# C_2006081EN.01001101.xml

| 4.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/11

---

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission Third progress report on cohesion: Towards a new partnership for growth, jobs and cohesion

(2006/C 81/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication of the European Commission — Third progress report on cohesion: Towards a new partnership for growth, jobs and cohesion, adopted on 17 May 2005 COM(2005) 192 final, {SEC(2005)632};

Having regard to

Third progress report on cohesion: Towards a new partnership for growth, jobs and cohesion

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 17 May 2005, to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to

Having regard to the decision of its President of 19 May 2005 to instruct its Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to

Having regard to the Third report on economic and social cohesion — A new partnership for cohesion, convergence, competitiveness and cooperation — COM(2004) 107 final, adopted by the European Commission on 18 February 2004;

Having regard to

Third report on economic and social cohesion

A new partnership for cohesion, convergence, competitiveness and cooperation

Having regard to its opinion on the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion (CdR 120/2004 fin) (1);

Having regard to

Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion

1

Having regard to its opinion on the financial perspective: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Building Our Common Future: Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013 (CdR 162/2004 fin) (2);

Having regard to

Building Our Common Future: Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013

2

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (CdR 233/2004 fin) (3);

Having regard to

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

3

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Cohesion Fund (CdR 234/2004 fin) (4);

Having regard to

Cohesion Fund

4

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund (CdR 240/2004 fin) (5);

Having regard to

European Social Fund

5

Having regard to its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (CdR 232/2004 fin) (6);

Having regard to

European Regional Development Fund,

European Social Fund

Cohesion Fund

6

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 141/2005 rev. 1) adopted on 24 June 2005 by its Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Michael Schneider, State Secretary, representative of Saxony-Anhalt to the Federal Government (DE/EPP);

Having regard to

Mr Michael Schneider

adopted the following opinion at its 61st plenary session, held on 12/13 October 2005 (meeting of 12 October):

The views of the Committee of the Regions

I.   Continuing economic and social disparities in the enlarged Union

The Committee of the Regions

| 1. | considers the third progress report on cohesion to be an important document in taking forward the debate on the future organisation of cohesion policy in Europe; |
| --- | --- |

1.

considers the third progress report on cohesion to be an important document in taking forward the debate on the future organisation of cohesion policy in Europe;

considers

| 2. | notes that the regional disparities in the enlarged Union remain great and that the regional GDP in the ten most prosperous regions was 153 % of that in the ten least prosperous ones; |
| --- | --- |

2.

notes that the regional disparities in the enlarged Union remain great and that the regional GDP in the ten most prosperous regions was 153 % of that in the ten least prosperous ones;

notes

| 3. | notes that a total of 64 regions in the enlarged Union currently have a GDP below 75 % of the Community average and this affects 90 % of the population of the new Member States; |
| --- | --- |

3.

notes that a total of 64 regions in the enlarged Union currently have a GDP below 75 % of the Community average and this affects 90 % of the population of the new Member States;

notes

| 4. | renews, therefore, its call to give these regions in particular support from the EU's structural policy funds; |
| --- | --- |

4.

renews, therefore, its call to give these regions in particular support from the EU's structural policy funds;

renews

| 5. | points out that 3.5 % of the EU population live in regions affected by the so-called statistical effect and reiterates its call for a common and appropriate solution to be found for these regions, in line with the convergence objectives set out in the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

5.

points out that 3.5 % of the EU population live in regions affected by the so-called statistical effect and reiterates its call for a common and appropriate solution to be found for these regions, in line with the convergence objectives set out in the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion;

points out

| 6. | notes that a further 4 % of the EU population live in areas whose good economic progress has taken them over the 75 % threshold and supports the call of these regions for an adequate period of transition to the new competition objective; |
| --- | --- |

6.

notes that a further 4 % of the EU population live in areas whose good economic progress has taken them over the 75 % threshold and supports the call of these regions for an adequate period of transition to the new competition objective;

notes

| 7. | endorses the finding of the progress report that, despite substantial productivity gains in recent years, a higher and more measured increase in both productivity and employment is needed to achieve convergence; |
| --- | --- |

7.

endorses the finding of the progress report that, despite substantial productivity gains in recent years, a higher and more measured increase in both productivity and employment is needed to achieve convergence;

endorses

| 8. | is concerned that regional disparities in some Member States have increased and in the light of this calls for greater efforts at both European and national levels; stresses simultaneously that disparities have been falling across the EU since 1995. This fall has been more rapid between countries than between regions; |
| --- | --- |

8.

is concerned that regional disparities in some Member States have increased and in the light of this calls for greater efforts at both European and national levels; stresses simultaneously that disparities have been falling across the EU since 1995. This fall has been more rapid between countries than between regions;

is concerned

| 9. | highlights the report's finding that many new Member States will need sustained high growth for generations to come in order to reduce disparities; |
| --- | --- |

9.

highlights the report's finding that many new Member States will need sustained high growth for generations to come in order to reduce disparities;

highlights

| 10. | welcomes, therefore, the report's finding that the present level of disparities in the EU makes the need for an active cohesion policy more than clear; |
| --- | --- |

10.

welcomes, therefore, the report's finding that the present level of disparities in the EU makes the need for an active cohesion policy more than clear;

welcomes

| 11. | points out, in this connection, that assistance to regions in a particularly difficult socio-economic situation must also include help for them to make the structural change to a knowledge-based society; |
| --- | --- |

11.

points out, in this connection, that assistance to regions in a particularly difficult socio-economic situation must also include help for them to make the structural change to a knowledge-based society;

points out

| 12. | highlights the Commission's view that an active cohesion policy should not be limited to the least prosperous regions if growth and employment are to be promoted; |
| --- | --- |

12.

highlights the Commission's view that an active cohesion policy should not be limited to the least prosperous regions if growth and employment are to be promoted;

highlights

| 13. | wishes to express the need to implement the cohesion policy in regions suffering from natural structural handicaps such as islands and mountainous or sparsely-populated areas. |
| --- | --- |

13.

wishes to express the need to implement the cohesion policy in regions suffering from natural structural handicaps such as islands and mountainous or sparsely-populated areas.

wishes to express

II.   The EU's cohesion policy and the Lisbon Agenda

The Committee of the Regions

| 14. | welcomes the report's finding that more than half the measures in many programmes implement the Lisbon Agenda specifically; |
| --- | --- |

14.

welcomes the report's finding that more than half the measures in many programmes implement the Lisbon Agenda specifically;

welcomes

| 15. | stresses the importance of the planning process in developing regional aid hot spots and innovation strategies and calls for help to local and regional authorities as they administer and implement structural fund assistance; |
| --- | --- |

15.

stresses the importance of the planning process in developing regional aid hot spots and innovation strategies and calls for help to local and regional authorities as they administer and implement structural fund assistance;

stresses

| 16. | welcomes the increased use of structural funds, implemented in many mid-term evaluations, to promote growth and jobs; but at the same time stresses the need to simplify the procedures for redirecting and adapting structural fund programmes; |
| --- | --- |

16.

welcomes the increased use of structural funds, implemented in many mid-term evaluations, to promote growth and jobs; but at the same time stresses the need to simplify the procedures for redirecting and adapting structural fund programmes;

welcomes

| 17. | reiterates, in this connection, its criticism of the Commission's present proposals for revising the procedure for allocating the performance reserve and its distribution in 2011 to the Member States by the Council. The Committee of the Regions considers that it should be the Member States, working closely with the Commission, that evaluate the performance mid-way through the programme and allocate commitment appropriations to operating programmes and to the priorities that they deem to be the most efficient; |
| --- | --- |

17.

reiterates, in this connection, its criticism of the Commission's present proposals for revising the procedure for allocating the performance reserve and its distribution in 2011 to the Member States by the Council. The Committee of the Regions considers that it should be the Member States, working closely with the Commission, that evaluate the performance mid-way through the programme and allocate commitment appropriations to operating programmes and to the priorities that they deem to be the most efficient;

reiterates

| 18. | agrees with the Commission that the structural funds got off to a good start in the new Member States and reiterates the Committee's interest in keeping to the 4 % absorption ceiling for using structural funds in the Member States; |
| --- | --- |

18.

agrees with the Commission that the structural funds got off to a good start in the new Member States and reiterates the Committee's interest in keeping to the 4 % absorption ceiling for using structural funds in the Member States;

agrees

| 19. | notes that only nine of the thirteen Member States falling at least partially under Objective 1 have respected the additionality principle and in the light of this points out that when deciding if additionality is being observed under Article 11 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, (7) the following must all be taken into account: the relevant general economic conditions, specific economic conditions, privatisations and any exceptionally high level of public structural expenditure in the preceding period. It must be also stressed that the Structural Funds are having a significant leverage effect in urban and rural areas, in maintaining high levels of public investment compatible with their efforts to ensure sound public finances; |
| --- | --- |

19.

notes that only nine of the thirteen Member States falling at least partially under Objective 1 have respected the additionality principle and in the light of this points out that when deciding if additionality is being observed under Article 11 of the Regulation laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, (7) the following must all be taken into account: the relevant general economic conditions, specific economic conditions, privatisations and any exceptionally high level of public structural expenditure in the preceding period. It must be also stressed that the Structural Funds are having a significant leverage effect in urban and rural areas, in maintaining high levels of public investment compatible with their efforts to ensure sound public finances;

notes

7

| 20. | reiterates, therefore, its call to continue to allow private funding to be used together with structural fund expenditure to avoid even greater pressure on regional and local budgets, while keeping a high level of public investment at the regional and local level. |
| --- | --- |

20.

reiterates, therefore, its call to continue to allow private funding to be used together with structural fund expenditure to avoid even greater pressure on regional and local budgets, while keeping a high level of public investment at the regional and local level.

reiterates

III.   The future of the cohesion policy and the agenda for growth and employment

The Committee of the Regions

| 21. | notes that its views on the future organisation of structural policy are in the main supported by the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee; |
| --- | --- |

21.

notes that its views on the future organisation of structural policy are in the main supported by the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee;

notes

| 22. | stresses the need to mobilise local and regional players for the future implementation of the structural policy and reiterates its interest in continuing to play an active part, by holding joint events and conferences, in the debate on economic, social and regional cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

22.

stresses the need to mobilise local and regional players for the future implementation of the structural policy and reiterates its interest in continuing to play an active part, by holding joint events and conferences, in the debate on economic, social and regional cohesion;

stresses

| 23. | after the issues of the European Summit on 16-17 June, is concerned that Member States still hold widely differing views on the future financing of the European Union and is especially concerned that delayed agreement will jeopardise a smooth start to the next funding period, and lead to financial instability across the local and regional authorities of the EU. The current crisis will also have negative economic effects, above all in the new Member States; |
| --- | --- |

23.

after the issues of the European Summit on 16-17 June, is concerned that Member States still hold widely differing views on the future financing of the European Union and is especially concerned that delayed agreement will jeopardise a smooth start to the next funding period, and lead to financial instability across the local and regional authorities of the EU. The current crisis will also have negative economic effects, above all in the new Member States;

is concerned

| 24. | calls on the Member States, therefore, to decide quickly on the future financing of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

24.

calls on the Member States, therefore, to decide quickly on the future financing of the European Union;

calls

| 25. | warns against losing sight of the cohesion policy goals at a time when state assistance is generally falling, and reiterates its interest in a balanced and adequate aid policy in the European Union which takes account of the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council, held on 23 and 24 March 2001; |
| --- | --- |

25.

warns against losing sight of the cohesion policy goals at a time when state assistance is generally falling, and reiterates its interest in a balanced and adequate aid policy in the European Union which takes account of the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council, held on 23 and 24 March 2001;

warns against

| 26. | welcomes the prompt presentation of the strategic guidelines for planning the new aid programmes and announces that the Committee will react to this in a separate report. |
| --- | --- |

26.

welcomes the prompt presentation of the strategic guidelines for planning the new aid programmes and announces that the Committee will react to this in a separate report.

welcomes

Brussels, 12 October 2005

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

---

(1)  OJ C 318 of 22.12.2004, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 164 of 5.7.2005, p. 4.

2

(3)  OJ C 231 of 20.9.2005, p. 19.

3

(4)  OJ C 231 of 20.9.2005, p. 35.

4

(5)  OJ C 164 of 5.7.2005, p. 48.

5

(6)  OJ C 231 of 20.9.2005, p. 1.

6

(7)  Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161 of 20.6.1999, p. 1.

7

---