Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "Territorial cohesion"
Date: 2003-04-10
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/23

Reason

The Internet is undoubtedly the most effective information tool for reaching all the potential beneficiaries
of the Erasmus World programme. Moreover, entrusting the information function mainly to the Internet
site would make it possible to devote more funds to financing student mobility.

Brussels, 10 April 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Territorial cohesion’

(2003/C 244/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision of its Bureau of 14 May 2002, under the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an opinion on territorial cohesion and to
instruct the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy to carry out the preparatory work;

having regard to its opinion of 14 January 1999 on the European Spatial Development Perspective
(rapporteur: Mrs du Granrut; co-rapporteur: Mr Knape) (CdR 266/98 fin) (1);

having regard to its opinion of 15 February 2001 on the Structure and goals of European regional policy
in the context of enlargement and globalisation: opening of the debate (rapporteur: Mr Klär (D-PES))
(CdR 157/2000 fin) (2);

having regard to its opinion of 14 November 2001 on the Second report on economic and social
cohesion (rapporteurs: Mr Zaplana Hernández-Soro, E-EPP, and Mr Tindemans (NL-PES)) (CdR 74/2001
fin) (3);

having regard to its opinion of 10 October 2002 on the Commission Communication: First progress
report on economic and social cohesion (rapporteur: Mr D’Ambrosio (I-PES)) (CdR 101/2002 fin);

having regard to its study on territorial cohesion in Europe, submitted by the Study group on European
politics (CdR 195/2002 fin);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 388/2002 rev.) adopted by the Commission on Territorial
Cohesion Policy on 19 February 2003 (rapporteur: Mr Valcárcel Siso, President of the Region of Murcia
(E-EPP));

whereas cohesion is one of the fundamental objectives of the European Union;

whereas the territorial dimension of cohesion figures among the priorities of the European Commission’s
Second report on economic and social cohesion, published in January 2001;

whereas regional and cohesion policy constitutes one of the European Union’s most important
Community policies;

(1) OJ C 93, 6.4.1999, p. 36.
(2) OJ C 148, 18.5.2001, p. 25.
(3) OJ C 107, 3.5.2002, p. 27.

C 244/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.10.2003

whereas consideration of territorial cohesion is crucial, since it lies at the heart of the debate on the future
of regional and cohesion policy after 2006;

whereas there is a need to press forward with consideration of this subject,

adopted the following opinion at its 49th plenary session of 9 and 10 April 2003 (meeting of 10 April).

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

1.6.
recalls that although there is no reference to territorial
cohesion in Articles 2, 3 or 158 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community, it is explicitly mentioned in Article 16.

The Committee of the Regions,

Territorial cohesion: a fundamental dimension of cohesion

Territorial cohesion: significant examples of current and future
disparities in development between Community territories

1.1.
recognises certain difficulties in characterising the
territorial dimension of cohesion, but nevertheless wishes to
draw attention to the advances made in scientific work since
the adoption of the European Spatial Planning Perspective
(ESDP) in 1999;

1.2.
believes, however, that no appraisal of cohesion should
be restricted to the economic and social dimensions alone,
measured through statistical indicators calculated at EU Mem-
ber State level, and that a clearer understanding of the reality
of cohesion must include reference to sub-state territorial
units;

is convinced that under these conditions, cohesion
1.3.
must be viewed at regional level in order to show up the
disparities in development which presently exist both between
and within Member States,
in the light of the continued
existence of a development model based on relations between
the centre and the periphery;

1.4.
therefore considers that territorial cohesion must be
understood as an objective in reducing disparities in develop-
ment between European regions, to be achieved by reorganis-
ing Community territory in such a way as to enable polycentric,
harmonious, balanced and sustainable development. In relation
to its intraregional dimension, territorial cohesion must be
understood as setting the objective of reducing development
disparities and physical or economic dislocation within Euro-
pean regions by means of spatial planning and other public
policies with a territorial impact, mainly promoted by Europe’s
regional and local authorities and aimed at constructing a
balanced, polycentric EU territorial development model. In
this regard, special attention must be given to regions suffering
permanent geographic disadvantages (island or upland regions,
or those with low population density), to the most remote
regions and to regions with specific characteristics (rural,
periurban and cross-border regions);

is of the view that a polycentric model for Community
1.5.
spatial development is the only way to put all the EU’s regions
on an equal footing regarding development;

The Committee of the Regions

1.7.
notes that disparities in development within the EU are
particularly marked in two indicators: per capital GDP and
unemployment rates;

but points out that disparities are greater still when
1.8.
calculated at regional rather than national level. In 1999, the
difference in per capita GDP between NUTS 2 level regions
stood at 1 to 4.7, while between Member States it was 1 to
2.7. Unemployment rates also reveal a clear gap: in 2000 the
difference between NUTS 2 level regions was 1 to 16.2, while
between Member States it was 1 to 5.1;

regrets that these indicators and trends over recent
1.9.
years show that major disparities remain between NUTS II and
NUTS III areas, although they have been reduced between
states;

1.10.
is concerned that the disparities between regions
revealed by these indicators have increased in certain Member
States;

1.11.
emphasises the fact that other statistical indicators
also highlight disparities between the regions and Member
States of the EU. These include the demographic factor,
accessibility, research and innovation potential, and education
and training;

notes that the forthcoming enlargement will mean
1.12.
a widening in disparities between its different
territories.
Enlargement will entail an appreciable increase in GDP and
unemployment disparities at both national and regional/local
levels, putting the real challenge of territorial cohesion into
clear focus at all territorial levels;

10.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/25

1.13.
is convinced that against this backdrop, only a real
political determination on the part of the EU to pursue
the objective of territorial cohesion can reduce the present
territorial imbalances between the major urban regions at the
core of the EU and its outlying regions. Enlargement will only
exacerbate these imbalances.

with the resulting disturbance of the rural/urban territorial
balance in the affected areas;

— continuing a real Community regional policy which is
not restricted to Objective 1 regions, but covers all other
regions under a new Objective 2.

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

Recommendations to boost territorial cohesion

The Committee of the Regions

urges that territorial cohesion be made a policy objec-

2.1.
tive with the same status as economic and social cohesion;

2.2.
in consequence calls for Articles 2, 3 and 158 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community to be amended,
enshrining territorial cohesion as one of the main policy
objectives to be pursued at Community level. Its inclusion
should be confirmed in the future constitutional treaty, in
order to equip the European Union with the appropriate tools;

2.3.
is convinced that stronger territorial cohesion, for the
purpose of reducing disparities between European regions,
entails a reorganisation of European territory allowing poly-
centric development to take place;

is aware that polycentric development is impossible

2.4.
without:

recommends modifying regional policy by incorporat-
2.5.
ing the territorial dimension, with a view making a real
contribution to polycentric European spatial development
through a stronger network of small and medium-sized urban
centres in the regions of the periphery, to act as vectors for
growth and development, without overlooking the need to
maintain a balanced relationship between urban and rural
areas thereby creating synergies. This tissue of urban centres
would boost the efficacy and competitiveness of entire regions
through the creation of cooperation networks;

2.6.
considers that this change in Community regional
policy must be accompanied by joint coordination between
this policy and those on employment and social affairs (ESF),
rural development (EAGGF), and fisheries (FIFG);

2.7.
suggests that community sectoral policies be given a
territorial dimension so that they can help achieve the objective
of cohesion. This suggestion is particularly relevant to sectoral
policies having a major territorial impact such as transport,
research,
innovation and agricultural and environmental
policy;

believes that better coordination between regional
2.8.
policy and Community sectoral policies is essential. By the
same token, the need for consistency between competition
and regional policies must no be overlooked;

— adopting a genuine spatial blueprint, resulting in more
closely coordinated action by the different institutional
levels in the field;

supports the view that in order to achieve greater
2.9.
territorial cohesion, an institutional framework better suited
to good territorial governance needs to be introduced;

— bringing Community sectoral policies with a strong
territorial impact more into line with the objective of
cohesion. This is particularly relevant in the case of the
CAP, the final form of which will determine whether
rural areas are given a new impetus or whether, at least
in the case of the more fragile areas, they turn into desert,

considers that in order to boost the incentive effect
2.10.
and efficacy of Community action, public sector action should
be better coordinated between the Community, national,
regional and local levels. This could be done in the form,
for example, of tripartite agreements,
in keeping with the
constitutional arrangements of each Member State.

Brussels, 10 April 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE