Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "The structure and goals of European regional policy in the context of enlargement and globalisation: opening of the debate"
Date: 2001-05-18
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU aid, economic development, enlargement of the Union, globalisation, regional policy, social development

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/25

1.13.
The COR regrets that the projects established under
the Commission’s demonstration programme may not con-
tinue to exist. Moreover the Committee feels that the expertise

and practices gained in these areas will be lost. The Committee
therefore reaffirms the desirability of continuing existing
appropriate projects and establishing further activities.

Brussels, 14 February 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The structure and goals of European regional
policy in the context of enlargement and globalisation: opening of the debate’

(2001/C 148/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 13 June 2000, in accordance with the fifth paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on the Structure
and goals of European regional policy in the context of enlargement and globalisation: opening of the
debate and to instruct Commission 1 for Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion
and Cross-border and Inter-regional Cooperation to draw up this opinion;

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 13 April 2000 on the 6th Periodic
Report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union
(CdR 388/99 fin) (1), which finds that regional disparities in Europe have grown over the last ten years;

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 14 January 1999 on the European
Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) — (CdR 266/98 fin) (2);

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 18 November 1999 on the Structural
Funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund Guidance for programmes in the period 2000-
2006 (COM(1999) 344 final) — (CdR 217/99 fin) (3);

having regard to the Resolution of the Committee of the Regions of 10 March 1999 on the Reform of
the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in the context of the political debate on the Agenda 2000
package (CdR 1/99 fin) (4);

(1) OJ C 226, 8.8.2000, p. 30.
(2) OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 36.
(3) OJ C 57, 29.2.2000, p. 56.
(4) OJ C 198, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

C 148/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 18 September 1997 on the First
cohesion report — 1996 (COM(1996) 542 final) — (CdR 76/97 fin) (1);

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 20 November 1997 on Agenda 2000:
the financing of the European Union after 1999 taking account of enlargement prospects and the
challenges of the 21st century (COM(97) 2000 final) (CdR 303/97 fin (2));

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 19 November 1997 on Views of the
regions and local authorities on arrangements for European Structural Policy after 1999 (CdR 131/97
fin) (3);

having regard to the results of the seminar on the partnership principle held by the Committee of the
Regions in Madeira on 10 and 11 January 2000 in the series entitled the Implementation of the reform
of the Structural Funds, 2000-2006 — the contribution of local and regional authorities;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 1 on 22 November 2000 (CdR 157/2000
rev. 3) [rapporteur: Dr Karl-Heinz Klär, State Secretary, Delegate for Federal and European Affairs of the
Land of Rhineland-Palatinate (D/PSE)];

whereas European regional policy has achieved much, but disparities between the regions are still
considerable, so that a European regional policy will continue to be needed even after 2006;

whereas in 1999 the Member States, in the decisions taken on Agenda 2000, essentially left the structure
and goals of European regional policy unchanged;

whereas an increase in European support funding is both desirable and necessary, but the continuation of
European regional policy in its present form would strain EU finances as soon as a large-scale enlargement
takes place;

whereas the outcome of the Berlin conference was a clear regression in economic and social cohesion
policies (0,46 % of Community GDP in 1999 as against 0,31 % in 2006);

whereas some regions of the Union which have hitherto been covered by EU regional and structural
policy will no longer satisfy the support criteria, although, objectively speaking, there has been no
substantial improvement in their position;

whereas, a strict concentration of support on the new Member States and their needy regions would
perhaps strain European solidarity, and tend to split rather than integrate the enlarged European Union;

whereas globalisation, i.e. the accelerated, competition-orientated integration of the world economy,
necessitates deepening of the European Union and intelligent use, based on division of labour, of all the
productive resources of the regions;

convinced that, against this background, a bold, forward-looking reorientation of European regional
policy is needed and that this approach has more chance of success than an unimaginative attempt once
again to preserve the status quo;

convinced that such a bold new orientation of European regional policy geared to the challenges facing it
can succeed only if it is discussed in good time, openly and without petty or tactical reservations between
the main policy-makers and beneficiaries and then progressively implemented;

(1) OJ C 379, 15.12.1997, p. 34.
(2) OJ C 64, 27.2.1998, p. 40.
(3) OJ C 64, 27.2.1998, p. 5.

18.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 148/27

intending to use this opinion to launch a timely debate on future regional policy after 2006,

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2001 (meeting
of 15 February).

The Committee of the Regions

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

notes that the processes of globalisation and enlargement
of the European Union pose fundamental challenges
to future European regional policy. The accelerated
globalisation of the world economy and the forthcoming
enlargement of the EU will demand strenuous efforts
from citizens to ensure that the European Union can
continue on the path of economic and social progress.
The highly developed regions will need to make a huge
effort to adapt if they are to remain competitive, and
regions with a great deal of economic catching up to
do risk experiencing further competitive disadvantages.
it would be negligent and
Against
irresponsible to squander resources, waste development
potential and weaken, rather than strengthen, the sense
of belonging of citizens of the Union as a result of
unbalanced Community policy.

this background,

points out that future European regional policy must
be better coordinated with other Community policies.
Sectoral policy measures must make a greater contri-
bution to the objective of economic, social and territorial
cohesion in taking into account a spatial dimension in
their conception and implementation.

points out that European regional policy can succeed
only in conjunction with the regional policies of the
Member States and the regions. It should therefore respect
subsidiarity, allow scope for and strengthen the regions’
own responsibilities and encourage cooperation between
them.

argues that European regional policy should on this basis
use all its resources to help establish strong European
solidarity in keeping with the European social model and
promote a dense network of cross-border, inter-regional
and trans-national partnerships. Substantial deepening of
inter-cultural understanding is therefore just as necessary
as stronger economic links.

calls for the further development of European regional
policy into the integration policy par excellence, aimed at
bottom-up deepening and the fostering of an awareness
of the Union, to have something to offer all the EU’s
regions. In order to do justice to this objective in a
changing Union, a debate on the future orientation of
the objectives and adaptation of the instruments and
procedures is necessary.

6.

7.

8.

9.

stresses that the bulk of aid must continue to go to
regions with a development deficit and major problems,
in order to preserve the principles of cohesion and
solidarity between the richer and poorer regions. In future
the rule must continue to be that, the more serious the
development deficit, the greater the material support will
need to be. To this end, it will be essential to conduct a
more detailed study of criteria used to date. The aim is to
promote competitiveness to ensure sustainable develop-
ment creating long-term quality employment. This will
underpin the prosperity of the EU as a whole in a context
of global competition.

stresses that the future aid framework will need to be
expanded in order to ensure that the needy regions —
whether of the EU 15 or of the new member countries
— can receive support. This is politically expedient, as a
virtual cessation of aid currently received would be
enormously damaging to the sense of belonging and
attachment to the EU in many regions. But it is also
appropriate: if the disparities of development and pros-
perity in the EU increase drastically as a result of
enlargement, more funding, and not less, will be needed
in order to pursue the objective of economic and social
cohesion and take into account the developing concept
of territorial cohesion.

notes in this context that statistical changes in the regions
do not mean that structural problems have gone away.
Material support provided under Europe’s future regional
policy must not be guided purely by GDP thresholds.
Further criteria capable of objective assessment should be
adopted alongside the main indicator, regional GDP as a
proportion of the EU average: remoteness/accessibility
and demographic trends/sparsity of population for exam-
ple, but also sectoral and regional deficits relevant to
development, inter alia in the areas of training, inno-
vation, research and development and industrial restruc-
turing. In so doing, attempts should be made to develop
a system which makes it possible to classify clearly the
relative needs of the different regions.

suggests that a new crisis intervention instrument be
created, making it possible to use EU resources other than
those earmarked for structural measures to react
to
sudden, unexpected, serious, structural crises which the
affected regions would be unable to cope with on their
own. In the short term such crises frequently lead to
disintegration of the regional economic structure with

C 148/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.5.2001

damaging long-term consequences. European regional
policy must attempt to prevent such consequences and
establish a good basis for rapid restructuring. Emergency
aid is an excellent way of fostering a sense of belonging.
At the same time the introduction of such an instrument
strengthens the role of the European Commission, which
has to take decisions on individual cases.

13.

10.

11.

feels that future European regional policy should be based
on the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP)
and in particular the polycentric and regional cohesion
approaches, in order to create crystallisation points for
economic development in thinly populated areas, which
will grow into (strong) centres able to raise the prosperity
level of the region concerned. In the light of this, future
regional policy must be coordinated with development
inter-regional
strategies in the field of cross-border,
and trans-national cooperation, to ensure an improved
coherence between sectoral and territorial approaches. In
this connection, the work of the European Spatial Plan-
ning Observatory Network (Espon) should be taken into
account.

suggests that Europe’s future regional policy should use
part of its — increased — resources for geographical
integration at frontiers. In order to deepen integration of
the European Union in areas where the Member States,
even more than elsewhere, have to grow together and
show good neighbourliness, the regions at the borders
between Member States — including islands and coastal
borders — and at the Union’s external borders should
receive structural support. Programmes of a cross-border
nature or, where a border region is involved, an inter-
regional or trans-national nature, and which are, inter
(coastal)
alia,
frontiers,
insularity or a region’s remoteness, should
receive support. The undeniably positive experience
accumulated in this area over a period of years should be
reflected in Structural Fund support. The European added
value of such a reform, compensating for the disadvan-
tages of border location and promoting good neighbourli-
ness, is clear.

intended to alleviate the separation of

12.

in the light of this suggestion, advocates the development
of mechanisms to tackle problems arising from divergent
national structures and responsibilities.
In particular
efforts should be made to establish a legal framework for
for the
joint project administration, a joint budget

Brussels, 15 February 2001.

resources available for measures and joint cost and
financial plans. The delegation of powers to regional or
local level which might result would at the same time
further the objectives of proximity to citizens and subsidi-
arity.

suggests a reorientation of the Community initiatives. A
key aim should be to promote outstanding achievements
in research and in new technologies via cross-border,
inter-regional, trans-national and trans-continental joint
ventures and to establish a system of networks of
excellence. This Community initiative should try to
ensure that the benefits of European inventiveness and of
the innovative application of inventions are available to
as many citizens of the Union in as many regions as
possible. It could also generate synergies between Euro-
pean research policy and regional policy, between which
there has hitherto been too little coordination. Clearly, an
innovation of this kind would confer on the Commission
an important role in future regional policy, and this
would be welcome.

14. considers it necessary to increase the scope of regional
policy implemented at national and regional level. The
measures necessarily taken by the EU to encourage the
development of the economically weaker regions using
Community funds should be matched by the necessary
attention to the demands of competitiveness which the
economically stronger regions have to satisfy on the
global market, whilst also bearing in mind that the
success of the stronger regions will make a significant
contribution to the growth of the EU as a whole. To this
end, Community competition policy should, within the
framework of the existing rules, step up checks on abuses
and promote competitiveness.

15. calls for Europe’s future regional policy confidently to
take on a role which in essence it has always had:
promoting integration from the bottom up. It will be able
to perform this task effectively if in the framework of its
objectives, structures and programmes it does not lose
sight of the principle of solidarity. Solidarity means
reciprocity.

16. announces its intention, over and beyond the scope of
this opinion, of continuing to bring its expertise to bear
on the debate on future regional policy; it will work
together closely with the European Parliament and the
Council on the development of policy,
involving the
regions of the applicant countries.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT