Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013
Date: 2005-11-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU policy - national policy, EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, less-favoured region, peripheral region, regional development

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/1

II

(Preparatory Acts)

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

62nd PLENARY SESSION, HELD ON 16 AND 17 NOVEMBER 2005

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission Cohesion
Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013

(2006/C 115/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission: Cohesion Policy in Support of
Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007-2013 (COM(2005) 299 final);

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of the European Commission on 5 July 2005, under the first para-
graph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on this matter;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of its President of 19 May 2005 to instruct the Commission for
Territorial Cohesion Policy to draw up an opinion on this issue;

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission: Third progress report on cohesion:
Towards a new partnership for growth, jobs and cohesion COM(2005) 192 final (SEC(2005)632);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Communication from the Commission: Third report on
economic and social cohesion — A new partnership for cohesion, convergence, competitiveness and coop-
eration, COM(2004) 107 final (CdR 120/2004 final) (1);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the financial perspectives — Communication from the Commis-
sion to the Council and the European Parliament: Building our common future — Policy challenges and
budgetary means of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 (COM(2004) 101 final — CdR 162/2004 fin) (2);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the European Regional Development Fund (COM(2004) 495 final — 2004/0167 (COD) —
CdR 233/2004 fin) (3);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004) 494 final — 2004/0166 (AVC) — CdR 234/2004 fin) (4);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the European Social Fund (COM(2004) 493 final — 2004/0165 (COD) — CdR 240/2004
fin) (5);

(1) OJ C 318, 22.12.04, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 164, 05.07.05, p. 4.
(3) OJ C 231, 20.09.05, p. 19.
(4) OJ C 231, 20.09.05, p. 35.
(5) OJ C 164, 05.07.05, p. 48.

C 115/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2006

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provi-
sions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
(COM(2004) 492 final — 2004/0163 (AVC) — CdR 232/2004 fin) (6);

HAVING REGARD TO the Birmingham declaration adopted by the CoR bureau on 2 September 2005
on Cohesion policy and the national framework plans for implementing the Lisbon strategy;

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion on this issue (CdR 140/2005 rev. 1) adopted on 30 September
2005 by the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (rapporteur: Mr Alain Rousset, President of the
Aquitaine Regional Council (FR/PES));

adopted the following opinion at its 62nd plenary session, held on 16 and 17 November 2005
(meeting of 16 November).

I. General comments

The Committee of the Regions:

1) takes note of the Community Strategic Guidelines (CSGs)
adopted by the European Commission on 5 July 2005;

2) welcomes the clearly stated priority, prompted mainly by
to focus on
the accession of ten new Member States,
regions lagging behind, by means of
the Convergence
Objective; the EU as a duty to show solidarity towards
these regions and to speed up their economic and social
development, as has been done through previous genera-
tions of programmes;

3) also welcomes the commitment to pursuing an EU cohe-
sion policy for all of Europe's regions, by means of the
future competitiveness and employment objective; but
stresses that under this objective, priority must be given to
peripheral and/or less competitive regions,
in order to
bridge the gap,
in terms of development, both between
and within regions; in fact, the principal function of cohe-
sion policy is to correct regional and local imbalances and
not to support the most competitive regions;

4) regrets that the CSGs do not distinguish between the prio-
rities for the Convergence regions and those for the
regions coming under
the future competitiveness and
employment objective; the competitiveness and employ-
ment objective must be targeted at projects aimed at
innovation,
increasing regional competitiveness (research,
and
ICTs,
education/training,
services of general
interest) and must steer clear of the
often-criticised current practice of spreading resources too
thinly;

accessibility/transport,

6) emphasises the fundamental importance of this document
for the development of EU cohesion policy for the period
2007-2013 and for the follow-up of this policy at EU level
with regard to the stated objectives and priorities;

7) emphasises the need for regional and cohesion policy to
be guided by a strategic EU document, such as that which
has been in existence for several years for the European
Employment Strategy;

8) is concerned about the gap between the document's
stated ambitions and the low levels of
funding which
certain Member States wish to allocate to them under the
2007-2013 financial perspectives;

9) is also concerned about the use that will be made of this
document by Member States, particularly if the financial
perspectives are not equal to the task in hand;

10) acknowledges that while the subsidiarity principle must
be respected by leaving Member States free to adapt the
CSGs to their own particular situation and needs,
it is
important that Member States do not use EU Structural
Funds to finance their own national policies;

11) is concerned by the risk that such a drift could pose to
the longer term continuation of a genuine EU cohesion
policy that is one of the most publicly visible of all EU
policies;

5) welcomes the fact that cohesion policy is now focused on
the implementation of
the Lisbon Strategy at regional
level, but stresses the absolute need for cohesion policy to
be used primarily as an instrument for correcting develop-
ment disparities at regional and local levels;

(6) OJ C 231, 20.09.05, p. 1.

12) therefore regrets that the European Commission, under
pressure from Member States, has decided not to append
the national versions of this document, which are based
on the results from the territorial research programme
undertaken by Member States via the European Spatial
Planning Observatory Network (ESPON)
and which
allowed the strategic coherence between EU and national
objectives regarding territorial cohesion to be verified.

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/3

1. The Community Strategic Guidelines (CSGs) and the

Lisbon Strategy

The Committee of the Regions

reaffirms its overall support for the Lisbon Strategy and
1.1
notes the European Commission's intention to effectively struc-
ture the CSGs around this Strategy but deeply regrets the fact
that the environment and the Gothenburg Strategy are rele-
gated to second place;

1.2
agrees with the three main priorities proposed by the
European Commission (making Europe and its regions more
attractive places to invest in, improving knowledge and innova-
tion as key factors for growth and helping to create more and
better jobs);

regrets, however,

the lack of any reference to the
1.3
concept of balanced competitiveness within these main priori-
ties; reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that the same level
of attention is given to the three pillars of sustainable develop-
ment (economic, social and environmental);

1.4
emphasises once again that the main weakness of the
Lisbon Strategy, as of the European Employment Strategy, lies
in its implementation, particularly by Member States; deeply
regrets, in particular, the lack of a truly devolved approach and
the fact that the coordination method has not succeeded in
involving local and regional authorities; regrets that coopera-
tion on this front has remained essentially intergovernmental,
whilst ignoring the increased role played by social partners in
the Lisbon process;

therefore welcomes the European Commission's desire
1.5
for local and regional authorities to play a central role in imple-
menting this Strategy and the fact that it links this with cohe-
sion policy in the pursuit of its objectives;

1.6
insists therefore on the need that the CSGs, on which
Member States and regions will set out their own strategic prio-
rities for cohesion policy, are incorporated into the Lisbon
the
National Action Programmes and that
regional and local levels to territorial strategic development is
emphasised;

the relevance of

hopes that beyond the Convergence regions — the
1.7
priority areas for EU intervention — Structural Funds will be
provided under the competitiveness and employment objective
aimed at speeding up, as a matter of priority, the development
of peripheral and less competitive regions with the emphasis
innovation, education and training and accessi-
on research,
bility (transport, ICTs, and services of general
interest); each
European region must have the capacity to establish its own
Lisbon agenda at regional and local levels;

1.8 warns against the use of EU funds for the financing or
co-financing of national or EU policies (Trans-European trans-

port networks, the Framework Programme for Research and
Development, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework
Programme, etc.), which are designed purely for national
competitiveness, with no regard for territorial cohesion and
which therefore do not form part of cohesion policy; while it is
quite legitimate and important for regions lagging behind to be
able to use the Structural Funds for this kind of financing, it
would be detrimental, however, if regions eligible for the future
employment and competitiveness objective did not concentrate
their funds on genuine regional development priorities;

reaffirms its call for private co-financing to continue to

1.9
be allowed in future;

1.10
points out that while in the current programming
period sectoral policies must contribute to cohesion policy, the
situation will be reversed from 2007 when cohesion policy will
be required to contribute to sectoral policy;

the structuring of

therefore hopes that

1.11
the CSGs
around the Lisbon Strategy does not provide an opportunity
for Member States to appropriate cohesion policy for financing
their own national policies, with no regard for the principles of
economic, social and territorial cohesion applying to their terri-
tory;

1.12
EU cohesion policy;

thus warns against the potential risk of renationalising

1.13
therefore calls for the CSGs to set clear and focused
objectives regarding territorial cohesion, so as to minimise such
a risk.

2. The territorial dimension of cohesion policy

The Committee of the Regions

2.1
regrets that the territorial dimension of cohesion policy
is not covered by either a separate priority or a horizontal
priority overlapping with the three main priorities defined in
the document and that it is not the governing principle of all
of the CSGs as is the case with economic and social cohesion;

reiterates that the territorial dimension is the very foun-

2.2
dation of regional and cohesion policy;

2.3
is therefore very surprised that the chapter on the
territorial dimension focuses only on cities and rural areas and
is far less a priority here than it was in the European Commis-
sion's stated ambitions in its third report on cohesion, while
the regional process allows both the authorities and the public
to measure the impact of EU policies on the ground; reempha-
sises the necessity to cover
the urban dimension within
regional programmes;

C 115/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.5.2006

2.4
calls for the concepts of balanced competitiveness as
defined by the Treaty on European Union,, and of polycentric
Spatial Development Perspective, which ought to enable the
type and scope of policies to be adapted to objective local
competitiveness conditions, to be taken into account;

2.13
recommends giving more consideration to the interre-
gional aspect and notes the vital importance of having a suffi-
cient budget to meet the stated objectives.

2.5
calls for the territorial dimension to include a specific
paragraph concerning areas with permanent handicaps (islands,
upland areas and areas of low population density), the outer-
most regions, vulnerable rural areas and urban areas in diffi-
culty, and to deal with strengthening the link between urban
and rural; it recognises the strategic importance of towns and
urban areas in achieving the Lisbon objectives, with the aim of
creating safe, cohesive and sustainable communities even in the
most deprived urban areas;

2.6
awaits in this regard the publication of the European
Commission Communication on the urban dimension of the
strategic guidelines of the cohesion policy;

points out, more fundamentally, the commitment of
2.7
regional and local authorities to the objective of territorial
cohesion as a necessary complementary objective inextricably
linked with that of economic and social cohesion;

2.8
regrets the general lack of emphasis on territorial coop-
eration within the document; is concerned by Member States'
plans to allocate less funds towards this fundamental objective
of regional and cohesion policy;

2.9
reaffirms its support for cross-border cooperation as an
essential instrument of European integration; hopes that issues
such as culture, the environment, exchanges of information
between authorities, civil protection and health are included
within this area;

2.10
recommends establishing real transnational coopera-
tion, going beyond a basic level of cooperation between
Member States for achieving the objectives — this kind of
cooperation is instrumental in achieving territorial cohesion;

calls for transnational cooperation to become a stra-
2.11
tegic element
in territorial structuring and interconnection;
points out that the work carried out by ESPON contains many
suggestions for focussing transnational cooperation around
several priority themes; calls for a greater involvement of local
and regional authorities not only in programme management
but also in defining priority action areas;

3. Compatibility of financial resources with the stated

objectives

The Committee of the Regions

3.1
points out, firstly, the need for the EU's budget to be
equal to its ambitions and in particular to the objectives set at
the Lisbon European Council;

3.2
is therefore concerned about the risk of a significant
discrepancy between the stated strategic ambitions and the low
level of funding which may ultimately be allocated in the light
of the latest intergovernmental negotiations;

3.3
therefore regrets that the European Commission is not
proposing to concentrate more on areas and regions on which
EU intervention can have a real leverage effect;

that

considers, regarding the future competitiveness and
3.4
employment objective,
there should be a distinction
between the intervention criteria of the ERDF and those of the
ESF, given that while the ESF is legitimately concerned with all
the EU's regions, for obvious reasons of unemployment and
social exclusion, ERDF intervention must
take account of
various territorial criteria when allocating funding;

3.5
therefore suggests that the first priority when allocating
Structural Funds should be the least competitive, most disad-
vantaged regions, and that the basis for allocating them should
be both the EU's criteria and a weighting system based on clear
and objective territorial criteria;

finally, deeply regrets the failure to agree on the finan-
3.6
cial perspectives at the European Council of 16-17 June 2005;
points out the risk that a prolonged absence of any agreement
on this matter could pose to the preparation of the 2007-2013
programming period.

II. Recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

1.
recognises the efforts made by the European Commis-
sion in presenting this strategic document, but wonders what
use will be made of it by Member States;

2.12
calls on Member States to avoid reducing the budget
proposed by the European Commission for transnational coop-
eration;

2.
reaffirms its support for prioritising the Convergence
regions, prompted mainly by the accession of ten new Member
States;

16.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/5

3.
believes that regional and cohesion policy should not be
limited to Member States financing the sectoral policies consid-
ered priorities under the Lisbon Strategy; in fact, the principal
function of cohesion policy is to correct regional and local
imbalances and not to support the most competitive regions;

4.
is of the opinion that the success of the Lisbon Strategy
depends first and foremost on how it is interpreted at regional
and local levels;

5.
hopes that eligible regions under the future competitive-
ness and employment objective can concentrate EU funding on
the financing of real strategies for regional development, imple-
mented at regional level;

6.
is concerned by the failure to effectively take account of
the territorial dimension, which is after all, the reason for the
very existence of an EU cohesion policy;

therefore places the utmost importance on achieving
territorial cohesion, which is particularly

7.
the objective of
important in the context of an enlarged Europe;

8.
calls for a better balance between, on the one hand, the
need for competitiveness within the EU and its Member States

Brussels, 16 November 2005.

and on the other, the need for territorial cohesion within the
EU;

9.
believes that this better balance involves making all EU
regions eligible but also involves adding a genuine territorial
dimension to the National Strategic Reference Frameworks
(NSRFs) drawn up by Member States, in order to concentrate
EU intervention on the peripheral and/or less competitive
regions;

10.
recommends giving greater importance to territorial
cooperation generally and to transnational cooperation in par-
ticular, giving it a more strategic role in terms of the EU's terri-
torial structuring and allocating sufficient financial resources
for this;

reaffirms its support for the European Commission's
11.
proposals on the financial perspectives for the period 2007-
2013; believes that the stated objectives within the Community
Strategic Guidelines will not be achieved without an ambitious
but realistic allocation of EU funding to enable the pursuit of a
genuine regional and cohesion policy for the whole of the EU.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB