C 226/30 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and
Economic Situation and Development of Regions in the European Union’
(2000/C 226/10)
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,
having regard to the ‘Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of
Regions in the European Union’ (SEC(1999) 66 final);
having regard to the Commission’s decision of 1 September 1999 to consult the Committee on this
subject, in accordance with Article 265 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;
having regard to its Bureau’s decision of 2 June 1999 to assign the preparation of an opinion to
Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion, Cross-Border andInter-Regional Cooperation;
having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 388/99 rev. 2) adopted by Commission 1 on 1 December 1999
(rapporteur: Mr Bazin, regional councillor for Bourgogne, F/PPE),
adopted the following opinion at its 33rd plenary session of 12 and 13 April 2000 (meeting of 12 April).
1.Introduction 1.4. This enables a relatively objective assessment to be
made of the major regional trends of the last decade of the
20th century, in terms of the economy, the labour market, anddemographic patterns. It is also a means of analysing regional
capacity for competitiveness, and assessing changes in those1.1. The Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economicregions assisted by the European Structural Funds and thoseSituation and Development of Regions in the European Unionnot. Furthermore, it is a means of knowing and comparing theanalyses and comments on the impact of regional policysituation in ten countries of central and eastern Europe andwithin the European Union and the results of the cohesionCyprus.process. It also focuses on development in 10 central and
eastern European countries and Cyprus.
1.5. On the whole, therefore, the Committee of the Regions
welcomes the work done for the sixth periodic report on the
1.2. The report was published by the European Commission situation and development of the regions in the European
on 23 July 1999 and is the last in a series of documents it Union. The report is a landmark in the analysis of regional
publishes every three years. In accordance with Article 130b data and illustrates the progress made in the field since the
of the Maastricht Treaty (
1), the Commission produces three- publication of the fifth periodic report in 1995. There is still a
yearly reports on economic and social cohesion, incorporating lot to be done to complete the picture, but now the way ahead
analyses made in the periodic report. The first report on is clear, providing efforts to harmonise European statistics are
cohesion was presented and adopted in 1996. continued and the research accompanying the work of the
ESDP fulfils its promise. The competitiveness approach (second
part of the report) is important and deserves applause as ittouches the heart of the matter and opens up new horizons
for understanding and resolving divergent regional develop-1.3. Access to accurate, detailed and regularly up-datedment in Europe.economic and social data covering the entire European Union
is a must. This report marks a considerable step forward from
its predecessors, since, as well as successfully updating the
information, it offers new and interesting perspectives on
economic globalisation, the development of the information
society, the changeover to the euro, the enlargement of theUnion towards eastern Europe, the regional economy and the
labour market. 2.Suitability of the analytical framework
2.1. The basic unit of the report is the region. Although
this appears to be the only analytical basis on which the data
can be compiled and collated, there are clearly major disparities (1) Article 159(2) of the Amsterdam Treaty.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/31 Official Journal of the European Communities
between the regions concerned on a number of counts. Some interregional inequalities. In the report they are assessed
basically as a function of the ratio of GDP per head in a specific are historic entities, others are recent groupings of smaller
entities, established at completely different times, and with region to average GDP per head for all the regions. This is a
somewhat simplistic method in the light of the more sophisti- widely differing geographical dimensions. Their responsibilities
and powers also vary, especially in economic terms. There are cated tools economic science has to offer in this day and age.
The relevance of criteria quantifiable largely in financial terms frequent problems involved in comparing entities that have
very little in common with regard to their history, culture, is questionable, as societies can develop differently and give
priority to other values. The 21st century may witness the administration, politics and economy.
development of personal or social ‘demand’ focused more
on spiritual aspirations, ideals of solidarity and ecological
objectives, setting greater store by food quality and needsrelating to physical health and quality of life, etc.
2.2. The limitations of the analysis are especially glaring in
the light of the economic theory that distinguishes betweenpolarised regions (those with an active centre draining activity
2.6. Furthermore, the Committee of the Regions rec-from the surrounding area) and homogeneous regions (compo-ommends eliminating the effect of regional population changessed of similar sub-regions). Some of the NUTS 2 regions,in future. The advantage of GDP per capita is that it enablesfor instance, are of a polarised nature, whereas others are
the situation in the regions to be evaluated from the viewpointhomogeneous. This distinction is not made in the report,of individuals, but the disadvantage is that changes in theexcept implicitly with reference to large urban service centres,overall situation of a region are hidden by changes in theindustrial regions with medium-sized cities or rural regions.
number of inhabitants. Thus a region that has grown wealthierIt is, however, difficult to compare polarised regions andwhile attracting more inhabitants in search of work may seemhomogeneous regions. Furthermore, the case of city-regions isto have made less progress in terms of per capita GDP than inatypical.
terms of regional GDP. The GDP per head ratio, therefore,
tends to underestimate inequalities. The weakness of basingthe analysis on GDP her head alone is offset, however, by the
detailed study in the second part of the report of the factors that
contribute to GDP formation and regional competitiveness.2.3. An inevitable but somewhat distorting statistical effect
can sometimes negate analyses of inequality between regions.The larger and more populous the region, the more likely it is
that indicators will be based on averages that mask sharp
contrasts. A region thought to be wealthy will often containpockets of poverty. It is clearly the job of every Member State
to establish its own standards of social equity, but the European3.Sustained high unemployment and the means ofUnion cannot simply disregard these situations, which canaddressing itoften lead local people to question the ‘European idea’ and
hold the European Union responsible. It should be noted that
the NUTS 2 classification is based on the decisions of eachMember State and cannot hope to meet the optimal criteria3.1. Unemployment and underemployment are the mostset by the European authorities in all circumstances. Theserious concern of the Committee of the Regions. It thereforeCommittee of the Regions hopes that the necessary resourcesseems appropriate to examine this aspect of the report first.will be deployed to gradually improve the quality of theAlthough the situation is improving in places, the Europeanstatistics and provide a better picture of the inequalities withinUnion still has a high unemployment level, which affectsEurope’s regions; and it would be prepared to play a part in16,5 million people and is at the root of major humanthat process.difficulties and social ills, as well as economic imbalances in
the geographical breakdown of the production of goods andservices.
2.4. The data on the ten central and eastern European
countries and Cyprus are brief and occasionally insufficiently3.2. The report underlines the fact that unemploymentreliable, in spite of recent statistical progress. A partnershippersists in the places it has taken root, and that any reductionsshould possibly be established to improve the quality of thisdo not make up for the increases. Pockets of geographically-information, which will be essential for the enlargement of thelocalised unemployment are still necessarily at the top of theEuropean Union and the credibility of any future regionalagenda. Unemployment is extremely unequally spread overpolicy.the Union. A decade on, it is still the same 25 regions that are
least affected by the problem. In the regions with least access
to work and jobs, the unemployment rate has risen over thesame period from 20 % to 24 %, in contrast to the 4 % rate
in the more privileged areas. Long-term unemployment is on
the increase, along with unemployment among young people 2.5. The Committee of the Regions would recommend the
use of more finely-tuned and reliable indicators to measure looking for their first job.
C 226/32 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
3.3. The report suggests that approximately half the unem- 3.7. Several times, the report states that regions with a high
proportion of jobs in agriculture and connected activities often ployment can be put down to a structural situation caused by
an imbalance in the structure of supply and demand for have an unemployment problem, and it recommends that
those regions diversify towards industry and services. This labour. The Committee agrees with this analysis, while feeling
that the report could have drawn clearer conclusions in terms view is not entirely accurate, however, as it is necessary to
avoid any rejection of farming, any belittling of its economic of:
and social importance, or the wider acceptance of an excess-
ively production/productivity-based model. A move towardsless intensive agriculture, paying greater attention to environ-
mental standards and matching consumer demand for natural — the need to develop initial and continuing training, the key
products, could save and create new jobs in Europe. Not all to adapting people to the requirements of the labour
regions have the same predisposition to produce food prod- market and the major changes it is currently undergoing;
ucts, but, with the right help to make the necessary changes in
production methods and prepare for the future, some could
specialise to social and economic advantage.
— the dissemination of information on the labour market, to
both companies and job seekers, especially in an EU-wide
context;
3.8. The report is right to state that the economic base of
the least favoured regions must be strengthened, i.e. by
developing outward-looking activities. While this concept is— measures to ensure labour market flexibility.acceptable at a microeconomic level in a region, bearing in
mind the shortcomings of the regional economic base model,
the overall benefit to the European Union depends largely onexports outside the Community market.
3.4. The report is not very forthcoming on the subject of
female employment. It notes that women, who often havechildren to take care of, should have access to part-time work
and flexible hours. This makes it harder for women with
children to secure high-level jobs. The Committee of theRegions believes that more definite progress is needed to
achieve equality between men and women with regard to work
4.Demographic trends reach crisis point and access to economic and social responsibilities. A debate is
also needed on the adverse and beneficial effects on women of
positive discrimination measures provided for under family
policy in certain countries. The report, meanwhile, highlightsthe link between low unemployment and high female employ-4.1. There is no question that demographic trends arement. This is partly explained by women working part-time orreaching crisis point. The report’s forecasts stretch up untilspecial hours. The report points out that 80 % of women2020, and are based on current trends. It therefore appearsworking under such arrangements choose to do so. Healthyprobable that:economies need people to work part-time, special or flexible
hours; as women are more interested in such arrangementsthan men, more of them are employed.
— low birth rates will result in the ageing of the population,
with all the social and economic consequences that entails;
3.5. On interregional inequalities, the report shows that
certain regions have an unsatisfied demand for labour while— the active population will also age, raising very seriousothers are in the opposite situation. The problem could bequestions as to the competitiveness and adaptability ofeased through measures to encourage spatial mobility (foreignhuman resources in Europe, faced with a changing world;language learning, more flexible labour market, teleworking,
etc.).
— the labour supply and active population will start to shrink
from 2005/2010 onwards; this will be an imbalanced
process and will depend on the immigration policy chosen3.6. The report could have shed more light on the Com-by Member States and the European Union.mission’s position on the relationship between the social
protection provided for job seekers and the constituent factorsof unemployment. It gives little attention to minimum salaries,
unemployment benefits or, more generally, worker assistance
and protection. However, there is currently no clear-cut answer Very soon, cohesion will require a new vocabulary, centred on
population, rejuvenation and the generation balance. to this question, either in practical or theoretical terms.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/33 Official Journal of the European Communities
4.2. The report points out the effects of an ageing active 5.3. The Committee of the Regions applauds the progress
made by several of the less privileged European regions in population on the lack of worker adaptability to new tech-
nologies. If the work force is to remain dynamic, priority must recent years. The advances made between 1991 and 1996
appear to have been significant and rapid, though largely be given to research into measures designed to promote
continuing training, access to a wider range of technologies owing to growth in the new German Länder. Meanwhile,
between 1986 and 1991, the apparent decline in growth was and the implementation of management techniques suited to
a population at an advanced stage in its working life. the result of the opposite phenomenon in the same region.
Growth in the regions outside the new Länder in fact been
more or less steady.
4.3. Quite rightly, the report examines the ageing phenom-
enon from the viewpoint of the dependency of the elderly,
5.4. Overall, three main phenomena stand out: continued which is set to have a major impact on the social budgets of
buoyant growth along the urban, industrial axis that crosses the Members of the European Union in the coming years.
the European Union diagonally, further strengthening these
growth poles; uneven progress made by the Objective 1
regions in catching up; and weak growth in several so-called
peripheral regions that do not qualify for Objective 1.
4.4. Without youth, a dynamic renewal of generations and
a policy to boost birth rates, Europe will grow old and lose thestaying power which can only come from the rejuvenation of
its human resources.5.5. The Committee has doubts as to whether the average
should be used for country convergence analyses. By grouping
the four cohesion countries together to show convergence,
table 1 in the statistical annex to the sixth report hides the factthat growth in Greece and Spain during the 1991-1996 period
was lower than the European average (+1 % and + 1,3 %
average annual growth respectively in contrast to the +1,5 %European average). Clearly, with strong Irish growth (+7,1 %
annual average) brought into the equation, the four countries
5.Convergence is a reality but some areas are still lagging taken together show much higher average growth (+1,7 % as
opposed to +1,5 %). The wisdom of using the average here is
highly debatable.
5.1. The report states that there has been genuine conver-
gence, and notes that over the last 10-year period, GDP in the
10 regions where it was lowest has risen from 41 % of the EU
average to 50 %. It also mentions that the GDP of the25 poorest regions is up from 52 % to 59 % of that average,
while the GDP of the four ‘cohesion’ countries has shifted 6.Competitiveness
from 65 % to 76,5 % of the average (estimated at 78 % for
1999). It states in particular that trade between those four
countries and the Member States of the Union doubled over
the same period.
6.1. The report opts to measure the competitiveness of the
regions by the ratio of GDP/population to output per inhabi-tant, already used to assess regional development levels.
This appears to be a far cry from the two definitions of
competitiveness proposed by the same report, namely ‘the 5.2. Some areas are still lagging, however, and it is clear
that even in the cohesion countries, where the report’s findings ability of companies, industries, regions, nations and supra-
national regions to generate, while being exposed to inter- argue for a new policy, towns and cities are more often than
not still attracting GDP to the detriment of rural regions. This national competition, relatively high income and employment
levels’ and above all ‘ability to produce goods and services uneven distribution of GDP is a reality throughout Europe, it
is a root of social tension and the Union has paid out which meet the test of international markets, while at the same
time maintaining high and sustainable levels of income’. The considerable sums to try and reverse the process and will
continue to do so. However, care must be taken to ensure that choice of GDP per head does not really solve the problem.
Being competitive means producing at prices lower than the free enterprise that is so precious to the EU does not
generate excessive imbalances in the growth of Europe’s or equal to world prices, with employment the natural
consequence. The report does not examine competitiveness so regions. The European Union’s regional policy must not just
fight the imbalances that arise from the current climate of much as provide an explanatory breakdown of disparities per
head. The analysis is interesting, but calls for a number of mergers, globalisation and relocation, but also contribute to
preventing them in the first place. comments.
C 226/34 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
6.2. The report in actual fact considers that GDP/population 6.7. The report is practical and objective regarding foreign
direct investment. It can play an important role in the = (GDP/employment) × (employment/ working-age popu-
lation) × (working-age population/total population). The last development of all regions by helping to raise productive
capacity and output. Through stable, favourable employment element in the breakdown (working-age population/total
population) goes by the board somewhat as it contributes little conditions and the provision of good in-house training, direct
inward investment can also contribute to improving social to overall change and is little influenced by policy. The report
mentions earlier, however, that this ratio is decreasing over conditions. However, any detrimental fall-out for the European
economic or working culture must be addressed, should it time.
arise.
6.3. The report uses the two other elements to define
competitiveness, the ratio (GDP/person employed), i.e. labour 6.8. Transport and communication infrastructure will be
vital for the enlarged continent-wide European Union. Both productivity, and the ratio (employment/working-age popu-
lation), i.e. the employment rate. Part 3 of the report apparently geographical and modal priorities must therefore be set.
Interpersonal relations and trade in goods and services are as adopts a differing standpoint, namely that the employment
rate is not determined by external factors but rather dependent old as the history of European civilisation and it will be
through their promotion that Europe is built. on productivity. It states that while competitiveness depends
on productivity, improved productivity is a necessary con-dition for increased employment. Therefore, labour pro-
ductivity is definitely a factor in competitiveness, as it stimu-
lates growth in output and thus employment; at the same time,however, productivity gains lead to fewer workers being
required for the same output. 6.9. Geographically, the Union must encourage the estab-
lishment of modern transport and communications links
throughout its territory. They are indispensable between East
and West as a signal of the cohesion that the Union intends toestablish with the candidate countries of Central and Eastern
Europe. The Union must also help to forge the missing links
in the north-south axis in the West of the continent, not 6.4. On the subject of productivity and the employment
rate, it would appear that only labour productivity is at a forgetting those regions situated on the extreme periphery,
islands especially, which require appropriate means of trans- satisfactory level. This is encouraging, but full employment,
the aim of any society, remains elusive. The explanatory factors port and communications.studied by the report include the structure of economic
activity, degree of innovation, regional accessibility and the
skills of the work force. While economic structure is slow tochange, innovation levels could be improved more rapidly by
EU measures such as an improved patents system or action to
encourage the transformation of innovations into marketable 6.10. In modal and intermodal terms, the European Union
products and services. must undergo a transport and communications revolution like
that of the 19th century, based on current advanced tech-nology. It must focus less on individual projects than on a
European strategy, and projects should be backed only insofar
as they fit in with that strategy. Roads, railways, shipping,especially coastal shipping waterways and aviation must all
play their part within an intermodal whole, protecting the 6.5. The report highlights the inadequate dissemination of
innovations within Europe, in contrast to the US in particular. environment while remembering that transport and communi-
cations contribute to quality of life and are of the essence of The Committee of the Regions believes that the research,
innovation and technological development necessary to all civilisation itself. Clearly, much more than in the past, a
distinction must be drawn between passenger transport and Europe’s regions must be stepped up.
goods transport. This is the challenge facing the European
Union. The Committee of the Regions will lend its support.
6.6. The report clearly shows that though small and
medium-sized companies are said to play a key role in job
creation, the exact scale of their contribution is difficult to 6.11. The report remains objective with regard to energy,
which nonetheless is currently a highly sensitive issue. It assess, partly as a result of statistical confusion between
decision-making centres and production units. In general, ignores the issue of energy sources, with the exception of
renewables. In particular, the thorny topic of nuclear power is Europe is still lagging behind in the area of risk capital and
financial support for high-tech SMEs. conspicuous by its absence. One interesting idea is that of
8.8.2000 EN C 226/35 Official Journal of the European Communities
energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP), which very few decisions are taken locally, with the exception of
regionally-based SMEs. There is no proof that decentralisation is greater in the less favoured regions. This would suggest that
moves to develop energy infrastructure and break energy is always the most effective system. In any case, this requires
competition conditions (transparency, full information, inde- dependency must be accompanied by energy saving measures.
Although the less developed regions use less power per head pendent operators) that are not always present. Public manage-
ment by results is not such a new idea, and as the report and cause less pollution, they use more fossil fuels. The report
suggests that they could rely on renewables. This would be mentions, it is not so far removed from centralised planning;
it is not effective every time. The report is also positive realistic only for the sun-drenched regions of the south, for
very windy areas or, at all events, areas with plenty of unused, when promoting private intervention in partnership with
government as a more effective form of public management. non-agricultural land, as solar and wind power installations
use a lot of space, especially when a major supply is required. However, this can often have negative effects, for instance,
pressure groups, a tendency towards corruption, the fact that
it is major companies rather than SMEs that have the most
influence, with all the monopolistic tendencies that entails, not
to mention pressures from the banking and finance sector. As
the report points out, the horizontal management networkmodel can become cumbersome: very often, this type of 6.12. Interesting information is provided on telecommuni-
institution tends to favour compromise, i.e. zero change. cations infrastructure (number of lines per inhabitant) and
quality of service (rate of digitalisation). The mobile telephone
phenomenon — via GSM or satellite — is not mentioned,
however, although it constitutes an opportunity for theeconomic infrastructure of less-developed regions that are
often not as well covered by specialist companies. The regions 6.16. All in all, the second part of the periodic report
deserves recognition for its quality. It offers very good that are ill-served by the new communication technologies,
the gateway to the modern world, are also the most neglected prospects for a genuine plan for the balanced development of
Europe’s regions. The chapter entitled ‘Explaining competi- by the market and free enterprise.
tiveness: common features of successful regions’ will doubtlessprompt further research in the months ahead. Nonetheless,
the outline of the four most important factors in the growth
of GDP are convincing:
6.13. Water supply is another of the major challenges
facing tomorrow’s Europe, and is a problem determined largely
a) The structure of economic activity is a major factor that by geography. The report gives indications of reserves per
demands a special political effort to redistribute Europe’s inhabitant in each country. This shows that the most developed
productive machinery and find ways of striking a better countries are in the most difficulty, and must invest the most
balance. financially. The report is right to point out that recycling
household waste is certainly the best way forward in termsof environmental protection, although it is bound to be
expensive.
b) The extent of innovative activity is also a key factor. Once
again in political terms, it demands better coordinationbetween research and development policies and economic,
social and regional cohesion. This is underlined in the
chapter on RTD.
6.14. The report highlights national disparities in human
capital, an area in which change is inevitably slow. It gives
little information on the link between human capital and
economic performance, although it is known that human c) The Committee obviously welcomes the attention paid to
capital can generate increasing returns, which can however the accessibility indicator. Its high correlation with GDP
hinder the convergence process, according to the endogenous comes as no surprise, but needs confirmation nonetheless.
growth theory. It can only be hoped that the additional research in the
pipeline will enable this critical factor to be taken rapidly
into consideration in the implementation both of regional
policies and of the trans-European networks (review of
TEN-T) and all transport policies.
6.15. With regard to institutions and social capital, the
report strikes an optimistic note when it affirms that ‘European
integration is a key force in this, since it exposes regions to d) Lastly, the area of skills is also critical and requires better
coordination between the relevant ERDF and ESF policies. institutional models and competition from all over the Union’.
However, regions are dependent on the state for their public The Commission has made this point on several occasions,
but insufficient heed has been taken in the SPD and CSF. institutional structures, and often have only limited room for
manoeuvre. The institutional structure of firms is such, that There is definitely room for innovation in this area.
C 226/36 EN 8.8.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
To conclude, map 29 of the report gives a remarkable 7.5. The impact assessments presented show that the
Structural Funds have had a beneficial effect on the regions summary of the reality of the centre-periphery relationship as
it stands in Europe. There are few more convincing arguments that have received assistance, reducing regional disparities. The
Committee of the Regions welcomes this success. for using an indicator of this type in the structural policies.
The development of these four key variables, in relation to thatof GDP, will, furthermore, provide a sound basis for evaluating
the development of the centre-periphery relationship in7.6. The convergence issue raises an important economicEurope.question, in terms of the balance between:
— the search for maximum overall growth on the one hand,
and
— even growth or development of the regions on the other. 7.The effectiveness of cohesion policy
The search for equity aims to give as much as possible to the
7.1. This opinion could not cover the specific situation in least favoured region while remaining effective, i.e. ensuring
each of the EU regions, unless each presented its comments, maximal overall development. However, equality is not always
hopes and demands; this would not however match the effective and it is not always by seeking equal development
Committee’s brief to issue a coherent opinion. for regions that maximum overall development is attained.
Interregional equality should not necessarily be sought above
all else, as regional equality has consequences for overallperformance.
7.2. The report does not conceal the fact that, in spite of
major progress made in recent years, the impact of regional
cohesion policy is still largely inadequate. There are sometimes7.7. An evaluation of the cost of the Structural Funds insignificant disparities between the regions of a single country,terms of overall growth would provide a useful indication ofand between all the regions. It must be said that the cohesionresults. This is not to say that the Funds should be called intoobjective is very ambitious and the first of its kind in thequestion, but rather that this type of indication shouldhistory of the continent. Furthermore, its impact cannot beobviously be available given that the Funds are aimed at moreassessed properly over such a short period. The Structuralegalitarian growth.Funds appear to have made a positive contribution to reducing
inequalities within the European Union, benefiting Greece,Ireland, Portugal and Spain in particular, taking those countries
7.8. Similarly, an evaluation of the multiplier effect of the as a whole. The report correctly points out the difficulty in
sums injected would be useful (i.e. the relationship between assessing the effectiveness of the Structural Funds with regard
the growth of a region’s GDP that can be imputed to the to other factors that cannot easily be incorporated into the
Structural Funds, and the total amount of Structural Fund evaluations.
money involved). This performance indicator, however simple
its form, would be of great use in deciding the future direction
of the Structural Funds, over and above the data on growth in
GDP or reduced unemployment presented by the report. 7.3. In spite of the efforts made in the Objective 1 and
Objective 6 regions, unemployment rates have remained
disappointing overall, while GDP per inhabitant is tending toconverge towards the average. The report highlights poor 7.9. The aim of equal development between the regions is
activity rates, linked to unemployment, but it limits itself to more difficult to achieve than the objective of equal growth
noting the situation without attempting to seek the real rates, as the former implies convergence, with the less favoured
reasons for it. Certain regions have benefited greatly from regions having to grow more quickly than the more advanced
development aid. As the report suggests, an objective assess- regions.
ment should be conducted of the effectiveness of this financial
aid in giving every less-developed region the same oppor-
tunities to advance.
8.Enlargement
7.4. The situation in the Objective 2 regions seems to have
improved overall, but these regions are still often vulnerable
(closing down and relocation of production units). In the 8.1. The report takes the overall view that the countries of
central and eastern Europe and Cyprus are legitimate candi- Objective 5b regions, an increase in the active population has
hindered a fall in unemployment, although employment has dates for accession given their political choices, their move-
ment towards a market economy and the progress they have increased. The cause for that increase is diversification of
activities in an economy based mainly on agriculture. made over the last decade.
8.8.2000 EN C 226/37 Official Journal of the European Communities
8.2. The Committee of the Regions does not have a economic criteria, and especially not on criteria for the
harmonious development of those countries’ regions. The decision-making role here, but it would nevertheless remark
that: applicant countries still have a good deal of catching up to do:
regional issues play second fiddle to national matters where
— the countries in question are not the only countries likely EU accession is concerned, although harmonious regional
to apply for membership of the European Union; development is obviously desirable.
— it is impossible to disregard the myriad political, economic,8.4. This brings us back to the growth versus equalsocial, cultural and ideological factors linked to the past,development of regions debate, an issue that cannot bepresent and future of these countries, which are notignored. Should these countries develop as quickly as possiblereflected principally in regional GDP but in nationalin order to reach the level necessary for accession to theobjectives that are not easily defined;Union? Or should they seek regionally balanced growth, which
will necessarily be slower (in the knowledge, as the report— the European Union must learn how to manage the hopesstates, that the shock of transition from the previous era is stillit arouses to ensure they are realistic; to do this it mustfar from having been totally absorbed, with GDP and GDP perevaluate the many implications these accessions willinhabitant having plummeted)?inevitably have for the Union’s internal and external
policies, and assess the real capacity of the Union and of8.5. The report suggests that the CEEC are benefiting fromthe countries concerned to form tomorrow’s Europe in aa major influx of foreign direct investment, but that thesegenuine spirit of solidarity;flows are focused on a few countries only and come from just
a few Union Member States. This issue is and will remain a — the European Union must be able to continue developing
sensitive one, in the light of centuries of European history. its approach to these countries in a responsible way,
without losing sight of the fact that the foundation stone
8.6. The report assumes that these countries have already — i.e. the European entity — is solely political and moral,
made decisive progress towards moulding their societies to the based on a system of free societies with unity of purpose:
European Union model. The truth is, however, that the type of first and foremost Europe must provide an ideal for
society they are developing is still on the drawing board. The community life, with a single destiny, only then will it
Committee of the Regions believes it has a major role to play succeed;
here as decentralisation and balanced mutual support are the
twin pillars of the Europe it wishes to see created, based on a — while definitely not sceptical about enlargement, the
Committee is adamant that it must be a success; otherwise system of social values.
it may engender major difficulties in the European Union
and the applicant countries. The preparation phase would 8.7. The Committee of the Regions hopes that the countries
benefit from the greater involvement of the Committee of in question will equip themselves with regional political and
the Regions, which, as the representative of local and administrative structures, so that they can tackle the same
regional authorities, is in a position to establish and issues within the same institutional framework. The Committee
nurture the grass roots cooperation needed for success. of the Regions can be a partner in implementing regional
The fact that a country has applied must not lead to strategies in these countries.
excessive pressure on its people in terms of economic
adjustment and lifestyle, as that could provoke a backlash. 8.8. Cyprus is clearly a case apart. Its economic perform-
ance would suggest it will be ready for accession to the Union.
GDP is 75 % of the EU average. Employment is high and 8.3. According to the report, the disparities between the EU
regions and the applicant regions are still great, with a few unemployment is low, but productivity is also low and this is
where efforts must be concentrated. exceptions. Membership of the EU will not depend solely on
Brussels, 12 April 2000.
The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Jos CHABERT