Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on A better integration in the internal market as key factor for cohesion and growth for islands
Date: 2008-07-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, domestic market, economic development, island

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/123

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘A better integration in the internal
market as key factor for cohesion and growth for islands’

(2009/C 27/26)

On 27 September 2007 the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an own-initiative opinion on

A better integration in the internal market as key factor for cohesion and growth for islands.

The Section for Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 June 2008. The
rapporteur was Ms Gauci.

At its 446th plenary session, held on 9 and 10 July 2008 (meeting of 10 July 2008), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 118 votes to one with one abstention.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The EESC calls on the EU to adopt an integrated
1.1
approach for a better integration of
islands in the Internal
Market as a key factor to enhance cohesion and growth of the
Union, and thereby to fully achieve the objectives of the revised
Lisbon Agenda. Such an integrated approach is justified insofar
as, despite their differences (particularly as regards their sizes),
islands face common key problems.

1.2
The EESC recommends establishing an integrated frame-
work of Community policies covering all the relevant problems
of European islands in a coherent way.

1.3
The EESC underlines the need for sound governance to
cope with problems such as: information and communication;
quantification and qualification of data; a common strategic
vision; networking and clustering; or, civil society participation.
Thus, in order to reach such a goal, it is important to create the
good conditions necessary to allow island local institutions to
assess insularity cost. That is why, there is a need to have in the
islands both local statistical services and price indexes. At the
end, a common assessment methodology should emerge
between all the local statistical services in the European islands.

1.4
At the implementation level, the EESC calls for carrying
out an impact assessment on islands for any EU initiative for
the internal market; including an ‘Island touch’ in all EU policies;
and implementing simplification of administrative tasks, espe-
cially for SMEs.

Because accessibility is a key issue for islands, the EESC
1.5
would like to stress the quality of Territorial Continuity. Such a
tool should be more developed in the EU. Its use must be oper-
ated from the islands to the continent and not the contrary.

1.6
The EESC insists that the Commission present an Annual
Report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Committee

of Regions and to itself, monitoring and evaluating the effective-
ness of relevant measures taken to solve the European islands
problems. In this respect, proposals of actions by the Commis-
sion should also be included in this Annual Report. Thus, it can
be said that
the current opinion is launching a long-term
dynamic process.

2. Introduction

2.1

According to the Eurostat definition, an island must:

— have an area of at least one square kilometre;

— be situated at least one kilometre from the continent;

— have a permanent resident population of at least 50 people;

— have no permanent link with the continent; and

— not house an EU capital.

2.2
However, such a definition should be reviewed and
refreshed, starting from the simple fact that an island is a terri-
tory which cannot be reached on foot. Furthermore the defini-
tion of 2.1 does not have a legal basis and is being used only as
a reference and in the absence of a better definition which takes
into account the new realities of an enlarged European Union
which includes Island Member States.

2.2.1 When defining Islands one should also bear in mind
Declaration 33 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which states that:
‘The
[Intergovernmental] Conference considers that the reference in
Article 174 to island regions can include island States in their
entirety, subject to the necessary criteria being met’.

2.3
Currently, EU island territories belong to fourteen coun-
tries of the European Union. About 21 million islanders live in
the EU's islands, These island territories offer
the EU an
economic and geopolitical presence in nearly all the world's
oceans, and form an active border with many continents.

C 27/124

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

Islands, like Member States, are diverse. That is why the

2.4
EESC would like to propose the following typologies.

2.4.1
They are diverse from a structural point of view,
because some are peripheral islands, whilst others are outermost
islands, whose specificities are laid down in the EU Treaty
(Article 299, Para. 2) and some are small (a number of them
have a population which is less than 50) whilst others are big.

2.4.2
They are also diverse, from an institutional point of
view, because some are insular states; some have a regional
status and some which are coastal islands, are part of a conti-
nental regional authority.

these differences,

However, despite all

2.5
islands possess
characteristics which can differentiate them profoundly from
mainland regions, as regards culture, education, transport, envir-
onment, etc. These aspects should be studied in greater depth so
that a policy for islands may be framed, taking into account
both common characteristics and specific features which can
have an influence on the opportunities and challenges of indivi-
dual islands. The EESC proposes to return to this subject at a
later date.

They share

for
2.6
instance culture, education, transport (problems of additional
costs) and environment.

common characteristics

regards

as

The European Commission launched the debate on the
2.7
future Internal Market with its new Communication ‘A Single
Market for 21st Century Europe’ (20 November 2007) (1); it is
necessary to consider the place of islands in this reflection.

3. Background

3.1
Since a new governance methodology which is charac-
terised by an integrated approach, has been used (particularly
with the Green Paper and the Blue Papers on future EU mari-
time policy), Internal Market issues must not be dealt with sepa-
rately from Regional ones. The Internal Market is not an end in
itself: it is a tool in the service of territories and people.

3.2
Islands have always been looking at how to develop in
Internal Market and as such, they have to anticipate the future
changes.

3.3
Regional policy is a useful tool for islands. Nevertheless
it is a tool which must be developed and improved in an inte-
grated EU framework in order to allow them to be not only
legally part of the Internal Market, but also to play a fuller role
in it, both economically, socially. In view of the future policy on
Territorial cohesion which the Commission is to develop after
the Lisbon Treaty, this aspect should to be included in its consid-
erations as well.

(1) The Single Market Observatory (SMO) of the European Economic and
Social Committee is currently drafting an opinion on this package
(INT/409, rapporteur Mr Cassidy, co-rapporteurs Mr Hencks and
Mr Cappellini) and on the ‘Social and Environmental Dimension of the
Single Market’ (INT/416, rapporteur Mr Adamczyk) as a complement
to the first. Not yet published in the OJ (adopted in September 2008).

3.4
This integrated framework of Community policies covers
not only regional and cohesion policies, but also more particu-
larly the following policy areas: transport; energy and water;
education and labour; research, technological development and
innovation; competition; industrial policy; the environment; and
agriculture and fisheries.

In the current context, islands must be first examined in

3.5
the light of the 4th Cohesion Report.

Although the European Institutions support an inte-
3.5.1
grated approach of their policies, it is surprising to note that the
Commission does not seem to have an integrated analysis for
island difficulties.

3.5.2
ticular problem’ that islands have to cope with.

In the eyes of the Commission, accessibility is ‘a par-

3.5.3
The Commission is right to stress the small size of
their population as another problem. Consequently, islands have
small
local markets, which restricts the growth capacity of
island SMEs through the absence of economies of scale. In par-
ticular, this restricts their ability to conquer European markets.

3.5.4
Another consequence is that most islands cannot rely
on their domestic market (2) which are mostly too small to
sustain a ‘full-scale’ and efficient economy. This simple fact
obliges local SMEs to export: it is their sole solution.

Furthermore, one has to take into account the next set
3.5.5
of difficulties in view of an island's natural handicap, namely all
difficulties related to its insularity. The significant additional cost
of transport substantially reduces their competitiveness. Para-
doxically, the situation in which transport costs can ‘protect’
insular markets by restricting competition from the continent
may in fact result in monopoly situations developing on the
islands.

3.5.6
Insularity is also characterised by the following issue
(problems which also determine their long-term development
prospects):

— Essential Resources (such as drinking water, energy, raw
materials, living space and arable land) are limited, leading
to a phenomenon of scarcity and lack of economic diversifi-
cation. This also causes the problem of mono-activity. This
was highlighted in the Analysis of the island regions and outer-
the European Union (3), which particularly
most
emphasised the lack of drinking water causing acute
problems in summer in Mediterranean islands when many
tourists are present. Desalination plants have been created
but traditional ones consume important quantities of electri-
city. Many islands lack a sufficient energy supply and must
import fossil fuel or electricity via submarine cables.

regions of

(2) It must be stressed that this point is fortunately recognised by the
peripheral Regions

regard Ultra

as
4th Cohesion Report
(COM(2007) 273 final, p. 50).

(3) Analysis of the island regions and outermost regions of the European

Union, Planistat, March 2003.

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/125

— Natural

risks have aggravated consequences:

islands are

ecologically fragile.

3.5.7
accessibility:

Concerning more

in particular

the question of

lenges in terms of access to SGI, due to their remoteness from
major markets or the increased cost for connections. These
specific needs must be taken into account’. The Commission
therefore seems to be very aware of the problem: initiatives in
this field are therefore conceivable.

— Firstly, a remark. The Commission is right when saying that
accessibility constraints can be translated into the fact that
‘travel
increased by the sea
train [are]
crossing’. Consequently, islanders and their SMEs face high
transportation costs, difficult connection frequencies, social
and climatic hazards as a result of their insular location (4).

time by car or

That is why the question of the integration of islands in
3.7
the Internal Market has remained problematical since the Single
European Act. Islands remain vulnerable territories. As described
above, most of them cannot rely on their domestic market;
island SMEs need to sell
their products and services on
European mainland. However, accessibility and single-activity
difficulties are obstacles for their competitiveness.

— Secondly,

the heart of

the Commission is also right when it places
the
‘Transport’ and ‘Communication’ at
competitiveness of the regions. Thus, if the development of
urban centres passes by the triple accessibility (Road/Rail-
way/Air) (5), such an analysis is all the more true for islands,
many of which have also HDSL (6) accessibility problems. It
takes a special dimension as regard the fact that ‘interna-
tional
links and connections to other major economic
centres’ are top criteria for determining the location of
investment (7).

— Finally, islands have great difficulties to gain access to the
big European Market. As already said, they face high trans-
portation costs and consequently, island SMEs are not attrac-
tive. They also suffer from the impossibility of having the
same modes of production as continental ones. Because of
supplying costs, they cannot work just-in-time. Therefore,
production costs are higher.

All these elements highlight the weaknesses of islands to
3.6
be integrated in the Internal Market: they do not have all the
conditions necessary to take advantage of all the benefits offered
by this market of some 500 million consumers.

the

The EU should avoid a one size fits all policy, and
3.6.1
promote
integrated approach mentioned above. The
problem for islands is a complex one as they accumulate several
handicaps. But they also have to play on their assets which exist
and could be the basis of an integrated socio-economic develop-
ment. For instance: fishery resources, renewable energy sources,
economic activities linked to tourism, strong cultural identity,
natural and cultural heritage.

for 21st century Europe’,

3.6.2
Furthermore, it must be stressed that in a document
accompanying the afore-mentioned Communication on ‘A
single market
the Commission
promotes the idea of access to services of general interest (SGI)
throughout
the
Commission says, it ‘is essential for the promotion of territorial
cohesion in the EU’. It adds: ‘Territories with a geographical or
natural handicap such as outermost regions, islands, mountains,
sparsely populated areas and external borders, often face chal-

the European Union. As

the territory of

(4) The Single European Payment Area (SEPA), launched on 28.1.2008,
will however make cross-border payments as easy as domestic ones.

(5) 4th Cohesion Report (COM(2007) 273 final, p. 65).
(6) High bit-rate digital subscriber line.
(7) 4th Cohesion Report (COM(2007) 273 final, p. 60).

3.8 With all this in mind, the EESC calls for the need to
include in future legislation a specific assessment of all relevant
proposals for islands. The EESC underlines the need of an inte-
grated approach to island problems to particularly take into
account the fundamental principle of proportionality and subsi-
diarity required by islands.

4. An integrated approach based on European islands

assets

As already stated,

4.1
the EESC calls for an integrated
approach to Europe's island problems accompanied by an inte-
grated framework of Community policies as stated before.

Islands must

find their place in the revision of

4.2
the
Internal Market (8). The Communication of 20 November 2007
confirms SME-friendly guidelines as mentioned in the inter-
mediary report of February 2007.

4.3
SMEs must be encouraged to engage in cross-border
activities. Such an idea implies the existence of a mechanism of
territorial continuity able to help European islanders to go to
markets both via their mainland (Member) State, or via a neigh-
bouring (Member) State. Concrete and efficient examples exist.
Thus, Bornholm, a Danish island, takes advantage of a publicly
subsidised maritime link with Ystad,
in Sweden. Territorial
continuity also exists between mainland France and Corsica.

This tool of a subsidised maritime link has improved
4.3.1
the quality of transport conditions between these two French
territories, and would certainly deserve to be developed with
Italy (knowing that it is easier for a Corsican to reach the
European mainland through Italy than through France). That is
why the EESC believes it would be interesting to study the possi-
bility to extend such a practice to all European islands and to
‘Europeanise’ its use. Also, the experience shows that the imple-
mentation of such a tool must be operated from the islands to
the continent, and not the contrary.

(8) See opinion on the ‘Review of the Single Market’

(OJ C 93/25,

27.4.2007).

C 27/126

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

4.3.2
Such ‘Europeanisation’ of the territorial continuity tool
would be a concretisation of cross-border integration as empha-
sised by the Commission in its Communication ‘A single market
for 21st century Europe’.

4.4
Having an Internal Market focused on a knowledge-based
society which can be translated among others into the spreading
of the new information and communication technologies in the
EU. Such an idea could really be an opportunity for the diversi-
fication of island economies.

4.5
It must be remembered that islands have a natural envir-
onment which is favourable to innovation (for instance: renew-
able energies, blue biotechnologies …). Knowing that according
to the above-mentioned 4th Cohesion Report economic perfor-
mance and innovation performance are linked,
islands have
much room to manoeuvre.

4.6
Bearing in mind that most islands are concerned with
fisheries activities, bio-energy can be of interest to fish-farmers
or fishermen-sailors. Public policies must provide the means to
develop such initiatives. Public policies must help islands to
develop renewable maritime resources (such as sea swell energy,
marine current energy, or again more specifically for outermost
regions, ocean thermal energy).

4.7
In the case of agriculture, flexibility in the implementa-
tion of the 2 CAP pillars must be allowed to give increased
benefit to island farmers.

Such energies are essential to islands which suffer from a
4.8
high pressure on their land-use and whose geographical depen-
dence on fossil fuels acts as a brake on their development. Thus,
alternatives to such dependence should be found in renewable
energies which can constitute other sources for these territories.
In this context, islands constitute remarkable places for experi-
mentation and development and in this way can be of service to
Europe. As such, Réunion recently announced its wish to
commit
‘all renewable resources’;
considerable renewable marine resources have already been
identified. Wind power is another good example. El Hierro in
the Canaries' Archipelago will be entirely supplied by a combi-
nation of wind turbines and hydroelectricity between now
and 2009.

towards a policy of

itself

4.9
To have an Internal Market based on good European
regulation (9) implies that it is necessary to study how current
European laws are implemented and to check if they have the
effects that were initially foreseen. Regarding the regulatory
problems discussed above, such an initiative would certainly
have a positive impact for islands. Maybe, the following pilot
project could be undertaken in this respect: according to the
Services Directive, the Commission shall, by 28 December 2011
to the European
and every three years thereafter, present
Parliament and the Council a comprehensive report on the
application of
respect, a territorial
approach could be taken and the situation in the islands could
be assessed in comparison with other regions.

this Directive.

In this

5. An appropriate implementation of policies

in the

European Islands

5.1
In order to reach the two objectives mentioned above,
the EESC believes that an appropriate implementation of poli-
cies depends on the following initiatives.

5.1.1
land, thanks to transport and innovation policies.

Ensuring better links between islands and the main-

5.1.1.1 Many island entrepreneurs complain about the extra-
cost when their products arrive in a mainland port (because of
the transport). Some studies arrive at a 20 % additional cost.
However, given that products differ from one to another, precise
studies (whose methodology could be based on the one used for
in order to
Outermost regions) should be carried out. Thus,
reach such a goal, it is important to create the good conditions
necessary to allow island local institutions to assess insularity
cost. That is why, there is a need to have in the islands both
local statistical services and price indexes. At the end of this
process, a common assessment methodology should emerge
between all the local statistical services in the European islands.

5.1.1.2 More generally,
general interest.

islands need efficient services of

5.1.2
Initiative should be adopted, implying:

A geographical approach to the Better Regulation

— Impact assessment of any EU initiative on Internal Market
on islands. Not only cross sectoral but also geographic;
Including an ‘Island touch’ in all EU policies.

— Flexibility when applying EU regulations.

— Simplification of administrative tasks, more particularly

regarding access to finances for SMEs.

— Public authorities at national, regional and local levels must

also adopt such behaviour.

— Therefore, beyond the sole simplification aspect, the neces-
sity of having strategies in place which are coherent from
one political level to another must be stressed.

such particular

European Civil Servants

5.1.3
should be encouraged to
follow training in islands in order for them to understand the
reality of
territories. Thus EESC strongly
supports the ‘Enterprise Experience Program’ and calls on island
SMEs to apply for hosting European Civil Servants. This is also
the opportunity for them to communicate on the ground,
directly, with islanders on European issues. The study group
meeting organised in Ajaccio on 7-8 April 2008 has proved
this. When meeting EU citizens in member states, the EU and
its policies are much more understood and debated.

All these elements contribute toward finding possible
4.10
solutions for a better integration of
islands in the Internal
Market in the future. And such integration relies on the achieve-
ment of two objectives: attractiveness and diversification.

(9) See opinions on ‘Better Lawmaking’ (OJ C 24/39, 31.1.2006) and
‘Better Implementation of EU Legislation’ (OJ C 24/52, 31.1.2006).

5.1.4
The importance of regional state aid policies in the
future should be emphasised. On this precise point, the EESC
strongly supported the proposals of Musotto report, notably:

— ‘flexibility in the implementation of existing and future state
aid policies, without such flexibility causing unacceptable
market distortions within the EU’;

3.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/127

— studying the possibility of extending the regime allowing
operating aids to all
island regions which are not island
states or inland islands, in the next regional state aid guide-
lines.

5.1.5

The capacities of island SMEs should be strengthened:

5.1.5.1
To ease the access of SMEs to research & innovation,
for instance thanks to tools like JEREMIE. In fact, islands suffer
from strong researchers,
laboratories and patents shortages.
Private research is so weak that public research should be
free zones should also be explored.
enhanced. The idea of
Compared to the situation on the continent,
islands are in a
backward position, except in cases where there is a voluntarist
policy from public authorities, or in others where a sector is so
economically important that it allows to reach a threshold likely
to create or support research activities. Moreover, such approach
goes through the preservation of ancestral know-how, a dimen-
sion of innovation which must not be forgotten.

to be open to all

To export to Third States. It must be remembered
5.1.5.2
that the Commission in its intermediary report on the revision
of Internal Market (February 2007), calls for a future Internal
the world. Such an attitude is
Market
for
confirmed in the Communication ‘A single market
21st century Europe’. In it the Commission calls for ‘expanding
the regulatory space of the Single market’. This idea could find a
concretisation through cooperation programmes between the
EU and its Member States with neighbouring countries.

5.1.5.3
To benefit from a highly educated workforce. Islands
suffer from the outward migration of young people who prefer
to look for university education and high incomes in mainland
regions. Even if GDP is not a perfect indicator or criterion, the
4th Cohesion Report stresses that
its increase depends on
productivity and working population. The EESC strongly
believes that initiatives must be encouraged with regard to the
development of universities and other high level educational
institutions in islands. They are a condition for training of
islander inhabitants. For instance: since its reopening in 1981,
Corsica University,
its
students, has been able to enhance quantitatively and qualita-
tively the regional human capital. Such an improvement has
reduced some labour market imbalances and has supported the
expansion of economic sectors (like food-processing, tourism,
ICT …) and enterprises.

thanks to an increasing number of

In this

respect,

relevant development.

To rely on their characteristics in order to find the
5.1.5.4
most
the European
Commission is right to underline, in its Green Paper on Mari-
time policy, the fact that ‘the diversification of tourist products
and services can favour the competitiveness of coastal and
Island destinations’. This diversification, because it is in keeping
with a (non)
innovation, and
technological dimension of
because it also fits in with the necessity of a global diversifica-
tion of
island economic activities (many islands suffer from
mono-activity in tourism), is conditioned by the following prere-
quisites:

— carrying out a complete inventory of the situation of each

European Island;

— listing the full range of island handicaps encountered in the

field of tourism;

— determining the level of

infrastructures on each of

the

Islands;

— favouring exchanges and contributing to the development of
hotel and transport
through the
signing of special contracts between the island regions and
the European Union;

infrastructure services

— studying the possibilities of support and structuring which
could be envisaged in order to allow a diversification of
tourism (cultural, rural, archaeological, youth, sports, fishing,
business tourism …);

— studying the proposal to implement regional Island tourist
development perspective plans which could precede
European actions and be made compulsory in order to
benefit from specific European financing intended for the
EU Island regions registered for the 2007-2013 program-
ming of the structural funds of the ‘Regional Competitive-
ness and Employment’ objective;

— determining the methods which would enable the Islands to
make the environment a source of economic activities (with
notably the development of
tourist welcoming strategies
based on eco-hotels, bio-restaurants, open air activities, bio-
discovery trips …). And such initiatives more particularly
apply to cottage industries.

6. Sound Governance in order

to take into account

properly the situation of European islands

The EESC proposes implementing the following propo-

6.1
sals in the legislative process:

6.1.1
Having the best information on the situation of islands.
The importance of updating and collating further statistics on
islands cannot be stressed enough. These are the necessary tools
for accurate public policies (at European, national, and regional
levels). Such an approach should be first based on a case by case
assessment which takes into consideration among other things
the specific socio-economic situation of islands. It would also be
the opportunity to think about the relevance of the GDP criteria
in the appraisal of regional difficulties.

6.1.1.1
Thus, a prerequisite to the conception and implemen-
tation of any Community policy regarding islands is the exis-
tence of sufficient and reliable statistical data and of relevant
indicators. The GDP criteria, as well as unemployment rates, is
notoriously inappropriate, at least taken on its own, to provide
a satisfactory understanding of the realities of island territories,
and of the intricate mechanisms which make them different
from the rest of the Community.

that, since the large majority of

This situation is not new, but it has long been over-
6.1.1.2
the
shadowed by the fact
EU island population was
receiving the maximum level
(Objective 1) of assistance anyhow, there was little practical
point in addressing such a complex issue. However, the enlarge-
ment process, and its ensuing ‘statistical effect’ (i.e. the relative
enrichment of erstwhile less-favoured territories) have high-
lighted the need to describe the situation and needs, of island
territories by better and more targeted statistical indicators.

C 27/128

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2.2009

As suggested by the Musotto report:

6.1.1.3
‘further work
should be oriented towards defining more pertinent statistical
indicators that are more amenable to providing a distinct statis-
tical picture of the development level, and a satisfactory under-
standing of the regions with geographical and natural handicaps,
and particularly where there are accumulated difficulties, such as
mountain ranges, groupings of islands, and cases of double insu-
larity […] These indicators should also permit an improved
assessment of the differences between these regions and the rest
of the EU as well as an assessment of the disparities existing
within those regions.’

6.1.2
Having an inter-service group for islands within the
Commission in order to ensure an integrated approach when
dealing with their difficulties.

6.1.3
The EESC invites local public authorities and civil
society to work together (and for those which have been already
doing it, to keep on) in order to elaborate common develop-
ment strategies. It is necessary that island communities have a
project approach in the framework of a positive partnership.

6.2
The EESC believes that in the interest of good governance
a regular review of the island situation should be undertaken
and requests that the Commission present an Annual Report to
the European Parliament,
the Committee of
Regions and to itself, monitoring and evaluating the effective-
ness of relevant measures taken to solve the European islands
problems. In this respect, proposals of actions by the Commis-
sion should also be included in this Annual Report. Thus, it can
be said that
the current opinion is launching a long-term
dynamic process.

the Council,

7. Final remarks

7.1
In conclusion, the question of the better integration of
islands in the Internal Market could maybe lead interested
parties to explore two different ways compared to the ones
evoked above.

7.2
The use of enhanced cooperation between Member
States having islands or insular Member States (Portugal, Spain,
France, Italy, Greece, Malta, Cyprus, UK, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden). As regard the conditions to
be gathered to reach such a goal for having a European Island
Policy, this solution can seem to be impossible to implement.
Therefore, as far as the proposal must come from States, a
bottom-up approach should be chosen. That is why, as said

Brussels, 10 July 2008.

before, development strategies at the local level are necessary. In
this prospect, the Operational programmes (in the framework of
the Structural Funds 2007-2013 could be considered as a good
basis for the future period 2014-2020).

7.3
The future European legal framework can improve the
current solutions, thanks to the Lisbon Treaty and the rewriting
of Article 158 EC Treaty.

7.3.1
Treaty reads as follows:

The future new Article 158 amended by the Lisbon

a) in the first paragraph, the words ‘economic and social cohe-
sion’ shall be replaced by ‘economic, social and territorial
cohesion’;

b) in the second paragraph, the words ‘or islands,

including

rural areas’ shall be deleted;

c) the following new paragraph shall be added:

‘Among the
regions concerned, particular attention shall be paid to
rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and
regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural
or demographic handicaps such as the northernmost
regions with very low population density and island,
cross-border and mountain regions.’

7.3.2
Such rewriting is in line with the fact that, thanks to
the Lisbon Treaty (which needs to be firstly ratified), the terri-
torial dimension is the new element of the European cohesion.
This recognition highlights the EU's intention to take into
account all the realities of its territory. Thus, the future new
Article 158 is a concretisation of such a will.

looking beyond mere pure economic statistics

Defining territorial cohesion is not an easy task.
7.3.3
Certainly, the future Green Paper will be an interesting opportu-
nity to be informed of the different existing approaches. In this
prospect, the EESC believes that thinking about territorial cohe-
sion is
to
consider also the apparent geographic realities of the territory
and the resulting vulnerabilities which have the potential — for
some territories — to seriously threaten socio-economic cohe-
sion. Working on territorial cohesion is looking for the means
to enhance cooperation within the island territory as well as
between all territories (certainly, an increase of the Structural
Funds dedicated to this Objective should be supported for the
next program after 2013), and to enhance partnership between
all interested parties (Public authorities, and Civil Society) in the
elaboration and implementation of relevant policies.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS