Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Fourth Report on Economic And Social Cohesion
Date: 2007-10-11
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU policy, economic and social cohesion, regional cooperation, regional policy, report

C 53/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2008

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Fourth Report on Economic And Social
Cohesion’

(2008/C 53/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— notes that although the Union is progressing in reducing disparities, development imbalances persist
and Europe faces new challenges (e.g. globalisation, demographic change, climate change, etc.) at
regional and local level;

— considers that cohesion policy, because of its horizontal approach, must continue to play a key role in

narrowing development gaps and enhancing competitiveness at local and regional level;

— is sure that territorial cohesion will become a stronger feature within cohesion policy, and horizontally

in relation to thematic policies, once the Reform Treaty is ratified;

— would like the European Commission to introduce the concept of the leverage effects of cohesion
policy in its Fifth Progress Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion and to present a
comprehensive plan for future interactions between EU policies in relation to cohesion policy;

— offers its support to the EU institutions and local and regional players in formulating proposals for

the future direction of European cohesion policy.

26.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/7

Rapporteur: Dr Michael SCHNEIDER, State Secretary for Federal and European Affairs, representative of

Saxony-Anhalt to the German Federal Government (DE/EPP)

Reference document

Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion

COM(2007) 273 final

Policy recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

9.
Having regard to the fact that the debate on the future
shape of cohesion policy will be closely linked with the submis-
sion in September of a European Commission questionnaire on
the EU's future financial reform;

1.
considers that the Fourth Report on Economic and Social
Cohesion confirms its basic position that European cohesion
policy is an essential pillar of the principle of solidarity and key
factor in the success of the European integration process;

emphasises that, because of its horizontal approach, cohe-
2.
sion policy actively helps to reduce disparities and strengthen
equality of opportunities for local and regional authorities in
Europe, and urges that this policy should therefore continue to
play a key role in narrowing development gaps and enhancing
competitiveness at local and regional level;

3.
welcomes the fact that in future issues of territorial cohe-
sion will be addressed more often through cohesion policy, and
calls for the new procedural options provided for in the future
Treaty to be used actively with respect to territorial cohesion;

calls on the European Commission to introduce the
4.
concept of the leverage effects of cohesion policy in its Fifth
Progress Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion
and to present a comprehensive plan for future interactions
between EU policies in relation to cohesion policy;

5.
offers its collaboration and support in formulating propo-
sals for the future direction of European cohesion policy, as part
of moves to secure the broad involvement of local and regional
players and based on a comprehensive assessment of progress
made;

Detailed Opinion

6.
Having regard to the European Commission's obligation
under Article 159 of the EU Treaty to submit a report on
economic and social cohesion in Europe every three years;

7.
Having regard to the central role that cohesion reports
have played in the past in the debate on, and development of,
cohesion policy;

Having regard to the fact

8.
the Fourth Report on
Economic and Social Cohesion, presented by the European
Commission on 30 May 2007,
is a key contribution to the
present state of cohesion policy in Europe and the beginning of
the debate on the future shape of regional policy;

that

10.
Having regard to the fact that, it is too early, on the basis
of current data, to draw conclusions about cohesion policy after
2013, but the need is rather to structure the debate within the
Committee of the Regions and with the other European institu-
tions over
to create
common cooperation and discussion forums and to develop the
debate incrementally;

the coming years

logically in order

The added value of cohesion policy

11.
supports the statement of the European Commission that
the added value of European cohesion policy is not only evident
in the promotion of growth and employment
in lagging
regions, but is also reflected positively in many facets of the
programming,
local and
regional players and in the strengthening of administrative capa-
city;

implementation and participation of

12.
sees the comprehensive presentation of the added value
of European cohesion policy as a key means of continuing to
ensure an adequate and efficient cohesion policy at EU level into
the future;

13.
regrets that the Cohesion Report has not taken account
of the comprehensive analyses of the Committee of the Regions
and the European Parliament on the leverage effects of cohesion
policy. Those contributions introduced a framework for evalu-
ating the various dimensions of the added value of European
cohesion policy. The CoR sees in its outlook opinion on the
leverage effect of cohesion policy an appropriate schema for a
uniform evaluation of the EU added value;

therefore, calls on the European institutions to come to
14.
an agreement, as the debate continues, on a joint approach to
assessing the added value for Europe of cohesion policy;

Economic, social and territorial situation and trends in the Member
States

15.
regards the comprehensive analysis of economic, social
and territorial trends in the Member States as a factor in the
evaluation and future development of cohesion policy;

C 53/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2008

Economic cohesion

24.
highlights the key factors determining regional competi-
tiveness mentioned in the Cohesion Report, which singles out
the following as particularly important:

16.
points out that the former cohesion countries (Spain,
Greece, Portugal and, above all, Ireland) have seen remarkable
economic development, with Ireland's sustained high growth
rates making it now the Member State with the second highest
per capita GDP in the European Union;

— a sound macroeconomic framework,

— efficient and effective public administration,

draws attention to the speed at which some of the new
17.
EU Member States have caught up, with the three Baltic states
doubling their GDP between 1995 and 2005;

18.
welcomes the fact that the gap between the richest 20 %
and poorest 20 % of the EU's regions narrowed between 1995
and 2004 from a ratio of 4,1 to 3,4. The Committee of the
Regions points out, however, that the regions in question at the
bottom of the prosperity ladder were not yet members of the
EU in 1995 and that the socio-economic disparities within the
European Union described above have grown considerably with
EU enlargement;

19.
draws attention to the finding that between 1995 and
2005 a total of five regions in the EU-15 registered negative
economic growth despite their GDP being above the 75 %
threshold. During the same period all capital cities of the EU,
with the exception of Berlin, increased or at least maintained
their share of national GDP;

20.
draws attention to the findings of the Cohesion Report
that, despite high growth rates in the new Member States, a
further period of catching-up of anything up to twenty years
will be needed before the threshold of 75 % of EU average GDP
is passed. Even this timeframe, however, presupposes strong
economic growth;

21.
shares the Commission's hope that, if growth in the new
Member States remains stable, six of the twelve countries may
by 2016 have reached the threshold of 75 % of EU average per
capita GDP;

notes the finding of the Cohesion Report that cohesion
22.
failures can be put down to differences in productivity rates and
employment rates at regional
level, and points out that per
capita GDP continues to be immensely important as a measure
of cohesion failure and a general indicator of prosperity;

— physical and other

transport, energy,
infrastructure for
supply and waste management, IT and so on, as well as
social services, and

— innovation capacity and performance at regional level,

— environmental protection and living conditions;

notes with concern that

25.
research and development
expenditure in more than 100 regions in Europe is below 1 %
of GDP, while the report notes that there is a direct correlation
between innovation capacity and economic capacity and devel-
opment;

highlights the Cohesion Report's conclusion that regional
26.
competitiveness will also depend on investment
in human
capital to provide a steady supply of skilled workers, and notes
in this regard that the skills gap is far greater between regions
than between EU Member States;

27.
is especially disturbed that lagging regions have 5 %
fewer young people between the ages of 25 and 34 with a
tertiary education than other regions;

28.
also points out, however, that many lagging regions have
made strenuous efforts to close these gaps. These efforts often
prove ineffective for the regions, however, since after completing
their education many of these people leave lagging regions. For
this reason, cohesion policy must in future also take greater
account of population policy and help to forge attractive alter-
natives to emigration;

29.
with reference to the future role of energy policy in rela-
tion to cohesion, points to the fact that Europe's very pros-
perous Member States have the lowest per capita energy
consumption. An energy-price increase will therefore primarily
affect the weakest Member States and regions;

stresses, therefore, the role of promoting renewable ener-

30.
gies and energy efficiency through regional policy;

23.
notes with concern the Cohesion Report's finding that,
while there has been progress in convergence between Member
States in recent years, gaps in development within the Member
States have widened at the same time in future the Committee
would like to see any intraregional disparities assessed;

31.
is perturbed by the Cohesion Report's finding that the
Lisbon process's 70 % employment target for people of working
age will not be met for some considerable time;

Social cohesion

26.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/9

32.
sees an important role for cohesion policy in combating
youth unemployment and notes that the report mentions that
the 18,6 % youth unemployment rate is double the overall
jobless rate;

38.
notes that the Cohesion Report's analyses of poverty and
cohesion, because they are based on different reference periods
and do not provide comparisons with the findings of earlier
reports, are somewhat descriptive and fail to give a clear assess-
ment of the cohesion policy factors; calls on the Commission to
attend more to these factors in the next progress report on
economic and social cohesion;

emphasises

33.
the Cohesion Report's observation that
regional differences in EU unemployment rates have declined in
recent years, while the gap between the richest 10 % and
poorest 10 % of regions narrowed from 19 to 16 percent
between 2000 and 2005;

Territorial cohesion

34.
sees the drop in unemployment in lagging regions from
an average 13,4 % to 12,4 % between 2000 and 2005 as a sign
of the success of cohesion policy. At the same time, however,
the Committee points out that joblessness in 17 lagging regions
has risen by more than two percent, while average unemploy-
ment in the same period in the more developed regions was
just 8 %, which means that the gap in average unemployment
rates between the two categories of region remains greater than
50 %. Combating unemployment
thus
remains a primary cohesion policy goal;

in lagging regions

draws

35.
attention to the Commission's observations
concerning the effect of demographic change on economic and
social cohesion, with lower birth-rates
severely restricting
economic growth in Europe over the long term. The effect will
be relatively slight up to 2011, since those born in years with a
strong birth-rate will still be economically active; in the period
2012 to 2017, a higher employment rate may offset the fall in
the number of young workers, while after 2017 such options
will no longer be available. What is needed here, above all, is
action on population policy in the Member States. At the same
time, however, more attention must be paid to demographic
factors in the future development of cohesion policy. More
account must thereby be taken of different demographic devel-
opments in the regions; the effects of demographic change may
be felt much sooner in some regions, making prompt action
necessary;

39.
draws attention to the Cohesion Report's assertion that
widening gaps in development within the Member States are
due first and foremost to the growth of metropolitan regions,
and endorses the Commission's observation that Member States
need policy approaches which are more focused on narrowing
the gap and on promoting growth and employment in order to
further develop regional policy;

for this reason, welcomes the fact that this Cohesion
40.
Report contains a European audit of medium-sized towns and
points here to the multiple interactions between towns or cities
and their hinterland, e.g. in relation to commuter flows;

notes

that many of

the outermost

41.
the
European Union continue to lag behind, and takes note of the
very diverse and significant challenges described in providing
basic services and infrastructure to the Union's mountain
regions, sparsely populated areas and islands;

regions of

42.
highlights the call in many rural areas for emigration to
be halted or at least to be made tolerable for the region. In so
doing, it is important not to underrate the enormous structural
changes that still await new Member States because of their high
level of employment in agriculture. There is a risk that these
emigration trends will persist in many rural areas of the EU. The
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development should thus
play an important role in meeting these challenges;

36.
notes with concern that, alongside the general trend of
lower birth rates, a total of 77 NUTS II regions in Europe also
experienced sometimes substantial emigration (above all of
young people) in the period 2000 to 2004. The combination of
these two effects will constrain those regions' economic and
social potential for development even further;

43.
draws attention to the relationship between urban and
rural areas and highlights the Cohesion Report's point that inte-
grated development of these areas requires coordinated special
planning and strategic management of land use. There can be
no doubt that towns also serve as development hubs for rural
areas;

37.
points out that in many large cities the trend towards a
relative decrease in population is accompanied by increasing
population levels in the suburbs. At the same time intra-urban
disparities in employment and the proportion of immigrants are
growing, which poses a major challenge for cities in terms of
their integration capacity;

44.
regrets in this connection that the Cohesion Report fails
to mention the work in the Council and in the Committee of
the Regions on the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter
on Sustainable European Cities and draws particular attention to
the conclusions of the German EU Council presidency on the
informal ministerial meeting on urban development and terri-
torial cohesion held in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007;

C 53/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2008

45.
calls on the European Commission to involve the
Committee of the Regions at an early stage in preparing the
reports requested in the Leipzig conclusions (the strategy report
due by 1 April 2010 with an analysis of how the special consid-
eration given to the urban and territorial dimension in the
Structural Funds programmes has facilitated integrated urban
development and territorial cohesion, and the report due by
2008 on territorial cohesion as a contribution to the debate on
the Territorial
finding synergies between the priorities of
Agenda and the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities);

cially supply and waste management) will continue to be of par-
ticular importance in the new Member States in the future;

the

special

role of

highlights

54.
cohesion policy in
promoting research and development in the regions. The Struc-
tural Funds were responsible for between 5 % (Spain) and 18 %
(Lithuania) of research and development expenditure in the
countries concerned;

supports both the current debate in the European
46.
Parliament on the substance of territorial cohesion and appro-
priate indicators, and the Council's request to the Slovenian
presidency that the Territorial Agenda and the Leipzig Charter
should be taken into account when preparing the European
Council in spring 2008;

finds the report's comments on the specific impact of
55.
cohesion policy on small and medium- sized enterprises inade-
quate and calls on the Commission to explore the effects of
structural policy on SMEs in more detail in the next progress
report;

Impact of cohesion policy

47.
points to the Cohesion Report's observation that in the
period 2000 to 2006 the Structural Funds were mainly
deployed for infrastructure, productive investments and invest-
ment in people, while Cohesion Fund resources were used in
equal parts for environmental measures and transport infra-
structure;

48.
highlights the Cohesion Report's calculations, using the
HERMIN model, which show that during the programming
period absolute GDP in most of the new Member States has
been up to 2,8 % higher and around 570 000 more jobs have
been created than would have been the case without cohesion
policy. By 2015 — including the 2007-2013 programming
period — increases in GDP of up to 9,3 % and two million new
jobs are expected; the CoR sees this as a good basis for evalu-
ating the impact of cohesion policy;

49.
draws attention to the calculations based on EcoMod,
according to which by 2020 GDP in Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia
and Bulgaria will be 15 % higher than today;

50.
highlights the Cohesion Report's observation that a total
of 450 000 new jobs were created in Objective 2 areas in
France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK in
the 2000-2006 programming period;

51.
welcomes the findings of the Cohesion Report that there
have been major improvements in the thematic target areas. In
relation to traffic infrastructure, for example, motorway density
in Spain and Portugal increased by almost 48 % and 200 %
respectively in the period 1995 to 2004;

52.
stresses the fact that, on the environmental infrastructure
front, the Cohesion Fund brought about a 37 % increase in
public expenditure in recipient countries between 1993 and
2002;

53.
for this reason shares the Cohesion Report's assessment
that expenditure to build up environmental infrastructure (espe-

56.
stresses the role of cohesion policy in the development
of human resources. Thus in the last programming period,
around EUR 69 billion was spent on improving access to the
labour market for women (6 %), promoting workforce flexibility
(22 %), measures for lifelong learning (23 %), equality and social
integration (18 %), and active labour market policies (30 %).
According to the Cohesion Report, this produced a 5 % increase
in labour productivity;

is generally in favour of the measures for rural areas,
57.
which received EUR 14 billion under the Guidance section of
the EAGGF during the last programming period. At the same
time, the Committee points out that regional policy and agri-
cultural policy instruments for rural areas must be better coordi-
nated in future, especially with a view to achieving the Lisbon
objectives. This is one of the greatest challenges of the current
programming period particularly now that the instrument for
rural areas is no longer enshrined in regional policy;

of

the

the

role

beneficial

highlights

58.
INTERREG
programme, through which a total of EUR 5,8 billion was
deployed in the 2000-2006 programming period for cross-
is
and interregional
border,
precisely in terms of cooperation at borders and the exchange
of experience across Europe that these programmes have an
inalienable role in actively contributing to the convergence of
Europe's regions;

transnational

cooperation.

It

also welcomes the URBAN II measures, which in the last
59.
to 70 towns and
programming period provided support
2,2 million inhabitants to help them meet social and economic
challenges in urban areas. However,
further action is also
required to improve the effectiveness of urban policy measures
within cohesion policy that are intended to promote growth
and employment under the operational programmes;

60.
also highlights the role of EQUAL, which over the last
seven years has delivered a total of EUR 3,27 billion to around
3 000 projects in the Member States, promoting exchanges of
experience on implementing
European employment
strategy;

the

26.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/11

61.
also commends the work of the European Investment
Bank, which devoted around 71 % of its resources to regional
policy projects in the 2000-2006 programming period;

projects on the one hand and the degree of devolution on the
other,
the
devolved level;

in so far as efficient administrations in place at

62.
points out that the combined effects of the 2000-2006
programming period will only be measurable in 2008 with the
completion of payments from this period, and therefore requests
the Commission to make an assessment of
the 2000-2006
programming period a key feature of the next Cohesion Report;

Effect of national policies on economic and social cohesion

notes that

63.
the efforts of Member States to achieve
economic and social cohesion are taking place against a back-
drop of general budget consolidation and national reform drives
to meet the modified Lisbon objectives;

64.
notes, with this in mind, that in many Member States,
with the exception of the cohesion countries, public investment
was cut from 2,9 % of GDP in 1993 to 2,4 % in 2005. In
contrast, public investment in the countries that joined in 2004
has risen sharply and is currently around 50 % higher than in
the other Member States;

65.
notes that in the new Member States increased expendi-
ture and budget consolidation measures have taken place simul-
taneously;

66.
highlights the prevailing trend, in which — despite the
difficult situation of national budgets as a result of restructuring
— resources for economic and social cohesion in the form of
investment in business have fallen only slightly or have even
risen;

that

regrets

the analysis of national budgets pays
67.
insufficient attention to the particular situations in certain coun-
tries, e.g. the need for public expenditure consolidation in the
wake of German unification;

68.
welcomes the overall trend in many Member States to
take more account of local and regional authorities as providers
of public investment — above all, as noted in the Cohesion
Report, in Denmark, Spain, Italy, Portugal, the UK and Finland,
where local and regional authorities' share in public investments
rose by as much as 10 % in the period 1995 to 2004;

notes that, in the new Member States, with the exception
69.
of Poland, the Czech Republic and Latvia,
local and regional
authorities are responsible for far less than 50 % of public
investment expenditure;

71.
notes with satisfaction the Cohesion Report's statements
on the linkage between high levels of transfer from the Struc-
tural Funds and development of economic stability in the new
Member States. This made it possible to achieve high growth
and a consolidation of public finances in those countries. This
demonstrates very clearly the results of the European policy mix
of fiscal policy stability in relation to the euro and Structural
Fund measures in relation to growth and cohesion. This combi-
nation has also kept exchange rates against the euro relatively
stable in recent years;

Effect of Community policies on economic and social cohesion

emphasises, regarding European research and innovation
72.
policy,
the programmes are predominantly geared to
that
promoting Europe's international competitiveness. Resources for
this are therefore allocated through EU-wide calls for tender;

notes that only 18 % of participants in the 6th Research
73.
Framework Programme came from lagging regions; supports
the Cohesion Report's view that European research funding and
cohesion policy pursue complementary goals in seeking to
improve research and development in Europe; and at the same
time welcomes the fact that initiatives such as the 7th Research
Programme's KnowReg2 bolster
the regional dimension in
European research funding;

emphasises that

74.
the Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework Programme (CIP) could usefully complement cohe-
sion policy measures aimed for instance at promoting SMEs or
renewable forms of energy;

75.
emphasises, with regard to the European competition
policy, the Cohesion Report's finding that state aid for lagging
regions under Article 87(3)(a) of
from
EUR 19 billion in 2003 to EUR 11 billion in 2005;

the EC Treaty fell

76.
points out that, while aid under Article 87(3)(a) of the
EC Treaty fell, state aid in the cohesion countries was increas-
ingly steered towards Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives (envir-
education and
onment,
research). More than half of the Member States have focused
their aid on these horizontal goals;

employment,

aid, SMEs,

regional

70.
highlights the correlation mentioned in the Cohesion
Report between the take-up rate and the quality of investment

notes that, notwithstanding EU enlargement, in the new
the population live in

77.
programming period, only 34 % of
lagging regions as defined by Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty;

C 53/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2008

78.
takes note of the Cohesion Report's findings that the
market organisations of the Common Agricultural Policy predo-
minantly favour stronger regions with larger production units;
emphasises, therefore, the need for rural development instru-
ments in the current programming period to be used mainly in
convergence regions; and welcomes the possibility of increasing
the use of
in the current
programming period through modulation;

rural development

funding for

points to the need to impose a binding obligation, espe-
79.
cially in countries with high employment
to
achieve both a transition to a competitive agricultural economy
and diversification of economic activities in rural areas over the
next few years;

in agriculture,

emphasises the Cohesion Report's comment

80.
in
terms of the EU budget, cohesion policy has played a cardinal
role in building up the European Union to give all of its citizens
equal access to the European single market;

that,

81.
notes, in respect of European budget policy, that cohe-
sion policy at present accounts for around one third of EU
expenditure and will reach approximately EUR 54,2 billion in
2013 and points out that cohesion policy's share, measured in
terms of the Union's GDP, will fall in 2013 to around 0,35 %
compared with almost 0,4 % in 2004;

82.
emphasises that, as a result of EU enlargement, at the
end of the current programming period around 85 % of cohe-
sion resources will go to lagging regions, compared with 56 %
in 1989. The new Member States look set to receive 52 % of
total cohesion resources despite making up only 21 % of the
population;

regrets that the relevant section of the Cohesion Report
83.
still offers no comprehensive proposal on strengthening the
interaction between cohesion policy and the other Community
polices, and calls on the Commission to redress this in a future
progress report in the context of the intended reform of the
EU's financial system;

84.
emphasises the need for dialogue between all the parties
involved on how to examine and take into account the potential
effects of European legislation on sustainable urban and regional
development, and how to improve the coordination of EU poli-
cies and initiatives that affect
local and regional authorities
within the framework of existing procedures (e.g. impact assess-
ments), and calls on the European Commission to involve the
Committee in these processes at an early stage;

such as a stronger strategic approach, further decentralisation,
better performance and less red tape;

86.
draws attention to the close link between cohesion
policy and the Lisbon strategy, which have led to programmes
being more strongly geared to growth and employment during
the programming process. However, this can only work if there
are close contacts in the Member States between the bodies
responsible for cohesion and structural policy and those respon-
sible for drawing up the national reform programmes;

87.
points out, in connection with using the Structural Funds
to achieve the Lisbon goals (‘earmarking’), that some 64 % of
convergence funding and over 80 % of funding to improve
competitiveness are spent on these objectives, and so contribute
to achieving the targets that have been jointly set. This has
mobilised investment for growth and employment to the tune
of EUR 210 billion;

88.
notes, with respect to gearing cohesion policy to the
Lisbon objectives, that strengthening economic and social cohe-
sion is a distinct goal of the European Union. Thus it is impor-
tant not to give the impression that the sole purpose of cohe-
sion policy is to implement the Lisbon objectives;

commends

the European Commission's

to
89.
improve transparency and legal clarity by introducing a single
regulation on the Funds to replace the existing ten regulations.
The same goes for incorporating the Cohesion Fund into the
general regulation on the Funds;

efforts

observes that a full evaluation of

90.
the
reforms on programming and implementation of the Structural
the operational
Funds cannot be carried out until after
programmes have been approved and launched, and calls on the
European Commission to provide such an evaluation in one of
its next reports;

the impact of

91.
calls for the urban dimension to be dealt with in a sepa-
rate chapter in the Fifth Cohesion Report, given the key impor-
tance of European cities for achieving the goals of the Lisbon
for
and Gothenburg strategies and for
instance of migrants;

integration,

social

New challenges

Cohesion policy reform 2007-2013

takes note of the statement in the Cohesion Report that
85.
cohesion policy reform for the period 2007-2013 is intended to
maintain established principles relating to programming, part-
nership, co-financing and evaluation, and to introduce changes,

believes that the Fourth Report on Economic and Social
92.
Cohesion prefaces the debate on the future shape of cohesion
policy for the period after 2013; considers that this will require
a comprehensive analysis of
future challenges for cohesion
policy; and sees the points laid out in the Communication on
the Fourth Cohesion Report as a first step in that direction. At
the same time, it notes that the challenges recognised by the
report are also areas for action under EU policies other than
cohesion policy;

26.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/13

level,

93.
draws attention to the necessary pressure for restruc-
turing and modernisation in the Member States, above all at
local and regional
in the context of globalisation and
enlargement; draws attention to the Cohesion Report's point
that the effects of globalisation on economic sectors and regions
will vary; and is aware that this need to adapt will affect not
only the lagging regions, but also other regions of the EU.
During such processes, one should also bear in mind the
cultural heritage of the regions;

To what extent is cohesion policy adapted to the challenges European
regions will face in the coming years?

101.
notes that European regions will only be able to meet
future challenges if there is a balance between EU-wide strategic
guidelines and the flexibility required for investing resources at
regional level;

94.
notes, however, that a key challenge of cohesion policy is
to support adjustment to economic change by promoting tech-
nological development and training, so as to take advantage of
the opportunities provided by globalisation;

notes that climate change will also affect European
95.
regions in different ways:
for example flood protection and
changing climate conditions will necessitate new restructuring
and adjustment measures for agriculture. At the same time,
however, the development of renewable energy sources will also
provide new opportunities for growth and employment, and
new global markets;

96.
agrees with the view expressed in the Cohesion Report
that rising energy prices will affect in particular those regions
whose energy efficiency is low and which have economic
sectors with high energy consumption. This development also
island, mountain
poses a challenge for peripheral outermost,
and isolated regions of the EU to maintain their own growth
potential despite higher transport costs;

97.
draws attention to the point made in the Cohesion
Report that demographic change may gradually become a major
obstacle to growth and development for many regions in the
European Union;

98.
sees regional initiatives to improve the general level of
education and reduce school drop-out rates as an important
basis for mitigating the consequences of an ageing population
by increasing productivity and value added;

The future of cohesion policy

notes that the debate on the future shape of cohesion
99.
policy in the next few years will take place in parallel with the
discussion about reforming the EU budget. Options on this are
to be formulated over the coming year, and existing EU policies
will be assessed. At the same time, the European Commission
will provide a further contribution to the debate in the Fifth
Progress Report on Economic and Social Cohesion;

102.
sees a need for efforts to develop specific forward-
looking strategies in the regions in order to identify future chal-
lenges at an early stage and to determine the situation of indivi-
dual regions in Europe by comparing regions across the EU. It is
necessary here to consider whether and to what extent new indi-
cators are needed to assess cohesion policy;

it

that

underlines

is necessary to mobilise greater
103.
ideas and cooperation on new approaches and
exchange of
models
regional policies between researchers, national
for
research institutes and regional studies associations to seek more
effective ways of disseminating ideas and their practical applica-
tion in the design, implementation and evaluation of policies,
and proposes that the European Commission should provide an
adequate mechanism that supports cooperation, networking and
dissemination in this field;

What response can regional policy provide to globalisation?

104.
sees globalisation as a further stage in the process of
structural change that presents both opportunities and risks for
regions and municipalities in Europe;

105.
Regional policy makes it possible to take a suitable
approach to a number of the economic and social consequences
of globalisation because it applies multisectoral and grassroots
solutions;

welcomes the fact that this Cohesion Report takes a
106.
closer look at regional policy in other countries, especially the
United States, Russia and China; this is an important contribu-
tion to producing global comparisons and to sharing informa-
tion about regional development strategies;

107.
calls on the Commission to continue gathering more
information on the regional and sectoral impact of globalisation,
in order to provide local and regional authorities with key data
on globalisation trends and challenges at regional level;

a

sees

108.
forward-looking regional policy based on
strengthening supply factors as a crucial means of maintaining
into the future the level of development that has already been
achieved in the worldwide competition for markets and between
businesses;

sees the questions that the European Commission has
100.
raised in the Communication on the Cohesion Report as an
initial contribution to the future debate, and wishes to make the
following points as a preliminary response to the questions;

109.
stresses the need to accept globalisation as an irrever-
sible process and to work out development strategies suitable
for the regions based on innovation and performance;

C 53/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2008

What role can cohesion policy play in relation to climate change?

regards climate change as a major global challenge that
110.
can be met only on the basis of an integrated, internationally
agreed plan with many packages of measures;

sees the role of cohesion policy as mainly to make
111.
progress in reducing CO2 emissions, improving energy efficiency
and using renewable energy sources, especially in lagging
regions. Such regions will benefit
that new
from the fact
markets and companies are already active in this area;

also points to the limits of cohesion policy, which for
112.
instance cannot compensate for the results of
inappropriate
distribution policy or potential distortions of competition in
emissions trading;

119.
consequently calls for local and regional authorities to
be involved to an even greater extent in planning and imple-
menting cohesion policy;

How should cohesion policy remits be divided in future between the
European, national and regional levels?

120.
considers that the debate on future remits in relation to
cohesion policy depends very much on the future instruments
in this connection, draws
and goals of cohesion policy; and,
attention to the difficult negotiations on these questions in the
debate about the 2007-2013 financial perspective;

that

proposes

the Commission should draw up a
121.
comprehensive assessment of current remits in cohesion policy,
which would include experience with the current management
system, the midterm review and the length of the programming
period;

How can measures to improve growth and employment be further
developed in cohesion policy?

113.
believes that cohesion policy must continue to be
governed by the principle of solidarity and focus on growth and
jobs in the future. In order to improve its effectiveness, the
Committee of the Regions has set up a Lisbon Monitoring Plat-
form which enables local and regional authorities to work in
partnership and share good practice in this area;

122.
calls for an appropriate balance to be struck between
top-down instructions from the EU and the necessary flexible
bottom-up approach to selecting and applying instruments;

How can cohesion policy support national efforts more effectively than
hitherto?

therefore thinks it

114.
is necessary to clarify what role
should be played by future funding instruments to achieve these
for instance with respect to non-recoverable subsidies
goals,
versus revolving funds;

123.
believes that an important prerequisite for improving
EU support for efforts at national level is a shared understanding
of the purpose and objectives of cohesion policy;

suggests that

future cohesion policy must

115.
take into
account the fact that growth and jobs can be achieved both by
enhancing existing strengths in Europe and by helping the
weakest and most ailing regions to catch up. Analysing the
problems involved will provide an answer to the question of the
extent to which cohesion policy instruments must be targeted at
the various types of objective areas;

124.
therefore asks the Commission to discuss with the
Member States the shared goals of national and European
regional development instruments and to make those goals even
more consistent with each other and with the local situations of
regional and municipal authorities, while respecting the princi-
ples of subsidiarity and proportionality. This debate must also
cover the question of the future structure, number and tasks of
the European structural policy instruments;

116.
calls on the Commission not just to relate the issue of
growth and jobs to cohesion policy, but also to ask how other
EU policies can as a whole be used to achieve this overarching
objective;

125.
emphasises the need also to pursue cohesion policy
outside the weakest and most ailing regions, and wonders how
measures taken in these regions can be made more effective;

117.
points in this connection to the reform of the internal
market strategy, which will take place in parallel with the debate
about the future direction of cohesion policy;

How can the relationship between cohesion policy and other national
European policies be strengthened?

What role should be played in the future by local and regional authori-
ties in cohesion policy with a view to meeting the challenges?

126.
sees a strong need for action to place more emphasis
on the complementarity between European cohesion policy and
other EU policies, and considers the statements made in the rele-
vant section of the Cohesion Report to be inadequate;

is encouraged by the point made in the Cohesion
118.
Report that effectively including local and regional players has
led to better governance and made structural support more effi-
cient;

sees this as an important way,

in the run-up to the
127.
debate about future allocation of the EU budget, of developing
an effective solution which places cohesion policy goals and
other EU goals in the right context;

26.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/15

128.
also emphasises the need to initiate dialogue with the
Member States at an dearly stage concerning which instruments
are used at national level and how they can be combined with
future EU instruments;

What new opportunities for cooperation are available to the regions
within and outside the EU?

considers promoting cooperation between regions
129.
within the European Union to be an important means of
comparing notes on the efficiency of funding use, future issues
and implementation procedures, and the performance of each
region and points out
the Commission's ‘Regions for
initiative, whose purpose is to promote
economic change’
economic modernisation and improved competitiveness, could
be an important means of developing and publicising the
experience and good practice of more advanced regions;

that

considers the possible inclusion of local and regional
130.
authorities in the recently agreed structured dialogue with China
and Russia to be a good way of exploring new approaches in
regional policy, allowing those countries to learn from existing
experience and so helping to anchor their regional develop-
ment;

131.
regards the Committee of the Regions as an important
medium for promoting dialogue among Europe's regions on the
future shape of cohesion policy and finding new forms of coop-
level,
eration at crossborder,
especially with a view to using the new legal
instrument for
territorial cooperation;

transnational and interregional

Brussels, 28 November 2007.

Contribution of the Committee of the Regions to the future debate on
cohesion policy

believes that to some extent these questions can only be
132.
resolved in close consultation with those concerned and the
European institutions, and thus sees this first opinion as just the
beginning of a longer-term debate;

notes, however, that the future principles of cohesion
133.
policy with respect to focus, partnership, multi-annual program-
ming and governance must be thoroughly discussed, in addition
to the above-mentioned issues, and will therefore be setting up
a working group within the Commission for Territorial Cohe-
sion Policy, which will serve as an interlocutor for the other
institutions and as a forum for further debate on the future of
cohesion policy;

134.
calls on the European Parliament in particular to colla-
borate with the Committee of the Regions in seeking possible
answers to the questions raised above, so as to contribute to the
coming debate about European cohesion policy and thus EU
policies in general;

therefore proposes that there should be closer coopera-
135.
tion, on the basis of the appropriate agreement, between the
European Parliament's Committee on Regional Development
and the Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy of
the
Committee of the Regions, in order to discuss the future chal-
lenges of cohesion policy over the next few years and serve as a
forum for talks with the European Commission. This could for
instance take place through a joint working group;

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE