Report ‘fails to address’ key regional issues

Date: 17/10/1996

By Mark Turner

FEARS are growing that a key report on EU cohesion policies will fail to address many of the major issues facing the regions.

The 'cohesion report', which was first envisaged in the Maastricht Treaty, is intended to provide an assessment of the impact of the last three years of EU regional policy.

But Brussels sources claim that when it is finally presented to the Commission at the end of October, it will gloss over some of the most important issues facing the Union today.

In a presentation to the European Parliament's regional committee earlier this month, Commissioner Monika Wulf-Mathies painted a rosy picture of the state of Europe's regions, pointing to substantial convergence in terms of gross domestic product.

On the negative side, she admitted that employment levels still varied widely and that the richest ten regions in the EU remained far wealthier than the ten poorest. But overall, Wulf-Mathies argued, cohesion policies had been very successful.

Critics, however, believe her comments were based on a superficial analysis of the situation.

“Wulf-Mathies is throwing away a golden opportunity here. What could have been an insightful judgement of Community cohesion policy has become yet another bland document. In her speech to MEPs she never addressed any controversial issue,” said one.

The report is, for example, likely to support the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as a positive contributor to economic and social convergence, when in fact the results have been mixed.

Economically, the CAP has benefited Spain, Ireland and Greece, but Portugal has suffered from its provisions in relative terms, and France and Denmark - already rich countries - have gained more than other countries under the policy.

Critics also argue that when it comes to social cohesion, the CAP has often proved quite negative, tending to support larger farms, and consequently richer farm-owners.

Similarly, there is concern that national cohesion policies have not been properly considered by those compiling the report. By analysing wealth mainly in terms of GDP, say critics, it ignores the impact of national redistribution policies.

There is increasing support in Brussels for the view that it might be more effective to give EU regional aid to the member states' richer regions.

Those who support this argue that affluent regions already bear the burden of their poorer neighbours under national policies and money invested in those regions might have a greater chance of lifting the entire economy.