Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion
Date: 2008-11-27
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU policy, economic and social cohesion, regional cooperation, regional policy, report

C 76/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Fifth progress report on economic and social
cohesion’

(2009/C 76/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— believes that in order to keep the concepts of inclusion and solidarity robust, cohesion policy must
continue to pursue a new economic and social balance without succumbing to the temptation to over-
load cohesion policy with too many mutually incompatible goals.

— maintains that the goals of cohesion and growth can and must be mutually compatible, since these
are two closely correlated goals, and stresses the need to find out how growth can improve cohesion
and not how cohesion can reinforce growth.

— doubts whether it makes sense to assign to cohesion policy instruments the goals of competitiveness
for the growth strategy and calls for an analysis to be made — in the process of considering the
future configuration of the structural funds — of the impact of earmarking under the Lisbon strategy
on the results of economic and social cohesion.

— thinks it necessary to look into the possibility of developing more informative and comprehensive
indicators of development and prosperity that respect the not insignificant differences at regional and
local level in income, availability of public services, quality of healthcare and the provision of cultural
and vocational education.

— highlights the fact that if the desire is for cohesion policy to take an important role in buttressing a
new economic and social balance, it must have the appropriate resources and means, whereas the
current level of funding is no more than the minimum needed to carry out this function

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/39

Rapporteur: Marta VINCENZI (PES/IT), Mayor of Genoa

Reference document

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

Fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion

Growing regions, growing Europe

COM(2008) 371 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

State of the debate

1.
believes that there is a growing need to give cohesion
policy a territorial dimension, in addition to an economic and
social one, as despite progress and improvements, not only do
disparities in development between regions persist but structural
problems within regions are increasing as well. Stresses the
the principles of equality and
importance of ensuring that
proportionality
territorial
dimension.

alongside

respected

this

are

2.
agrees that many activities funded by the European Union
have demonstrated added value. The admissibility of a project
makes it easier to attract public and private funding and to
develop innovation in management and implementation more
rapidly.

regrets that

the Commission continues to neglect

3.
the
leverage effect of structural funds and refers to the Committee's
outlook opinion on the matter, in which it proposed an evalua-
tion framework for the various dimensions of added value in
cohesion policy.

4.
welcomes the introduction of the concept of regions in
transition, which embraces not only the current phasing-in and
phasing-out areas but also those regions whose funding is set to
expire at
the 2007-2013 funding period, and
supports solutions being prepared for these areas.

the end of

5.
welcomes the consultation that preceded the Commis-
sion's publication of the Green Paper on territorial cohesion,
to
the parties
pointing out
acknowledge and support the role of cohesion policy in the
building of the Europe Union.

involved continue

that

all

to have an impact on economic and social development. At the
same time, the Community-wide indicators for the demarcation
of eligible areas have proved valuable, but a larger set of indica-
tors from a broader ‘basket’ of data should be used for the
substantive assessment of the efficacy of cohesion policy.

7.
hopes that the substantive assessment of disparities in
development and progress on cohesion will take into account
not just GDP and GNI, but also the labour market (data on
employment, mobility and training), services on offer (data on
access, efficiency and distribution) and land use (data on extent,
continuity and polycentrism),
the population structure and
settlement patterns (data on population dispersal, ageing and
dependency rates), the general standard of education, investment
in research and innovation (data on resources earmarked for
R+D+i in relation to GDP), and the specific geographical features
of some regions such as outermost, island or mountain regions.

8. maintains that the challenges of climate change and the
problems of energy supply will continue to have an impact, in
different ways and degrees, on a wide range of economic and
social development issues and will impinge upon the efforts and
capacities of cohesion policy.

emphasises that

9.
the outermost and island regions are
particularly vulnerable to the new climate and energy challenges,
but that they also offer an opportunity for the EU, in that they
could be used as natural testing grounds for assessing problems
and seeking solutions, benefiting the EU as a whole

points out

that although regional statistics are a key
10.
for improving admission criteria and modifying
instrument,
development indicators in many Member States where they are
already available they can be difficult to use or process, and
where they are not yet available they can prove difficult to
obtain or measure.

6.
notes that the possibility of introducing new and varied
admissibility criteria has been raised in the debate. There have
been calls to take into account not just GDP and GNI, but also
the population structure and settlement patterns (data on popu-
the labour
lation dispersal, ageing and dependency rates),
market, supply of services, geographical conditions, the urban
and rural dimensions, natural and cultural heritage, environ-
mental and climate factors, etc. All of these factors can be said

Objectives and priorities

11.
notes that promoting European cohesion by reducing
discrepancies in development continues to be the goal. There-
fore support must go above all to economically disadvantaged
regions, but in order to be successful and relevant to everyone,
cohesion policy must embrace all European regions.

C 76/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

12. maintains that the foremost challenge is to speed up the
convergence of
lagging regions, especially the integration of
areas in the new Member States, as regularly and quite rightly
pointed out in the European Commission's various papers on
cohesion policy.

22.
welcomes the development of new and innovative finan-
cial engineering instruments in the area of cohesion policy (such
as revolving funds) and, at the same time, notes that the prin-
ciple of co-financing is a valid and effective instrument for
ensuring that the added value of cohesion policy is maintained.

considers that high priority should be given to identi-

13.
fying and addressing infrastructure deficits.

stresses that the aim of cohesion policy is to strengthen
14.
economic, social and territorial cohesion and, on this basis, also
to make a contribution to the European Union's sectoral policies
or national policies of the Member States.

15.
considers that the integration of sectoral and cohesion
policies is still very rare and maintains that strengthening the
integrated approach would require setting horizontal goals to
harmonise, in the first instance, the development of agriculture,
the environment, energy and transport.

sees an even greater need in the current economic
16.
climate for network and cluster projects that transcend regional
borders.

17. maintains that the goals of cohesion and growth can and
must be mutually compatible, since these are two closely corre-
lated goals, and stresses the need to find out how growth can
improve cohesion and not how cohesion can reinforce growth.

18.
doubts whether it makes sense to assign to cohesion
policy instruments the goals of competitiveness for the growth
strategy and calls for an analysis to be made — in the process
of considering the future configuration of the structural funds
— of the impact of earmarking under the Lisbon strategy on
the results of economic and social cohesion.

stresses the enormous contribution that cohesion policy
23.
could make to the visibility of the European project and notes
that the Commission, in collaboration with the Member States
and regional and local authorities, must find even more effective
ways of
informing the European public about publicise the
policy's benefits and results.

Next stages

notes that the principles of concentration, planning, cofi-
24.
nancing, additionality and partnership that underlie the present
European cohesion policy have shown their worth and believes
they must remain the fulcrum of community action in the
future.

25.
notes that the European cohesion policy must remain
anchored in a strong partnership between all tiers of govern-
ment and increasingly involve local and regional authorities at
all stages, from the defining of projects to the evaluation of
programmes.

accents the importance of

in
26.
terms of added value and local visibility, for all dimensions of
cohesion policy and urges that the possibilities introduced by
the new EGCT instrument should be exploited to the full.

territorial cooperation,

27.
calls for the urban dimension of cohesion policy to be
bolstered, noting that while urban areas are often the engine for
economic growth,
they also have to contend with serious
economic disparity, social inequality and cultural isolation.

19.
stresses that all the parties believe that rationalising the
procedures would help to facilitate management of the funds,
but warns that the reforms must be careful not to sacrifice the
added value of multi-level
involvement of regional and local
authorities in community governance.

28.
draws attention to the need for greater coordination in
tackling the problems of rural areas and the difficulties of urban
ones, since the link between urban reality and rural environ-
ment
is an essential component of an integrated policy of
regional development.

20. maintains that the legal and administrative environment
is crucial to the success of cohesion policy and points out that
boosting institutional capacity is one of the most precious and
least visible resources for the implementation of interventions
and hence the functioning of cohesion policy.

that

recommends

rural development

29.
instruments be
incorporated into general cohesion policy, since structural funds
already finance many actions with parallel goals and this could
be the best way of avoiding a duplication of projects and
interventions.

that

notes

21.
the growing competition in output and
administrative efficiency between Europe's regions is a factor to
be borne in mind in regard to economic and social cohesion,
since it affects the attraction of foreign investment and integra-
tion into the global economy.

30.
proposes collaboration between management and statis-
tics organisations to put together new regional statistics instru-
ments which would assess the impact of cohesion policy, in a
relevant and targeted way, better define development indicators
or further refine admissibility criteria.

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/41

31.
thinks it necessary to look into the possibility of devel-
oping more informative and comprehensive indicators of devel-
opment and prosperity that respect the not insignificant differ-
ences at regional and local level in income, availability of public
services, quality of healthcare and the provision of cultural and
vocational education.

32.
notes that the possibility of using integrated forms of
funding, such as revolving funds with venture capital and soft
or secured loans, could produce a beneficial multiplier effect
without overturning cohesion policy's system of subsidies.

believes

that public authorities,

33.
including local and
regional authorities, will in future be called upon to invest more
in supply of or support for services of general interest, in order
to bridge the gaps, particularly in the area of utilities and
transport.

notes that the Member States of the European Union are
34.
facing the demographic challenge of a gradual ageing of its
population and stresses that one aspect of this change is the
growing demand for public services — above all, healthcare and
social services — that guarantee the same efficiency and quality
to all.

35. maintains that simplification of cohesion policy must be
based on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and
reporting requirements and monitoring procedures linked to the
magnitude of the interventions and the geographical location of
projects in order to cut costs and devolve management.

Conclusion

36. maintains that the European Union must acknowledge
and boost the territorial dimension of cohesion policy in order
to make possible an economic and social development that is
not only balanced and sustainable between the various regions,
but also polycentric and harmonious in the regions themselves.

37.
stresses that cohesion remains an important challenge,
since the large discrepancies in economic and social develop-
ment between the various regions and within them remain and,

Brussels, 27 November 2008.

indeed, have been exacerbated by the European Union's latest
enlargement.

believes that in order to keep the concepts of inclusion
38.
and solidarity robust, cohesion policy must continue to pursue
a new economic and social balance without succumbing to the
temptation to overload cohesion policy with too many mutually
incompatible goals.

39.
highlights the fact that if the desire is for cohesion policy
to take an important role in buttressing a new economic and
social balance,
it must have the appropriate resources and
means, whereas, in the Committee's view, the current level of
funding is no more than the minimum needed to carry out this
function and should respond to the pressure to contain
spending arising from the worldwide financial crisis, a situation
in which the need to implement cohesion policies more effec-
tively is even greater.

40.
notes that cohesion must maintain a European dimen-
sion and rebuff any attempt to re-nationalise the Community
effort, whose added value lies not least in being a wide-ranging
common policy with clear strategic objectives that can respond
to
to the continental and global challenges and adapt itself
regional and local needs.

41.
stresses the leverage effect of cohesion policy, since
investment engenders long-term structural effects on regional
and local economies, fosters innovative approaches to develop-
ment and employment and impacts profoundly on the capacity-
building of administrations and businesses.

42.
calls for new financial instruments to be applied which
could contribute in a more simple and effective way to invest-
ment, especially in regions that need restructuring and innova-
tion and particularly to sustain the role and development of
SMEs.

notes that,

in keeping with the subsidiarity principle,
43.
local and regional authorities need to be involved at all stages,
from planning to evaluation, because they are the tier of govern-
ment nearest to the end recipients as well as those primarily
responsible for implementation of cohesion policy.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Luc VAN DEN BRANDE