policy as an instrument to reduce disparities in income has led to improvements in European distribution policy, it has been unable to solve major regional problems within some Member States. This was due only to a very small extent to the framework of, and aid from, the structural change mechanisms themselves and to a much greater extent to the political priorities set by the Member States. The greatest obstacles to all the efforts to bring on the weak regions continue to be the level of education and training in poorer sections of society. This situation is caused by a lack of training establishments and infrastructures that are too weak to support industrial and commercial development. It is not enough merely to spread and promote lifelong learning without providing any means of using it.
The cities of Europe are crystallisation points for growth, although some of them unfortunately, show the greatest social decline. We can see that the applicant countries have a similar list of problems to those of the EU itself. It is necessary in any case to adopt measures right now to forestall negative developments taking shape, especially those caused by processes of structural change in industry taking place at breakneck speed.
Low labour productivity and high agricultural employment as well as the constant decline in the number of women employed, although the level was originally high, are just some of the problems which present fresh challenges to pan-European cohesion policy.
Part II Contribution of Community policies to economic and social cohesion
Co-ordinating the economy as a whole with monetary stability policy promotes economic convergence. Although setbacks are perceptible in regions with structural weaknesses, owing to the pressure of the euro and its accompanying measures on the rate of restructuring measures in the introductory stage, reforms can be more quickly introduced with longer term prospects of future success by means of targeted Cohesion Fund measures.
Reducing regional aid too drastically in the present restructuring phase in view of the fact that new tasks will be imposed by the enlargement of the EU will not achieve the objective, if only because of the scale of the major changes. Areas in which the so-called ‘old industries’ are still predominant are still hard hit by structural change in the EU. Further changes in the world trade conventions will still further increase the problems in this area particularly until 2005. The development of the new economy and of the society of knowledge will be a further recipe for change. The objective of achieving sustainable development precisely to increase energy efficiency will produce excellent economic and environmental synergistic effects. Promoting change and innovation means, however, that access to risk and share capital must be improved still further for SMEs as well.
Part III Economic and social cohesion policy: the results
Although the Fund’s financial resources have doubled over the last ten years, owing to the scattering of those resources, it has been impossible to get under control serious problems in the employment sector such as long-term unemployment and youth unemployment. Tighter management of the setting of priorities and monitoring are necessary in order to prevent resources from being frittered away.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs calls on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following points in its motion for a resolution:
1. Observes that since 1989 the development level of regions lagging behind has generally been improved with the aid of the cohesion policy; therefore confirms its commitment to the principle of fund transfers in order to reduce economic disparities in the existing and enlarged EU;
2. Urges a greater concentration of resources on targeted problems and reforms in order to counteract the tendency to set too many diverse priorities and spread the Fund’s resources too thinly;
3. Regrets that in some regions only moderate success has been achieved in solving the problem of chronic unemployment, particularly in the case of long-term, female and youth unemployment;
4. Calls for the immediate introduction of strict management and modern control methods involving forward planning and evaluation;
5. Notes that the EU enlargement process not only requires enormous efforts on the part of the applicant countries themselves but also very great financial efforts on the part of the European Union and the Member States, for example as regards the introduction of factors of competitiveness in industry and agriculture or the transport sector, in order to take measures to address the problem of explosive development;
6. Observes that it is estimated that, at the present rate, it will take at least two generations to achieve approximate convergence of income development alone, which brings home the structural nature of regional development; calls, therefore, for the strengthening of all accompanying measures, which will lead to a reduction in income disparities, in order to guard against repercussions on the labour market caused by enlargement;
7. Stresses the importance of ensuring that new and applicant Member States, which are supported by cohesion funds, have the requisite administrative capacity to use them fruitfully and properly;
8. Suggests that the priority areas for support in the new and applicant Member States should be transport infrastructure, communications, environmental improvement, education and training;
9. Calls for the SME sector to be given better access to risk capital and start-up capital so that innovations can be promoted;
10. Calls on the decision-makers to build into cohesion policy greater dynamism, speedier reactions to change and corresponding budgetary provision for the growing list of problems, particularly at this phase of enormous industrial change caused by technical development and globalisation, by the further increase in the rate of change brought about by the single currency (with its positive implications) and by the EU enlargement process;
11. Stresses that in the future as well it will only be possible to achieve the objectives of the cohesion policy if there is closer correlation between measures adapted to the needs and potential of the regions concerned, and the requisite financial resources.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, EXTERNAL TRADE,
RESEARCH AND ENERGY
4 December 2001
for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the Commission's Second Report to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on economic and social cohesion
(COM(2001) 24 – C5‑0527/2001 – 2001/2207 (COS))
Draftsman: Elisa Maria Damião
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy appointed Elisa Maria Damião draftsman at its meeting of 21 March 2001.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 21 November and 4 December 2001.
At the latter meeting it adopted the following conclusions by 39 votes to 4.
The following were present for the vote: Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza, chairman; Peter Michael Mombaur, vice-chairman; Nuala Ahern, vice-chairman; Elisa Maria Damião, draftsman; Gordon J. Adam (for Glyn Ford), Ward Beysen (for Willy C.E.H. De Clercq), Guido Bodrato, David Robert Bowe (for Massimo Carraro), Giles Bryan Chichester, Nicholas Clegg, Harlem Désir, Concepció Ferrer, Christos Folias, Norbert Glante, Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines (for Umberto Scapagnini), Michel Hansenne, Malcolm Harbour (for Werner Langen), Roger Helmer, Hans Karlsson, Rolf Linkohr, Caroline Lucas, Eryl Margaret McNally, Erika Mann, Hans-Peter Martin (for Elena Valenciano Martínez-Orozco), Hans-Peter Mayer (for Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl), Angelika Niebler, Hervé Novelli (for Marjo Matikainen-Kallström), Reino Paasilinna, Yves Piétrasanta, Elly Plooij-van Gorsel, Samuli Pohjamo (for Astrid Thors), John Purvis, Bernhard Rapkay (for François Zimeray), Imelda Mary Read, Mechtild Rothe, Christian Foldberg Rovsing, Paul Rübig, Konrad K. Schwaiger, Esko Olavi Seppänen, Claude Turmes (for Nelly Maes), Jaime Valdivielso de Cué, W.G. van Velzen, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Dominique Vlasto, Anders Wijkman, Myrsini Zorba and Olga Zrihen Zaari.
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Introduction
Cohesion is one of the EU's greatest successes. The Treaty and the General Regulation on the Structural Funds specify its objectives. This second report evaluates the effectiveness of the Structural Funds, the way in which Community policies have contributed to cohesion and the challenges posed by enlargement. EU solidarity rests on convergence measures, particularly EMU, which lend legitimacy to the EU model at world level.
Assessment of cohesion policy
Disparities between Member States remain high even though the cohesion countries have moved closer to the European average. The main issues concern fundamental approximation in the EU 15 and an increase in the EU's financial effort for cohesion in the 15 Member States. The regional disparities in terms of per capita income are due to low pay and lower levels of education and training; a lack of innovation, research and introduction of new technologies, particularly information and communications technologies; negative growth in traditional farming regions and regions receiving less Community support which have an ageing population and a high percentage of non-skilled/seasonal workers.
Productivity
Disparities in productivity expressed in euros can be seen clearly in the EU 27, with GDP per capita expressed in euros being the most revealing parameter by which to make comparisons within the EU 27. Productivity is an important comparative indicator in the debate over Member States' eligibility for Community funds. Given that the enlargement countries will require infrastructure, the EU 15 will have to take a thematic and sectoral approach and be both flexible and rigorous in its evaluation and in the implementation of funds. Approximation within the EU 15 depends on investment capacity in sectors with high added value.
Economy and centrality
The level of economic specialisation and economic success in the EU can be partly explained by its excessive centralisation, which represents a drawback by comparison with other parts of the world, one example being the decentralised American economy. In a regional triangle, investment capacity is joined by other variables: RDT, education and ICTs, with the result that productivity is 2.4 times higher in central areas than in peripheral areas of the EU. In order to ensure effectiveness, it is important to have a long-term forecast of the consequences of low investment or competitiveness, macro-economic and social factors and negative factors specific to each Member State. A case-by-case definition is needed of what exactly is structural, a notion which has evolved and for which the post-Lisbon Councils have added new indicators. The Commission must continue to study and monitor regional development and the effectiveness of the implementation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, as well as the variables which explain why some regions remain depressed even after Community investment. Given a European economy specialising in services (67% of production), SMEs play a major role in the EU economy and in job creation which may support the emergence of fresh centralities.
Industrial restructuring
Industrial restructuring and sustainable growth are topics which must be addressed in the cohesion debate, along with the much-needed diversification of activities with a view to a balance between Member States, a particularly significant issue for enlargement countries, where restructuring is expected in the first stage of integration. At the same time, the less wealthy regions, whose economies are concentrated on sectors with low added value, must also diversify.
Investment in knowledge and education
Knowledge and innovation are fundamental to development. The cohesion countries spend less than the Community average on education and research. The wealthiest economies in the EU 15 spend more than 2% of GDP on R&D. The low level of education in the cohesion countries, and also in Italy, plays a significant part in the relationship between wage levels, skills and productivity. The link between skills and income is closest where the percentage of graduates is lower and where the majority of the population have not continued their education beyond compulsory schooling, i.e. Portugal. The development of national economies and a single labour market requires skills and mobility, alongside graduate mobility within the EU.
Transport
New transport flows urgently require new centres in the single market. Roads, which are vital for dynamic regional economies and labour markets, are critical for investment in the enlargement countries. Road transport dominates, especially in freight transport. Maritime transport may be cheaper and more environmentally friendly, particularly in combination with rail transport. It is economically irrational that rail transport should have lost ground despite modernisation. Given that Europe's coastline will grow with enlargement, it is crucial to invest in intermodal transport, which remains inadequate in the cohesion countries. Railways are the most highly developed mode of transport in the enlargement countries.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following points in its motion for a resolution:
1. Takes the view that cohesion must be deepened and adapted and that eligibility must take account of the various problems facing the less-developed regions of the EU and the applicant countries for accession;
2. (a) Supports the Commission in a qualitative evaluation of the various indicators in the Member States benefiting from cohesion and the candidate countries, whereby future planning in an EU 27 must take account of the specific features of each Member State;
- (b)Urges the Commission to concentrate efforts in the EU 15 on a more thematic and sectoral approach to the implementation of the Structural Funds, which should be implemented flexibly and assessed rigorously;
- (c)Urges the Commission to place special emphasis on ensuring that, in accordance with Article 159 of the EC Treaty, account is taken of the objectives of Article 158 of the EC Treaty when formulating and developing Community policies and actions;
3. Supports the increase in the EU financial effort for cohesion policy, particularly through a rigorous competition policy and the budgetary review of Community policies;
- (a)Takes the view that no policy area with a bigger budget than cohesion should neutralise cohesion;
- (b)Takes the view that the less-developed countries pay production aid amounting to virtually the whole of the Community budget and that the lack of rigour as regards competition does not favour cohesion and the internal market;
- (c)Takes the view that the EU needs new centralities and greater diversification of its economy;
4. (a) Urges the Commission to speed up the liberalisation of the European market in energy and communications whilst respecting universal service;
- (b)Urges the Commission to prioritise energy efficiency and research in enhanced recovery and renewable energies;
- (c)Urges the Commission to speed up the creation of major trans-European communications and energy networks, with the aim of improving interconnections between the various EU regions;
- (d )Calls on the Commission to complete the necessary communications infrastructures, including transport (rail, sea and road), so as to offset the unfavourable effects on competition in outlying regions, without which cohesion efforts under way will be compromised;
- (e)Points out the potential impact of energy pricing and taxation on the economies of remote and peripheral regions;
- (f)Recommends increased emphasis on developing indigenous energy supply, including clean coal, renewables, nuclear and hydrocarbons;
5. Welcomes the thrust of the Sixth Framework Research Programme, and particularly emphasises the importance of developing centres of excellence in science and technology;
6. Urges the Commission to create a European RDT area and to improve the mobility of personnel and young trainees, encouraging European integration and technology transfer;
7. Consistent with the Lisbon target, the EU should be moving Europe to be a competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy, both in existing Member States and in the candidate countries by:
- (a)investing in infrastructure to support new industrial development;
- (b)encouraging clusters of new industries (IT and biotech especially);
- (c)helping to restructure older/declining industries;
- (d)reviving the regions blighted by declining industries;
- (e)providing for a better educated and skilled people;
- (f)considering immigration by highly skilled people;
8. Agrees with the Commission that a differentiated business policy is needed, particularly with regard to the difficulties facing SMEs in gaining access to investment, technology, skilled human resources and RDT;
9. Points out that, under Article 159, all Community policies and actions must take into account the objectives of economic and social cohesion. Calls on the Commission, with this in mind, to pursue an aggressive trade policy that will ensure the opening of markets in conditions of reciprocity and safeguard companies’ exporting capacity, especially as this is likely to help maintain a high level of employment in the Community’s least-favoured regions, where most labour-intensive businesses are located, for example in the case of the textile industry;
10. Calls on the Commission to pursue liberalisation of world trade through the WTO mechanism, but nevertheless to be prepared to protect vulnerable industries against unwarranted dumping with an effective anti-dumping policy;
11. Agrees with the Commission that, owing to the macroeconomic discipline required for adoption of the euro, EMU is a factor which favours stability and has a positive impact on economic cohesion, facilitating competition and transparency in the assessment of disparities;
12. Supports the possibility referred to in the Commission report that the euro might be an alternative to the indicator currently used (GDP per capita - PPS), simplifying the process of eligibility for the Structural and Cohesion Funds and drawing a more reliable picture of actual income levels;
13. Takes the view that pressure on the cross-border regions is moving eastward. Poverty indicators in the EU 27 reveal an increase in regional disparities in social terms. Even though enlargement is expected to bring economic growth to these regions, it is important that it be achieved in line with the cohesion objectives. Takes the view that the enlargement countries will experience difficulties in their transition to a single market, entailing a break with social systems based on protected jobs;
14. Urges the Commission to embark on a strategy to create new transport flows aimed at the emergence of new centralities. This strategy is possible through the development of intermodal transport and in particular by encouraging maritime transport (e.g. cabotage) and rail transport;
15. Stresses the need for international trading rules, particularly the adoption of anti-dumping measures affecting traditional industries, for example in the textile and shipbuilding sectors, which are undergoing major restructuring, the impact of this being greater in less-favoured and monoindustrial regions.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
20 November 2001
for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the Commission's Second Report to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on economic and social cohesion
(COM(2001) 24 – C5‑0527/2001 – 2001/2207 (COS))
Draftsman: Camilo Nogueira Román
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Fisheries appointed Camilo Nogueira Román draftsman at its meeting of 29 May 2001.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 10 July, 9 October and 20 November 2001.
At the last meeting it adopted the following conclusions by 10 votes to 4, with 1 abstention.
The following were present for the vote: Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, chairman; Rosa Miguélez Ramos and Hugues Martin, vice-chairmen; Camilo Nogueira Román, draftsman; Elspeth Attwooll, Arlindo Cunha, Ilda Figueiredo (for Mihail Papayannakis pursuant to Rule 166(3)), Carmen Fraga Estévez, Pat the Cope Gallagher, Ian Stewart Hudghton, Heinz Kindermann, Carlos Lage, Brigitte Langenhagen, Giorgio Lisi, Patricia McKenna and Struan Stevenson.
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
The second report on economic and social cohesion, which the Commission rightly titles ‘Unity, solidarity, diversity for Europe, its people and its territory’, assesses the outcome of the structural and cohesion policy implemented by the Community with a view to future policy, particularly in the run-up to enlargement to include new countries and the implementation of the Agenda 2000 programme in the years up to 2006. As pointed out in the report, the Commission wants the policy to be credible, with resources commensurate with the unprecedented scale of the challenges faced. It should enable European citizens to understand what cohesion means and should take greater account of the diversity and specific needs of the regions, based on a clear vision of those regions.
The second report makes it clear that, despite the efforts made, the situation as regards cohesion remains unsatisfactory and there are no clear trends indicating an improvement in regional balance, nor any signs that the serious inequalities existing between the various EU countries are being remedied. The implementation of the Structural and Cohesion Funds has not proved sufficient to correct disparities in income among the richest and the least-developed regions, and the fact that per capita income in cohesion countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, along with Ireland, has increased in relation to the EU average cannot conceal the persisting or widening disparities between the richest and the least-developed regions, whilst regional asymmetries within some countries are also becoming more marked.
The second report focuses on the common fisheries policy as one of the Community policies contributing to cohesion. It points out that the CFP is focused on four major areas: the conservation of fish stocks, structural measures, the organisation of markets and fisheries agreements with third countries. The Edinburgh European Council in 1992 officially recognised the existence of areas dependant on fishing and the need to give them special attention. The report refers to the reduction in fishing effort implemented through the MAGPs and FIFG, which have resulted in a decrease in the size of fleets and a fall in the number of jobs, including in the fish-processing industry. The report highlights the boost given to production and employment in aquaculture, stressing that the bulk of the sector is located in Objective 1 regions.
On the subject of fisheries agreements with third countries, the report cites the 1999 evaluation of their economic impact in the EU, pointing out that they have generated added value of EUR 944 million and 40 000 jobs, from which cohesion countries and Objective 1 regions have benefited to a particular degree.
However, despite the fact that, on the basis of the experience gained in previous years, the second report is geared towards the future, particularly as regards the impact on cohesion policy of enlargement to include new countries, the section on fisheries makes no mention of the planned reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002. The Commission proposals are set out in the Green Paper on the future of the CFP. In its Green Paper, the Commission refuses to consider the fishing industry as a normal economic sector which is vital for the economy of certain coastal countries and which, just like all the other economic sectors, must carry out its activities within the rules laid down in the Treaties and, given that it is working with a fundamental and particularly sensitive natural environment, must make particular efforts to respect the principles of sustainable development. The Commission’s position has particular implications for cohesion policy in three basic areas: the principle of relative stability in the distribution of catches in Community waters, fisheries agreements with third countries and the permanent nature of the FIFG.
In its proposals, the Commission does not challenge the principle of relative stability in Community waters, even though that principle favours certain Member States to the detriment of others, some of which are targeted by Structural and Cohesion Fund policy. Indeed, the Commission considers this principle to be fundamental for the CFP and takes no account of the fact that it runs counter to Community legislation and, as applied in practice, also contradicts cohesion policy itself. A genuine reform of the CFP would entail the abolition of the principle of relative stability, the communitarization of fishing rights and their allocation in line with scientific, economic, environmental and social criteria. The threats to cohesion arising from the principle of relative stability are further reinforced by the fact that it is also being applied to fisheries agreements with third countries in northern Europe, with the result that countries in the south of the EU are effectively barred from participating in those agreements.
Also on the subject of cohesion policy, the Commission is not proposing a genuine policy on fisheries agreements with third countries or within regional fisheries organisations. The Commission rightly believes that it is becoming increasingly necessary to cooperate in areas such as financial support, the development of human resources, technical assistance, the transfer of technology, consultancy services, training and capacity in order to improve the state of stocks. However, its proposals do not seek to make the interests of third countries compatible with European interests, bearing in mind that the most likely consequence of the sudden disappearance of European fleets from the sovereign waters of less-developed countries would not be improved development in those countries but the appearance in their waters of vessels from other developed countries which generally offer them less favourable agreements. The Commission makes no mention of the commercial nature of fisheries agreements, which is compatible with their status as an instrument for development cooperation with third countries, as seen in relation to any other productive activity.
Finally, the Commission appears to foresee that structural aid will come to an end in the medium term, in particular aid assigned to fleet renewal. Even though the basic FIFG regulation cannot be amended until 2006, it suggests that the implementing regulation be amended in 2003 so that aid would cease in practice. No account is taken of the fact that FIFG funding is sector-based but also and primarily structural, and that renewal is vital in order to maintain a modern and competitive fleet and thus contribute to cohesion policy.
Conclusions
The Committee on Fisheries calls on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following points in its motion for a resolution:
Bearing in mind that the common fisheries policy affects basic aspects of regional development and cohesion policy, calls for:
1. It to be borne in mind that fishing activity is a strategic sector for many outlying and Objective 1 regions, upon which the main and sometimes the only industrial and job-creating fabric has been built; points out, therefore, that the instruments introduced to share out access to resources within the EU, such as the relative stability mechanism, must not lead to an increase in inter-regional inequality and that, on the contrary, their aim must be to bring about cohesion; consequently, and given that relative stability must be closely linked to current dependency on fishing in coastal areas, stresses the need to study whether the mechanism needs to be updated;
2. The 6/12-mile access derogation to be maintained as a way of fostering economic and social cohesion, protecting small-scale coastal and artisanal fishing, preserving jobs upstream and downstream and guaranteeing the continued socio-economic development of regions highly dependent on fisheries;
3. The improvement and development of policy on fisheries agreements with third countries, which particularly affects cohesion countries, making development cooperation aspects compatible with commercial aspects, which are vital for the fishing industry just as for any other productive activity, bearing in mind, also, the Council guidelines of 30 October 1997, particularly as regards the use by one Member State of fishing opportunities not used by another for a certain period, without this having any effect on future rights;
4. The continuation of aid under the FIFG for fleet renewal and the development of the fishing and aquaculture industry, bearing in mind that such aid is structural in nature.
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
26 November 2001
for the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
on the Commission's Second Report to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on economic and social cohesion
(COM(2001) 24 – C5-0527/2001 – 2001/2207(COS))
Draftsman: Helena Torres Marques
PROCEDURE
The Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities appointed Helena Torres Marques draftsman at its meeting of 11 September 2001.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 16 October and 21 November 2001.
At the latter meeting it adopted the following conclusions unopposed, with one abstention.
The following were present for the vote: Maj Britt Theorin, chairman; Marianne Eriksson, vice-chairman; Helena Torres Marques, draftsman; María Antonia Avilés Perea, Armonia Bordes, Geneviève Fraisse, Lissy Gröner, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Astrid Lulling, Thomas Mann, Maria Martens, Olle Schmidt (for Lone Dybkjær), Patsy Sörensen, Elena Valenciano Martínez-Orozco and Sabine Zissener.
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
1. The dramatic worsening in the global political situation after the events of 11 September and 8 October of this year make it even more difficult to make any political forecasts for the period after 2006. However, one thing is certain: in the European Union we will continue to be committed to defending vigorously equal rights for women and men in Europe and throughout the world.
2. Economic and social cohesion is one of the pillars of the European Union, but without real equality between women and men in terms of rights and opportunities there can be no genuine cohesion.
3. The discussion sparked off by the second report on economic and social cohesion with a view to the Commission's proposals for the new cohesion policy in a Union of 27 States in 2007 gives rise to a number of considerations from the equal opportunities angle.
4. Economic and social cohesion not only means reducing disparities at national and regional level but also reducing disparities between different population groups and especially inequalities between women and men. This is one of the objectives of the European Union, as set out in the EC Treaty (Articles 2 and 3). In its activities, the Union cannot confine itself to strictly economic objectives but must pursue the model of a just and fair society, with better standards of living and equality of opportunity for all.
5. However, despite some progress, inequalities persist: in the European Union the number of women in employment is still almost 19% lower than for men; the rate of female unemployment is 3% higher than the rate for men; horizontal and vertical gender segregation on the labour market persists, as do disparities in the level of pay - on average women earn 76% of the hourly wage of men and account for 77% of low-paid workers.
6. Women are over-represented in part-time work - 80% of part-time jobs are occupied by women; 30% of women work part-time, as against 6% of men, and in precarious, low-skilled and low paid jobs, particularly in the services sector.
7. These disparities are likely to become more acute with enlargement. Although in some of the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe the level of employment and the rate of unemployment for women compare favourably with the Community average, the wage gap is often higher than the European average and women mostly work in low-skilled and low-paid jobs.
8. With enlargement, per capita GDP will fall by 18%. 98 million of the 105 million inhabitants of the candidate countries will be living in regions where per capita GDP is below 75% of the average for the European Union of 27. In the fight against poverty and social exclusion, it is vital to carry out a gender analysis of factors linked to poverty, such as employment, low level of education and one-parent families, particularly those headed by women.
9. The European Union's cohesion policy will have to be strengthened and any re-nationalisation avoided. The budget for cohesion after enlargement - 0.45% of Community GDP established by the Berlin European Council up until 2006 - is a minimum and will depend on which countries join the European Union.
10. In essence, the Community strategy on equality plays a vital role and its contribution to cohesion must be spelt out, just as in the case of other Community policies.
11. However, the across-the-board objective of equality between men and women has not been taken into account fully in the European employment strategy. Specific measures are required to achieve the ambitious target fixed by the Lisbon European Council of raising the number of women in employment to 60% by 2010 and reducing inequalities on the labour market.
12. The priorities are: creating more jobs and jobs of better quality; encouraging desegregation of the labour market and equal pay (in this process, developing indicators, as called for by the Stockholm European Council, is a key factor). It is also necessary to strengthen measures to make it easier to reconcile working life and family life for both women and men. Account should also be taken in this context of the need to strengthen men's rights and protection as fathers so that they are able to exercise the fundamental right to family life, which requires availability and time, and so that women can exercise the fundamental right to paid employment, which likewise requires availability and time.
13. The increase in the number of women in employment is necessary to raise production in the European Union, all more so in view of demographic trends in the EU and the candidate countries: given the declining and ageing population, the contribution made by working women is vital to funding social security and increasing tax revenue.
14. Training is a key factor. In order to improve access to the labour market for women and to encourage women to go back to work, it is necessary to establish life-long training systems, develop skills and do more to publicise opportunities. The problems faced by people with a low level of basic education (in particular women) must not be exacerbated by restricted access to continuous training.
15. The role of new technologies was highlighted by the Lisbon European Council: investment in people is a key element in a knowledge-based economy. However, women are very much under-represented in the information technology and communications industries. It is vital to reduce the gap between those who have access to new information technologies and those who are excluded, in particular women.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities calls on the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following points in its motion for a resolution:
1. whereas, pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Treaty, the Community has the task of promoting the equality of women and men and this objective must also be achieved in the context of the policy of strengthening economic and social cohesion;
2. Affirms that actively promoting an equal treatment and equal opportunities policy for men and women is an indispensable condition for achieving genuine economic and social cohesion;
3. Points out that socio-economic inequalities persist between women and men in the European Union: average rate of employment for women 18% below that of men, segregation on the labour market, average wage gap of 24%; over-representation of women in part-time, precarious and low-skilled jobs, and is afraid that without additional measures these disparities may become more acute following enlargement;
4. Draws attention to the important role that cohesion policy can play in combating socio-economic disparities and furthering integration, particularly with a view to an enlarged Union; considers that cohesion programmes should be adjusted and strengthened to take account of the specific problems of the new countries and that any renationalisation of existing policies is to be rejected;
5. Calls on the Commission:
- -to regard equality of women and men as an integral part of Community policies contributing to economic and social cohesion;
- -to integrate the gender dimension and equal treatment and opportunities for women and men into cohesion policies in a systematic, coherent and comprehensive way, paying particular attention to indispensable preconditions such as balanced participation by women and men in professional activity and family life and in decision-making processes;
- -to assess, on the basis of precise indicators and quantified objectives, the contribution made to economic and social cohesion by the application of the Community strategy on equal treatment and opportunities for women and men;
6. Recalls the objective established by the Lisbon summit of raising the number of women in employment to 60% by 2010 and the Stockholm summit's decision that the Council and Commission will develop measures, in particular indicators to eliminate wage discrimination between men and women for the same work or work of equal value;
7. Stresses that increased female employment is vital not only for the future growth of European GDP but also for the financing of social security and for increased tax revenue;
8. Draws attention to the key role played by the Structural Funds in reducing inequalities between women and men, particularly in terms of the objective of more and better quality jobs, carrying out vocational retraining measures, especially during periods of unemployment improving skills throughout working life and combating exclusion;
9. Recalls the Lisbon European Council's conclusions on the importance of investing in people and draws attention to the need to avoid a divide between those who have access to new information technologies and those who are excluded from them, in particular women over 40; calls on the Member States to promote the diversification of women's career choices through their participation at all levels of education and training and facilitate their access to life-long learning, in particular training in information technologies, wherever possible within the hours and context of the job they hold;
10. Draws attention to the need to step up and adjust measures, including new legislative initiatives, to make it easier to reconcile working life and family life: childcare services, care for other dependants, flexible working hours, diversification of public and private service provision, enhancing men's rights as fathers, parental leave programmes and schemes for labour market reinsertion after a period of absence for family reasons.