Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion"
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, report

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/27

18.
recommends that recognised experts in the field of anti-
racism and managing diversity be independently-selected for

bilateral exchanges of information, that will serve as additional
source of reliable and objective data for the work of the Centre.

Brussels, 14 November 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Second Report on Economic and Social
Cohesion’

(2002/C 107/10)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Commission’s second report on economic and social cohesion (COM(2001) 24 final);

having regard to the Commission’s decision of 2 February 2001 to consult the Committee of the Regions
for an opinion on this subject, in accordance with Article 265 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European
Community;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 13 June 2000 to assign the preparation of an
opinion to Commission 1 — Regional Policy, Structural Funds, Economic and Social Cohesion and Cross-
border and Inter-Regional Cooperation;

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 1 on 4 October 2001 (CdR 74/2001 rev. 2,
rapporteurs: Mr Eduardo Zaplana Herna´ndez-Soro (President of the Autonomous Region of Valencia,
E/PPE) and Mr Jan Tindemans (Member of the Limburg Provincial Executive, NL/PSE),

adopted the following opinion at its 41st plenary session on 14 and 15 November 2001 (meeting of
14 November).

The Committee of the Regions

1.
wants to express its appreciation of the Commission’s
second report on Economic and Social Cohesion. Like the first
report, the second one is a comprehensive document.
It
provides extensive information in particular regarding the
policy pursued by the EU, but it is relatively less informative
regarding the relevant policy of
the Member States and
contains hardly any information at all regarding the efforts
of regional and local authorities. Moreover, it outlines the
consequences for cohesion between Member States within the
enlarged Union;

2.
notes that the Commission’s report demonstrates again
that during the period under review cohesion between the
Member States has clearly improved, but noticeably less so
between regions, and that in some Member States the differ-
ences between regions have even increased;

3.
notes that the forthcoming enlargement will directly
aggravate territorial imbalances within the Union, thus justify-
ing the need to pursue an objective of territorial cohesion as
suggested by the European Commission;

C 107/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.5.2002

4.
concludes that the regional dimension of cohesion policy
should be strengthened. This is based on the fundamental
principle that the objective of cohesion policy is defined in
Article 158 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity as a harmonious development of the Union as a whole
by strengthening economic and social cohesion, but that this
cannot be achieved by means of a reactive policy which is
effectively restricted to the granting of subsidies, as has been
the case to date. In this perspective, it is important that all EU
policies, especially sectoral policies with a high territorial
impact as well as competition and fiscal policies, also con-
tribute towards the cohesion objective;

5.
takes the view that European regional policy needs to be
considered as a horizontal policy with a bearing on all
Community activities, which permit individual consideration
of territorial entities;

6.
emphasises the need for more determined involvement
of the Member States in cohesion policy. For that it may be
necessary to leave more scope for Member States’ and regional
and local authorities’ own responsibility for the development
of their regions. This does not mean, of course, re-nationalising
cohesion policy, but rather a real integration of the principle
into their domestic policies. National state support must
therefore not work against the common cohesion policy, but
strengthen it;

7.
endorses the Commission’s choice of priorities but
wishes nevertheless to add an additional priority, namely the
promotion of scientific research and technological develop-
ment in the least advanced regions;

rejects the ceiling placed on cohesion policy funding of

10.
0.45 % by the Berlin Council in 1999;

11.

shares the Commission’s preference for

— direct zoning for objective 1 or its new equivalent for

lagging regions;

— indirect zoning for objective 2 or its new equivalent for
regions undergoing serious structural changes. The aim
of objective 2 should be to correct specific imbalances of
regions in certain fields such as, for example, R &D,
communication infrastructures, education and training,
in the form of final aids, of which the financial intensity
would be different according to the economic capacity of
the region;

proposes a regional targeting of interventions under

12.
objective 3;

13.
rejects retention of the current criterion for the eligi-
bility for objective 1, as well as two different thresholds, one
for regions of current Member States and one for regions of
new Member States;

14.
considers that any method of selecting regions eligible
for cohesion support must satisfy two essential requirements:

notes with approval that the Commission wishes to add
8.
to the current policy — which is almost entirely directed at
solving persistent problems — a pro-active component aimed
at future problems and at opportunities for regional develop-
ment.

1)

Regions which, but for enlargement, would have qualified
for objective 1 after 2006 must retain their eligibility in
the framework of an enlarged European Union.

The Committee advises to gain experience as soon as possible
level on an
with a pro-active policy at regional and local
experimental base. In particular, a link could be made here
with theme 3 (regional identity and sustainable development)
as a distinct feature within the innovative measures under the
ERDF;

takes the view that adding a pro-active component to
9.
cohesion policy does not remove the need for a crisis-
intervention instrument;

2) No region must see its Structural Funds support suddenly
cut. There should in any events be a safety net, and an
adequate phasing-out system.

When applying these principles it will be necessary to take
into account these specificities of regions with permanent
geographical handicaps, i.e. island regions, mountain regions,
sparsely populated regions and outermost regions, as it has
been done until now, by making use, where appropriate, of
the specific measures that are required to enable their needs to
be taken into account in cohesion policy in the future;

3.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 107/29

15.
shares the Commission’s view as to the desirability of a
polycentric development of the European area. This concept
could be the spatial framework to address the territorial
imbalances between and within the European macro-regions.
In order to apply such a concept, it is therefore necessary to
include the dimension of cooperation between regions and the

urban and rural dimension of development in the implemen-
tation of the Structural Funds. The degree of commitment of
the cohesion and regional policy instruments at different
policy-making levels must of course be appropriate to the
differences in situation and development between and within
these regions.

Brussels, 14 November 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
Regions: Creating a Safer Information Society by Improving the Security of Information
Infrastructures and Combating Computer-related Crime: eEurope 2002’

(2002/C 107/11)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Creating a safer information
society by improving the security of information infrastructures and combating computer-related crime
(COM(2000) 890 final);

having regard to the Decision taken by the European Commission on 31 January 2001 to ask the
Committee of the Regions for an opinion on this matter under Article 265, 1st paragraph of the EC
Treaty;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 13 June to draw up an opinion on this matter and
to instruct Commission 7 for Education, Vocational Training, Culture, Youth, Sport and Citizens’ Rights
to undertake the preparatory work;

having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 88/2001 rev. 3) adopted by Commission 7 on 1 October 2001
(Rapporteur: Mr Duppré);

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on A European initiative in electronic
commerce (CdR 350/97 fin) (1);

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on A Common framework for electronic
signatures (CdR 332/98 fin) (2);

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Cohesion and the information society
(CdR 270/97 fin) (3);

(1) OJ C 180, 11.6.1998, p. 19.
(2) OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 33.
(3) 0J C 64, 27.2.1998, p. 20.