Putting regions at the centre

Two MEPs discuss regional policy.

Jamila Madeira

Regional policy has had a significant role since the beginning of European integration’s first steps and it is even more important now in a Union of 27 member states.

The solidarity principle is the core and distinctive feature of regional policy. Member states and regions have continually committed themselves to adopt sustainable growth models, in a context of an enlarged and highly demanding Europe as far as living standards are concerned.

European regional policy is inspired and enriched by both the Lisbon and Göteborg Agendas whose goals for convergence and competitiveness and environmental sustainability are the main driving forces of the EU, in a context of continuous change and globalisation.

The financial perspectives for 2007-13 clearly define the European Union’s priorities and regional policy continues to stand out as one of its most significant pillars.

The purposes of funding and priorities for allocation, convergence and competitiveness goals will certainly contribute to foster Europe’s economic, social and territorial cohesion. There will be certainly a territorial agenda with specific goals.

Regional policy solidarity is also one of the most visible features of the EU to European citizens. Competitiveness cannot replace convergence. Convergence and solidarity are two key elements to provide the necessary unity and reinforcement to competitiveness.

A successful regional policy will also need the commitment and accountability of most stakeholders, be they European institutions, or national, regional and local actors, when it comes to the diagnosis and assessment of regional potentials and its vital role for convergence and growth.

The European Commission’s role in this process is vital and the European Parliament has sought to provide an accountable and effective response, addressed to citizens’ needs and main concerns.

The strategic orientations on cohesion and competitiveness have stressed the need for Europe to concentrate its efforts on employment, growth, innovation and knowledge.

Such challenges as full employment, a qualified labour force, life-long learning or the improvement of productivity levels, can only be achieved through a strong and collective commitment from innumerable stakeholders, preferably within a network spirit and on a complementary basis.

Environmental dimensions and quality of life have also been given an increasing importance. The commitments on urban sustainability, stated in the Leipzig Charter, are a good example of the innumerable potentials of European regions and territories.

Public-private partnerships, especially those developed in lowly populated areas, may help to promote excellence centres to develop and allow the transfer of knowledge and innovation directly aimed at the market.

It is also important to mention the importance of the three new instruments in support of regional development under the new financial framework. Jeremie, Jaspers and Jessica initiatives will have a key role on the financial engineering to help with project preparation and applications for European funds, within simpler and closer procedures.

The Portuguese presidency of the European Union will keep on trying to carry out the goals of an economically and socially stronger Europe in which solidarity has a permanent standpoint. It will also try to provide the Union with a new treaty that facilitates European governance and brings it closer to citizens.

• Portuguese Socialist MEP Jamila Madeira is a member of the European Parliament’s regional development committee.

Jan Olbrycht

Cohesion policy is unusual in the sense that several processes take place at the same time.

The implementation of programmes and projects from the first period, the negotiations and introduction of the ones from the ongoing period, as well as the general discussion about the shape of the forthcoming programming period, are taking place in parallel.

New member states must close definitely all the programmes financed by the pre-accession funds (Phare, ISPA and Sapard). The countries are obliged to evaluate the results of these programmes, bearing in mind that they were intended to prepare states for the absorption of structural funds and improvement of administrative capacities.

At the same time, the new member states have to implement the rules of the cohesion policy 2004-06. Joining the EU in 2004, the new-comers have to face new priorities, new goals and challenges keeping in mind preparations for the new programming period 2007-13 and its demanding rules.

Any observer of the developments of the EU’s cohesion policy will easily notice that a debate about ‘a new cohesion policy’ starts every few years. It is interesting that one of the main Community policies is undergoing a deep discussion on such a regular basis. One would think that the reasons for this are the changing circumstances and new challenges, and that each debate should be about the adjustment of the cohesion policy to new strategies developed and implemented at the EU level. One would assume that the debates are about shaping cohesion policy according to new situations. Each financial perspective has ‘its new cohesion policy’. Does this mean that we construct a new policy each time or rather that we adjust the European cohesion policy to current circumstances?

The letter of the Treaty states clearly that the aim and task of the EU’s cohesion policy is reducing disparities between regions. In the current context it leads either to the extension of the definition of disparities, or to a shift of the main focus towards growth andjob creation.

This is exactly what we can observe as far as the so-called Lisbonisation of the concerns of the cohesion policy, and what characterises cohesion policy in the 2007-13 programming period. This means that the goals of the Lisbon Strategy (based on the open co-ordination method) can be achieved better, or more easily, while being supported by European funds in the framework of the cohesion policy, which is by definition a redistribution policy. That is why competitiveness and innovation, stimulating growth and creation of jobs have become one of the goals of cohesion policy and thus allowed all European regions to participate and profit from this policy.

However, the debate on the new cohesion policy is not only about new challenges but, in its broader meaning, it is a debate about the effectiveness and efficiency of cohesion policy, and about the purpose of cohesion policy at all. From time to time, there are some suggestions to reduce the scope of cohesion policy only to the poorest regions and to exclude better developed regions from it.

There are as well suggestions that cohesion policy should be rationalised in those member states where, de facto, there are no more poor regions. But this would lead to the deletion of one of the current cohesion policy’s objectives: regional competitiveness and employment, which in turn would diminish the importance of cohesion policy as one of the Community’s policies.

The publication of the 4th Cohesion Report opens the debate on ‘a new cohesion policy’ once again, this time about cohesion policy after 2013.

It is high time that we stopped asking ourselves whether cohesion policy has a right to exist at all. We should assume that it is a stable element of the EU’s work, and that what one needs is only to adjust it according to the new challenges that Europe is facing.

• Polish centre-right (EPP-ED) MEP Jan Olbrycht is vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s regional development committee.

Two MEPs discuss regional policy.