EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/14

Outlook Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the future of cohesion policy

(2010/C 232/03)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

1. is pleased that the European Commission has already launched an exchange of views on the future form of European cohesion policy post 2013, with its Fourth Cohesion Report of May 2007, the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion of September 2008, the ‘Barca Report’ of April 2009 and its Progress Reports on Economic and Social Cohesion;

2. welcomes the European Commission's request to the Committee of the Regions for an outlook opinion on how cohesion policy can remain an effective instrument for promoting the smooth and sustained development of the European Union and how it can meet the future challenges of implementing EU policies;

3. emphasises that, in view of the Lisbon Treaty provisions, a priority objective of the EU must continue to be the pursuit of a policy to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion, in order to promote the smooth development of the Union as a whole. A specific objective in this context is to narrow the differences in levels of development between regions and reduce the gap in the case of the most disadvantaged areas. Particular attention should be paid here to rural areas, regions affected by industrial change and regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross-border and mountain regions. The problems of urban areas such as towns and cities affected by long-term deprivation should also be recognised;

4. therefore believes that European cohesion policy must evolve with the aim of continuing in the future to narrow development gaps sustainably, strengthen sustainable growth and employment in European regions, support social inclusion and competitiveness in all the Member States and regions, safeguard subsidiarity and financial sustainability and continue to improve the effectiveness of Community policy;

5. considers that the debate about the future of European cohesion policy must precede that on the review of Europe's financial system insofar as the political objectives must be set before determining the resources to be allocated; issues concerning the financial framework of future cohesion policy are not discussed in this opinion. Such questions should be addressed in conjunction with the planned revision of the financing system and negotiations on the next financial perspective. However, the Committee of the Regions would already state its support for continuing to allocate a substantial proportion of the EU budget to structural policy funding measures in local and regional authorities;

Future challenges for cohesion policy post-2013

6. shares the European Commission's view that new challenges are emerging in relation to economic, social and territorial cohesion, which will have to be met whilst also taking account of the practical aspects of regional development, the resources available and the development strategy. Regional and structural policy must typically adapt to changing problems and opportunities. The Committee of the Regions is therefore convinced that the regional tier of government with the involvement of local stakeholders can make a particularly valuable contribution in managing challenges such as climate change, security of energy policy, demographic changes or globalisation, in close coordination with efforts at higher levels of government. It is important that the principles of multilevel governance be implemented and that the different tiers of government work together;

7. notes that these challenges will affect cohesion policy if they help to widen economic and social disparities in Europe's regions. Therefore it should be assessed how much more consideration must also given to the new challenges in framing cohesion policy. It is also necessary to consider whether these challenges should be addressed with legislative adjustments or general policy processes;

8. points out that European cohesion policy also makes a contribution to meeting the new challenges by strengthening the competitiveness and attractiveness of the regions. For instance, it is already contributing to climate protection, management of the manifold consequences of climate change and to energy security by promoting eco-innovations, measures to encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources. This flexibility has already enabled European structural policy to meet new challenges in the past, and it can continue to do this;

9. does not see any need for fundamentally new structural policy instruments or framing of new, additional objectives with respect to the new challenges where the overarching structural policy goals should be to strengthen competitiveness and employment in all Europe's regions, as well as and also accelerating the economic convergence of regions that are still lagging behind. The EU Structural Funds must also be used for this purpose beyond 2013 in all Europe's regions so that economic and social cohesion can be guaranteed and territorial differences between and within regions limited;

10. therefore also supports the aims of the EU Territorial Agenda and key outcomes of the discussion of the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, which saw integrated regional strategy focusing on potential as promising instruments for stepping up cohesion in Europe. In the face of the future challenges, Europe cannot afford to forgo a joint policy approach between the various levels of government and different sectors. Only a coordinated joint effort between European, national and regional policies will be adequate to effectively meet the new challenges;

11. therefore advocates thorough consideration of the extent to which the EU Structural Funds and other instruments can be used in particular to seize the opportunities associated with the new challenges in terms of accelerated convergence in Europe and improved European competitiveness and conversion towards a low carbon economy. This analysis should also deal with the interactions between cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy in the 2007-2013 period and address the question whether the earmarking of structural funds based on this strategy has had an impact on cohesion. Such an examination could allow a re-orientation of the strategic guidelines for cohesion policy, if necessary;

12. points out that the EU Structural Funds have already made a substantial to implementation of the Lisbon strategy during the 2007-2013 funding period by increasing the regions’ involvement in its implementation, and therefore considers it necessary to maintain the momentum of European structural policy in implementing the renewed Lisbon strategy and the focus of cohesion policy on the objectives of the renewed strategy whilst upholding the original aim of cohesion policy, which is to reduce disparities in development between the less-developed regions and the rest of the EU. The effectiveness and impact of cohesion policy are strongly dependent on the economic situation. Promoting favourable economic conditions, competitiveness and employment in the regions is of key importance in achieving self-sustaining economic growth in the regions. In this context, cohesion policy must be regarded as the most important flanking policy for boosting the competitiveness of lagging regions;

13. also stresses that the effectiveness and impact of cohesion policy are strongly dependent on the economic situation. Promoting favourable economic conditions, competitiveness and employment in the regions is of key importance in achieving self-sustaining economic growth in the regions. In this context, cohesion policy must be regarded as the most important flanking policy for boosting the competitiveness of lagging regions;

14. therefore supports the European Commission's statement in its communication on the Europe 2020 strategy that economic, social and territorial cohesion remains one of the strategy's key concerns. The cohesion policy and structural funds are not only important instruments of EU policy in themselves, but also key catalysts for generating innovative, sustainable and integrated growth in the Member States and the regions. The close linking of economic, social and environmental policy goals is essential to the success of this strategy. However, the proposed flagship initiatives should not lead to any restriction of the European cohesion policy. The structural funds must remain capable of integrated problem-solving at regional level and should not be reduced to meeting sectoral conditions;

15. emphasises that European cohesion policy plays an important role both in furthering social cohesion and in reducing social disparities in the European Union. The Committee of the Regions therefore notes that bearing in mind the social impact of the financial and economic crisis in particular, the political framing of social cohesion must be synonymous with economic and territorial cohesion and should not be neglected in the future; however, consideration should be given to the fact that cohesion policy should be a long-term policy, that should also be able to react to short-term changes caused by a deterioration of the economic situation;

16. is convinced that an employment-oriented European cohesion strategy will become more important in the future owing to the effects of the financial and economic crisis. The Community's most important job market and employment policy funding instrument for realising this strategy is the indispensable European Social Fund (ESF). The European Social Fund must be maintained as a funding instrument at the service of the social cohesion objective within the framework of cohesion policy. Moreover, it is necessary to maintain an integrated approach to the application of the Structural Funds to the European territories. ESF must be allocated sufficient financial means if it is to reliably achieve the Community's job market and employment policy goals and social inclusion objectives;

17. considers that the particular value of European cohesion policy must be measured by its results and refers in this connection to the Committee of the Regions opinion on the leverage effect of cohesion policy. The European Structural Funds are an important instrument for giving all regions the possibility to draw on their internal development potential to achieve sustainable growth, employment and prosperity. These programmes, which are geared to common European priorities, are based on agreed development strategies and implemented at devolved level. They thus make a tangible contribution to developing growth potential at the level of local and regional authorities;

18. notes that among the many positive results of European cohesion policy, encouragement of research and innovation, as well as knowledge-intensive services, should be identified as particularly important. Many projects that are important for structural development - especially in the sphere of scientific and technical infrastructure and of developing innovative approaches in job market and employment policy - were carried out both in lagging regions and other regions in Europe only thanks to funding from the EU Structural Funds. Thus numerous projects have already been realised across Europe, providing an excellent example of the European added value of EU Structural Fund support. A cohesion policy geared to supporting the regions complements the promotion of excellence in Europe by ensuring that European innovation policy develops the necessary range to make the EU-2020 strategy a success. In order to maximise and strengthen the impact and results of research and innovation in the regions, it is important to ensure the coordination of programmes and instruments for funding innovation and research policies and cohesion policy;

19. at the same time notes that the European Structural Funds are effective not only in terms of the direct funding they provide. They also play a key role in ensuring that the regional and structural strategies of stakeholders at the various different levels focus on common objectives. The Committee of the Regions is thus convinced that this significantly boosts the efficiency of the overall European, national, regional and local funding in place to foster economic, social and territorial cohesion. Thanks to the system of multi-level governance, which involves devolved responsibility for the various programmes in place in support areas, Europe is able to pursue common objectives using coherent measures while at the same time leaving due scope for establishing specific regional and local priorities. The Committee of the Regions feels that this – in addition to financial solidarity – represents the added value of European structural policy;

20. feels that the ongoing ex-post evaluation of the last funding period and the upcoming interim review should be used to highlight the benefits and potential of Structural Fund support;

The principles of cohesion policy post-2013

21. endorses the point made in the Barca report that structural policy also has to be seen in the light of the EU's ultimate objectives – increasing growth, well-being and cohesion and preserving peace – and considers that this policy should continue to be applied to all of Europe's regions, focusing in particular on the regions in greatest need. Structural policy is a key pillar of European integration and enables the public to identify with the European venture. Thus, in mapping out the course of future European cohesion policy, the formula for economic, social and territorial cohesion could well be to combine (i) European support programmes underpinned by appropriate strategic parameters and (ii) due regional- and local-level powers to resolve any difficulties that might arise;

22. feels that it would be worthwhile to develop a method to assess the carbon footprint of projects funded by the Structural Funds, and recommends in particular that future programme planning should look towards carbon neutrality. As already provided for in some Member States, the overall balance of investments should not result in additional greenhouse gas emissions;

23. notes in this regard that the devolved approach to cohesion policy has proven successful and should be retained. However, thought should be given to which procedures might lend themselves to further simplification in order to cut the red tape involved in the management of cohesion policy;

24. advocates a modulated approach to using carefully chosen and meaningful indicators to assess cohesion policy in order to secure the targeted deployment of resources and present a comprehensive picture of the impact of structural policy;

25. notes that other EU policy areas also impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion and must therefore also take due account of cohesion policy objectives; and hence calls on the European Commission to carry out studies on the territorial impact ex-ante of the legislative or non-legislative proposals in areas having a clear territorial dimension (public services, transport, energy, environment, competition, agriculture etc.). The CoR also calls on the European Commission to pay particular attention to this aspect when drafting the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. The Committee of the Regions expressly welcomes the Commission's efforts to better dovetail cohesion policy with other policies that have a clear territorial impact and to generate synergistic benefits;

26. feels that EU cohesion policy also has close functional ties with EU State aid rules and those applicable to services of general economic interest. Any reform of EU cohesion policy should therefore also be accompanied by a review of EU State aid law. Modulated approaches may be needed, not least in the case of globally competing locations and investments in the ‘future industries’. As regards services of general economic interest, the CoR calls on the Commission to use the new legal basis provided by Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, inter alia, to clarify to what extent the mechanisms for financing these services are compatible with the relevant Community instruments;

27. affirms that the partnership principle and, hence, the involvement of the economic and social partners and other regional and local stakeholders in all phases of Structural Fund support have proved successful in boosting acceptance of the measures and ensuring they are properly targeted; and, in the interests of enhanced partnership, would propose that increased backing be given to exchanges of best practice between regions. That said, the Committee of the Regions sees no need for more far-reaching legal provisions to help shape partnership at European level;

28. feels there is a need for an ongoing review of the efficiency and effectiveness of European cohesion policy, not least against the backdrop of ever-scarcer financial resources. The increased use of private resources offers additional opportunities for implementing cohesion policy. At all events, the use of private resources should always be an incentive in the area of cohesion policy and never a substitute for it;

29. stresses the need to facilitate the use of revolving funds in suitable areas within the framework of the cohesion policy so as to give a higher profile to loan-based instruments in implementing this policy, and recognises the role of the European Investment Bank and such programmes as Jeremie and Jaspers in the development and application of loan-based Structural Fund programmes;

30. advocates the more consistent application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles in cohesion policy. These principles must not, however, be predicated on efficiency considerations alone. The current devolved arrangements for European cohesion policy – involving operational programmes drawn up at national and regional level in partnership-based dialogue with the Commission and implemented autonomously by the national, regional and local authorities – have proved successful. They must be maintained and built upon in order to give a further boost to regional and local autonomy in the operational implementation of European cohesion policy;

31. expressly welcomes the more strategic approach to EU structural policy management that has been in evidence in the 2007-2013 funding period. Managing policy on the basis of objectives rather than eligibility rules means that the regions are able to select – and where necessary adapt – the measures and tools appropriate to them without losing sight of how these tie in with EU-wide goals;

32. also reiterates that rural development measures under the second pillar of the CAP need to be better coordinated with regional policy, in order to improve consistency between urban and rural development. This coordination could result in a European-level strategic framework in the form of strategic Community guidelines applicable both to the Structural Funds and to the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD);

33. feels that that the pursuit of a strategic approach of this kind would be greatly assisted by consistent reporting and monitoring of European strategic objectives in order to gauge progress and verify the reliability of control and audit procedures implemented by the Member States in the light of the goal of carrying out fewer but better checks and by a clear and robust audit system, thereby avoiding unnecessary red tape;

34. also feels that the mono-fund programmes introduced for the ERDF and ESF have proved successful. Using mono-funds has greatly simplified the approval and revision procedures compared with the former multi-fund programmes. The requisite flexibility has been achieved by making it possible, to a certain extent, for programmes to include measures from the other fund as appropriate. The coordination of the funds and their respective operational programmes should be further strengthened, with the ultimate aim of a better complementarity between ESF and ERDF at the local and regional level.;

35. would stress the ongoing concern for less red tape and consistently simpler administrative procedures for the allocation, use, settlement and monitoring of financial resources from the EU structural funds. This should also be factored into the rules for the planning of future programmes;

36. notes that the current financing period has seen a tightening of the implementation and financial monitoring requirements. In some cases, simplifications that had previously been announced have been reversed. This has resulted in disproportionate cost and effort. Monitoring also shows that the effectiveness of development efforts is being undermined. The Committee of the Regions would therefore advocate a simple, transparent yet effective monitoring procedure. The Committee sees no need to conduct a full compliance audit in each funding period. Instead, the established rules in place for national funding should be deemed sufficient. Consideration should also be given to the structure of the audit bodies, the monitoring standards and the definition and determination of the margin of error with a view to possible simplification. The persistent practice of laying down rules and standards with retroactive effect complicates the situation, hampers proper administration and must be avoided in future. One alternative worth looking into would be to apply a general proportionality principle aiming to adapt the regulatory monitoring requirements to the size of the projects funded by the Structural Funds;

37. points out that fresh scope for simplification might also be provided as a result of the new provision under the Lisbon Treaty whereby Member States are also to take responsibility for executing the EU budget. The CoR suggests that an additional simplification will be achieved through the Commission analysing Member States’ audit procedures and seeing if ‘contracts of confidence’ with regions can be reached to avoid duplication in auditing procedures. The principle of proportionality of regulations on small projects should be applied to reduce burdens;

The future architecture of cohesion policy after 2013

38. is pleased that EU structural policy since 2000 has, by moving away from an initially diverse range of objectives and a large number of specific Community initiatives, reformed support arrangements in such a way as to achieve definite progress in terms of clarity and simplification. This progress must not be jeopardised again;

39. considers that the decision to restrict the number of objectives, to involve all European regions, albeit with a special emphasis on those that are lagging behind, and to share responsibilities between the various tiers, with the onus on the regions to develop and implement the programmes at the devolved level, has basically proved sound;

40. nonetheless feels that European cohesion policy should help to further improve economic, social and territorial cohesion within the Community, as well as its competitiveness, so as to guarantee sustainable economic growth, high employment, social inclusion and the quality and efficiency of public service provision, and emphasises that the relevant regions across Europe must be given equal treatment. In particular, regions that are lagging behind should be helped in future, regardless of the Member State in which they are situated. Cohesion policy is a key to public engagement at local and regional level with the EU's overarching political strategies;

41. considers that European cohesion policy has to a large extent also become a tool to foster innovation, competitiveness and growth and thus to promote sustainable jobs;

42. agrees with the Commission that European cohesion policy must continue to focus in particular on supporting the efforts of weaker regions in the new Member States to catch up economically. The Committee therefore feels that cohesion policy tools should therefore be suitably focused on those Member States and regions. Cohesion policy should help tap into the opportunities offered by the single market and European integration as a whole. However, EU cohesion policy must not thereby become a tool of ‘transferring funds’ and nothing more;

43. believes that, to boost cohesion in Europe, it will still be necessary in future to ensure that the greater share of European Structural Fund resources goes to regions that are lagging behind so that continued progress can be made in evening out the biggest regional differences. The current definition of regions lagging behind – regions where per capita GDP is below 75 % of the EU average at NUTS II level – has proved a sound yardstick for selecting support areas. To evaluate cohesion policy, indicators need to be found below NUTS II level to highlight regional specificities and the situation on the ground in the regions;

44. feels that those regions no longer eligible for maximum support should still receive assistance via reliable, appropriate and comprehensive support instruments that take due account of their specific circumstances, thus harnessing their long-term potential and at the same time benefiting the EU as a whole. That is the only way to safeguard the sustained success of structural support in these areas that has been achieved so far. For these regions (including those regions affected by the so-called ‘statistical effect’), appropriate and fair transitional arrangements must be put in place under the convergence objective so that support does not stop abruptly once the 75 % threshold has been reached and also to give the regions the security they need to further boost their competitiveness. In any case, irrespective of the future structure and aims of regional policy, financial help should be guaranteed for those regions which, for the first time, are no longer eligible under the convergence objective;

45. is pleased that the European Parliament and the European Commission have explicitly recognised the particular plight of regions that will no longer be eligible for maximum support under the convergence objective after 2013;

46. joins the European Parliament in calling on the Commission ‘to establish a more comprehensive system of gradual transitional assistance to regions that will soon be above the 75 % GDP threshold, in order to provide them with a clearer status and more security in their development;’

47. stresses that the extensive support provided under European cohesion policy should be continued in the Regional competitiveness and employment regions after 2013 as these regions contain important pockets of poverty, and because the social and territorial disparities have been deepening in these regions across Europe. These regions make an important contribution to implementing the Lisbon strategy. However, if they are to make a lasting contribution to cohesion and competitiveness, constant efforts must be made to cultivate competitiveness, innovation and a high level of employment in line with sustainability requirements;

48. is pleased that, as the European Commission announced in its fifth interim cohesion report, the majority of Member States have advocated retaining the Regional competitiveness and employment target, and that this also envisaged in the discussion paper prepared by the former Regional Affairs Commissioner, Danuta Hübner, in April 2009 and in the study drawn up by Fabrizio Barca on reforming European cohesion policy;

49. agrees with the Commission that even structurally relatively strong regions that currently come under the second Structural Fund target of Regional competitiveness and employment need to increase their investment in creativity and innovation and accelerate the transition from new ideas to new products, services or processes;

50. assumes that, given the territorial cohesion provisions set out in the new EU treaty, the territorial aspect of cohesion policy will be of greater importance in the future; and invites the European Commission to take the 400 contributions received during the consultation on the Green Paper on territorial cohesion into consideration in its reflexions on the future of the cohesion policy (see CoR opinion). The regions should therefore define their own strengths and develop appropriate strategies to address their respective needs. Spatial development will in future remain within the remit of the Member States and due account must be taken of the division of powers within each country. Involving the regional and local levels is designed to secure (i) spatial development that focuses on results and is properly positioned both in terms of content and of the geographical conditions involved and (ii) efficient use of resources;

51. is in favour of maintaining the urban dimension in the context of European cohesion policy. Cities and metropolitan areas are important motors for growth and innovation. However, if they are to continue in that role, action will also be needed in future to bring a degree of social and economic stability to cities and urban problem areas, especially in the EU's less-developed regions. Cities and metropolitan areas help to spread development trends to surrounding areas. Furthermore, they guarantee access to knowledge, services and goods at the appropriate level. The development of urban policy should be based on supporting endogenous factors in the development of urban areas and strengthening relations and ties between urban centres;

52. suggests that cohesion policy increasingly recognises the interrelated nature of urban and rural areas within wider functional economic areas. Cohesion policy is well placed to deliver an integrated development approach, which can address issues within and between the various combinations of urban and rural areas. Therefore, greater coordination is needed between the objectives and instruments of the European Structural Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Since regional problems are specific to each region, urges that each region within defined boundaries be allowed to establish its own targets and measures, so they can conduct their own development with help from EU resources;

53. believes that major importance should be given to support for rural areas and the role of small and medium-sized cities in rural areas. This is the only way of addressing the structural deficits, migratory trends and disproportionately high number of older people in many rural areas of the European Union. Greater harmonisation is needed between the objectives and instruments of the European Structural Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development;

54. points to the need, in application of the principle of territorial cohesion laid down in the Lisbon Treaty, for special attention also to be paid to regions affected by industrial change and regions with severe and long-term natural or demographic disadvantages e.g. the northernmost regions with very low population density and island, cross-border, mountain and outermost regions;

55. emphasises that the existing support for cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation under the third Structural Fund objective – European territorial cooperation – has proved successful and should be continued and beefed up beyond 2013. Territorial cooperation makes a vital contribution to strengthening the European Union's competitiveness and its economic, social and above all territorial cohesion by drawing on the additional potential derived from the links between local and regional authorities. In this respect, existing programmes such as ESPON, Regions for economic change or URBACT should in future be brought together as horizontal territorial cooperation measures that benefit all three elements of cooperation. With regard to border regions, all those that meet the requirement of contributing to economic, social and territorial cohesion should continue to be eligible for aid within the framework of the Territorial Cohesion Objective;

56. in this respect, acknowledges the work of the European Commission in creating the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) and calls on local and regional authorities to make greater use of this instrument than in the past for implementing territorial cooperation, and invites the European Commission to address anomalies in the current regulations, such as in the cross-border strand which undermines the creation of functional areas of maritime co-operation between regions (because of the 150 km limit in the regulations), and to set out the role of the macro-regions and thematic strategies in greater detail in its proposals for future territorial cooperation arrangements. Steps must thereby be taken to ensure that local and regional authorities are more involved in framing and implementing such strategies than they have been up to now;

57. calls for consideration to be given to Fabrizio Barca's proposal for the next funding period to earmark a small part of the cohesion policy budget for innovative measures, to be managed directly by the European Commission, in order to foster innovative approaches to regional policy across the Community;

System for implementing cohesion policy

58. believes that the practice of devolving responsibility to the regions for drawing up operational programmes on the basis of regional development strategies, and then for actually implementing these programmes (which is an integral part of the system of coordination and partnership with higher levels of government) has proved its worth over several programming periods. The system of shared resource management, with programming and implementation at regional level, should thus also be retained in the future. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality must be strengthened in this respect. Above all, existing development potential can be opened up at regional and local level and local and regional stakeholders can be mobilised and brought together;

59. therefore favours maintaining regional competence for European structural policy and rejects transferring responsibility – for instance for product selection – to the European level;

60. supports continuing and stepping up efforts to cut red tape and simplify procedures, and proposes that, during the current funding period, the findings of the working party set up by the Commission on simplifying administration be taken into account in the framing of future administrative procedures; the Committee of the Regions should also be involved at an early stage in this framing process. More streamlined and transparent procedures are important prerequisites for efficient resource allocation;

61. believes that consideration should also be given to whether other elements of European support policy still administered centrally by the European Commission – funding for innovation, for instance – might be transferred to the devolved system of the EU Structural Funds and the responsibility of the regional authorities, especially as the promotion of innovation is already a cornerstone of the EU Structural Fund programmes. For their part, the regions draw on local development concepts from the cities and sub-regions when putting together their regional development strategies and enlist the support of regional and local non-state stakeholders to implement the programmes, with the result that the administrative tier below the regional level is also actively involved in implementing EU structural policy;

62. underlines the fact that local and regional authorities have amassed a great deal of essentially positive experience in recent years with development concepts, the establishment of regional management in sub-regions and integrated urban development concepts, recently subsumed by DG Regio as ‘local development methods’. These experiences have already been drawn on in the framing and implementation of the operational programmes for the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 periods;

63. believes that, with a multiannual funding policy based on common European priorities, underpinned by a regional development strategy and implemented at regional level, the EU Structural Funds represents value added compared with the national regional policies. The fact that programmes are planned for implementation over a number of years creates a solid framework for all the participants and makes it possible, in particular, to pursue innovative approaches to policy. It ensures that structural policy is directed at strategic goals and priorities and protects against the danger of a short-term or ill-conceived funding policy which thus often retains outdated structures. The seven-year programmes that have been operated since 2000 have proved their worth. Under no circumstances should the programme cycle be shortened; regional policy is an important part of Community policy and any attempt to renationalise it should be resisted;

64. positively welcomes the assessment culture which, under the EU Structural Funds, has increasingly become part of the support policy of all regions and makes it possible to continually improve the quality of strategies and instruments. The involvement of all the regions in European Structural Fund support provides scope for an exchange of experiences between the national and regional authorities throughout Europe and the opportunity to learn examples of best practice from one another. At the same time, the process creates a wide and solid foundation for the ongoing development of European structural policy;

The future role of local and regional authorities and the Committee of the Regions

65. is critical of the growing trend for Structural Fund programmes to be implemented at national level and thus proposes that the progress report on economic, social and territorial cohesion report regularly on local and regional authority involvement in implementing cohesion policy, and in this connection points to the work of the Committee of the Regions’ Lisbon Monitoring Platform;

66. emphasises the need to further strengthen the role of the local and regional authorities in developing, implementing and assessing cohesion policy so as to boost subsidiarity and reflect grassroots concerns;

67. proposes a continued role for the Committee of the Regions as a partner enabling, at an early stage, local and regional authorities to work together on a broad scale at European level in the future shaping and implementation of cohesion policy;

Conclusions

68. Given its target of the harmonious development of the European Union through reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions, economic, social and territorial cohesion forms a core element of the European integration model that was further strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty; with a view to achieving this target it needs to continue beyond 2013.

69. Cohesion policy, with its devolved approach and system of multilevel governance, is the only European Union policy to link the goals of the EUROPE 2020 strategy and the new challenges with local and regional authorities. It is therefore essential that cohesion policy continue to be geared towards the goals of sustainable growth, social inclusion, employment and the fight against climate change. Cohesion policy brings together the various tiers of government and strengthens the local and regional dimension. Here, the seven flagship initiatives set out in the EUROPE 2020 strategy should be viewed as additional and complementary measures.

70. Under cohesion policy, the major share of available resources must continue to go to the neediest and most problem-ridden Member States and regions of the European Union in order to help reduce the development gaps and thus make a practical contribution both to securing fairness of opportunity for the regions and to fostering European solidarity. The criteria used for defining funding areas have proved successful.

71. Regions in transition also need special support so that the successes they have achieved with the help of the Structural Funds are not jeopardised by the funding being discontinued. The long-term nature of European support should give these regions the security to press ahead with development and enable them to respond to their own particular situations.

72. The Regional competitiveness and employment objective must also continue to support all the other EU regions, not least in order to boost innovation, social cohesion and competitiveness.

73. Given the high European added value which it offers, territorial cooperation must also remain a target in its own right to support cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation, in particular to make a practical contribution to territorial cohesion in the European Union.

74. Cohesion policy could also provide scope to develop new approaches in regional policy. It might thus be worth studying the possibility of making a small proportion of European Commission resources available in future for supporting innovative measures.

75. The current principles of cohesion policy with respect to the system of multilevel governance, multiannual programme planning, partnership, focusing of effort, indicator-based programme management and assessment, have proved successful. We therefore reject any shortening of the timeframe of the seven-year programme.

76. The current system of resource management is complicated and prone to error. Thus the common goal of all participants must continue to be to reduce the margin of error and simplify resource management as well as settlement and auditing procedures. More should be done than in the past to find solutions tailored to the respective national situations, applying the proportionality principle in practice.

77. The subsidiarity-based approach to cohesion policy must be retained and further expanded. To this end, it is above all important to further strengthen the role of local and regional authorities at every stage of the programming, implementation and assessment of cohesion policy.

78. The results achieved at local and regional level must play a more central role than hitherto in assessing cohesion policy. The Committee of the Regions therefore supports all efforts to make implementation of cohesion policy conform to these premises.