Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The complementarity of national and EU interventions aimed at reducing the disparities in economic and social growth’
Date: 2011-10-11
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: European cooperation, economic and social cohesion, economic development, social development








C_2012009EN.01002301.xml










11.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/23





Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The complementarity of national and EU interventions aimed at reducing the disparities in economic and social growth’
2012/C 9/06
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS






—


hopes that complementary indicators to GDP can be developed to better illustrate the progress made in reducing the disparities between and within Europe's regions;










—


sees a need, where different structures for implementing national and European measures exist, for greater cooperation between the various levels of governance involved, so as to avoid inefficient overlaps. To this end, it would be useful to reinforce dialogue between the various political levels so as to ensure greater coherence and complementarity between the various measures;










—


therefore considers that, in accordance with the partnership principle, the success of national and European interventions depends on the involvement of the competent local and regional decision-making bodies;










—


supports the idea of an approach that enhances the effectiveness of cohesion by focusing more on results and is not against the principle of introducing of ex-ante conditions; stresses, nonetheless, that these conditions should not be such that they slow down the implementation of programmes and rejects conditions connected with the Stability and Growth Pact;










—


considers that checking additionality has an important role in ensuring that European funds are indeed used to complement national spending programmes, thus giving real added value to the European Union's action;










—


supports the proposal to draw up a Common Strategic Framework and considers it necessary that development and investment partnership contracts should become a means of making national and EU interventions truly complementary; reiterates that such contracts must be drawn up and developed with the full involvement of regional and local authorities.










Rapporteur


Francesco MUSOTTO (IT-EA), Member of the Sicilian Regional Assembly




I.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments







1.


underscores the provisions of Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 158 of the Treaty establishing the European Community), which states that in order to promote its overall harmonious development, the Union shall develop and pursue its action leading to the strengthening of its economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular, the Union shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions;










2.


points out that particular attention is to be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions that 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, and that the other regions of Europe must also be supported in order to secure and strengthen their competitiveness;










3.


emphasises the key role of urban areas and regions – and of the capital cities and their surrounding regions – as engines of growth for achieving Europe 2020's economic, environmental and social goals. It should also in future be possible to take measures within an integrated framework – allowing regions sufficient room for manoeuvre – to increase the social and economic stability of cities and deprived urban areas. Here the urban dimension is itself deemed to be Europe 2020 compliant. Cooperation between urban and peri-urban areas within the framework of functional areas in a Member State should also be facilitated by making the necessary provisions in future regulations on the structural funds;










4.


supports the European Commission proposal set out in its Communication on a Budget for Europe 2020 (1) to introduce a category of ‘transition regions.’ At the same time, it notes that regions whose GDP per capita has exceeded 75 % of the EU 27 average in the current financial perspective should also have the opportunity to use resources for infrastructure investment, which would enable these regions to consolidate the added value gained during the current programming period. Equally, the ‘energy efficiency’ target should also cover efficient modes of transport, including rail transport and related infrastructure;










5.


recalls that Article 349 TFEU recognises the special situation of the outermost regions and justifies the need to adapt EU law when applying it to these regions and to adopt specific measures, where necessary, especially in the area of cohesion policy;










6.


supports the principle set out by the European Commission in the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion (2), whereby cohesion policy should continue in the future to be a development policy that works right across the European Union and thus in all of its regions;










7.


therefore considers that European cohesion policy, as an integral part of public interventions at the various territorial levels, should continue to play a key role in promoting the harmonious development of the European Union as a whole, helping lagging regions to catch up by devoting the majority of the resources to these whilst, at the same time, helping to boost and enhance the competitiveness of all regions;





The role of the complementarity of national and EU interventions in reducing the disparities in economic, social and territorial development







8.


considers that the economic, social and territorial disparities that still exist in the European Union can be overcome only through integration, synergy and complementarity of national and European interventions inspired by values of practical solidarity;










9.


takes the view that these principles could be decisive in many respects and, in particular, for the purpose of:






—


encouraging the Member States to strengthen their own institutional and administrative capacity;










—



avoiding inefficient overlaps between the various measures in a given geographical area;










—



reconciling the objectives and priorities of each level of governance;










—



improving the quality of public measures at all levels;










—



enhancing the effectiveness of cohesion policy;














10.


believes that European cohesion policy, as an integral part of public interventions at the various territorial levels, is the most effective instrument for supporting the most disadvantaged regions and, at the same time, helps to generate growth and prosperity across the whole EU. Points out that it has boosted GDP growth in Europe as a whole; facilitated the building of new infrastructure, thus enhancing the accessibility of Europe's regions; and improved environmental protection. Through investments in sustainable jobs strategies and by taking into account the demands of the completely new types of jobs on the labour market, old types of jobs have been changed and traditional ones have disappeared. Creating good jobs means ensuring personal satisfaction for people, performance-linked wages, occupational health promotion and a family-friendly workplace. By enhancing quality in employment, jobs will become more attractive and this will also have a positive impact on local business, thus being able to help boost the competitiveness of the EU's regions;










11.


points out that, despite the significant progress made in reducing disparities in development, the recent economic and financial crisis could make the imbalances between and within Europe's regions more apparent; highlights that this situation is further exacerbated in countries receiving assistance under the EFSM and BoP mechanisms where regional disparities are, in effect, a secondary consideration in a drive to achieve conditions and requirements that have a strictly national focus;










12.


points out that disadvantaged regions are less able than more prosperous ones to bring their own resources into play, and that this accentuates their vulnerability to external shocks and, in a period of crisis such as that we are experiencing and whose duration is uncertain, could undermine the progress made. In these areas, EU funding, complementing national measures, is a key factor in securing some stability for public investment and, consequently, plays a crucial part in economic recovery;










13.


stresses that European cohesion policy, characterised as it is by a wide-ranging vision that encompasses the economic development of lagging regions, support for socially vulnerable groups, the social and environmental sustainability of development and respect for territorial and cultural specifics, also provides guidance in this direction for national measures aimed at the same cohesion objectives;










14.


therefore stresses the need for the new cohesion policy to have sufficient resources to be able to progress towards a genuine economic and social rebalancing between Europe's regions, reinforcing and complementing the actions taken at national and regional and local level. A suitable proportion of the EU's budgetary resources should therefore continue in future to be allocated to financing appropriate support activities for EU regions that are lagging behind in their development in relative terms;










15.


stresses that the new cohesion policy should take cross-border cooperation into account. In the border regions of EU countries we need to provide support for the development of cooperation across the EU's external borders, especially between states and regions with major differences in levels of economic development; also recognises that establishing joint territorial spaces in border regions requires systematic and selective support at EU level both for a stronger spatial policy and for implementation of joint development projects;










16.


is aware of the importance of per capita GDP at regional level for measuring economic growth, but hopes that complementary indicators can be developed in cooperation with local and regional authorities that establish the baseline in each region and thus better illustrate the progress made in reducing the disparities between and within Europe's regions (3), thus providing a truer picture of each region's level of development and specific social and territorial cohesion-related problems;










17.


further highlights that the expected reference period to be used to determine a region’s eligibility for the new EU Cohesion Policy from 2014 onwards (likely to be the per capita GDP at regional level for the 2007-2009 period) will not reflect the full impact of the economic crisis and resultant austerity measures on regions across the EU; requests that every effort be made to use more up-to-date regional GDP and GDP trend data in allocating resources and more progressive review mechanisms during the programme period;





Complementarity based on the institutional and administrative context







18.


considers that both European cohesion policy and national regional development policies require an adequate institutional environment, efficient public administration and an effective partnership between the various levels of governance, the aim being to sketch out coordinated, coherent medium-to-long-term development strategies and multiannual programming frameworks on which to base them;










19.


believes that, whilst respecting the national legislation of each country, European cohesion policy, as an integral part of public interventions at the various levels, can encourage Member States to strengthen the institutional and administrative capacity they need to ensure a more effective and efficient use of financial resources and thus to maximise the impact of investments aimed at reducing disparities in growth;










20.


points out that the different systems for implementing European cohesion policy depend on the specific circumstances of each Member State and are affected by the institutional context and the division of responsibilities and, more specifically, the level of decentralisation, the extent to which the principles of multi-level governance have been implemented, as well as regional and local experience in the area of territorial development and the scale and geographical scope of programmes (4);










21.


sees a need, where different structures for implementing national and European measures exist, for greater cooperation between the various levels of governance involved, so as to avoid inefficient overlaps. Believes that optimal synergies could be gradually achieved through the integrated programming of all of the development measures carried out within a geographical area, but also through closely coordinated management. To this end, the Committee considers that it would be useful to step up dialogue and the ensuing cooperation between the various levels of governance, in order to ensure greater coherence and complementarity between the various national and European measures;





Towards more integrated territorial development







22.


considers that, to have a more significant impact on regions’ cohesion and competitiveness, measures aimed at reducing economic, social and territorial disparities must be based on actions that are coherent, more results-oriented and geared to the territorial dimension of the problems;










23.


emphasises that territorial cohesion, a new policy objective enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, has become a priority alongside economic and social cohesion and that the territorial dimension must therefore be better integrated into all policies that are of clear territorial relevance, inter alia through systematic assessments of their territorial impact. To this end, the Committee considers that it would be useful to introduce monitoring systems that can continuously track the distribution of public expenditure linked to the objectives of territorial cohesion in the EU;










24.


points out that the participation of public administrations at all levels in the process of strategic planning and implementation of measures to reduce disparities in social and economic development will ensure that measures are developed that draw from the territorial contexts the inspiration and the knowledge they need to make the best of the potential of each area, focus resources and maximise the effectiveness of public intervention;










25.


points out that challenges such as the fight against climate change, energy supply, globalisation, the relationship between urban and rural areas, migration, and demographic change have a significantly different impact on different areas and therefore also need solutions that are planned and implemented at regional and local level in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;










26.


considers, therefore, that in accordance with the partnership principle, the success of national and European interventions depends on the involvement of local and regional decision-making bodies responsible under national law, and on the extent to which the economic and social partners are able to accompany the planning, programming and implementation phases of the measures;





An approach that enhances the effectiveness of cohesion







27.


recognises the need to promote the development of Europe's regions in a context of restraint regarding public finances, which means seeking to maximise effectiveness and efficiency. The Committee supports the European Commission's proposal to focus more on results by being able to introduce clear, quantifiable objectives and sufficiently flexible measurable performance indicators that are consistent with the planned measures, which may also make it possible to carry out an assessment in the course of the programming period;










28.


is not against the principle of introducing of ex-ante conditions for the use of the structural funds if these are strictly and directly linked to improving the effectiveness of EU cohesion policy and are able to enhance the feasibility and functionality of the programmes and the integration of measures for development;










29.


stresses, nonetheless, that these conditions should not be such that they slow down the implementation of programmes linked to the structural funds, which would significantly reduce the expected impact of the use of national resources for measures complementing European ones;










30.


the Committee reserves the right to make further comments once the European Commission has published its proposal on the matter;










31.


disagrees, however, with the Commission's proposal relating to conditions connected with the Stability and Growth Pact, which would risk penalising regional and local authorities, which are not responsible for failure to comply with obligations incumbent upon the Member States (5), by blocking or delaying their development and undermining results already achieved;










32.


notes that various factors can affect the optimal use of European funds in the areas and sectors most conducive to growth, thus reducing their potential impact on a territory (6). In this context, checking additionality has an important role in ensuring that such funds are indeed used to complement national spending programmes, thus giving real added value to the European Union's action;










33.


therefore emphasises that it would be helpful to more effectively monitor the additional role of the structural funds, ensuring that European measures result in additional and complementary actions that under national arrangements would normally be dealt with either insufficiently or not at all;










34.


considers that the efficiency and effectiveness of European cohesion policy also depend on the simplification of procedures so as to reduce the regulatory and administrative burdens on beneficiaries as far as possible. More streamlined procedures are important prerequisites for the efficient utilisation of resources. The Committee therefore calls on the European Commission to recommend that the Member States work with local and regional authorities to examine and introduce proposals aimed at better coordinating the EU rules (principles, timescales and procedures) with national ones, focusing on results and impact, at the same time avoiding the creation of unequal conditions for the utilisation of resources among the various Member States;





For better integration and complementarity of interventions after 2013







35.


recognises the importance of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and welcomes the European Commission's communication entitled Regional policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020
 (7), which states that success in achieving the goals set out in the strategy will depend in large part on decisions taken at local and regional level;










36.


considers that cohesion policy can make a significant contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy, but that it should not be subsumed within it, and emphasises its role in supporting the harmonious development of the European Union by reducing the economic and social disparities between European regions, as set out in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The two processes of implementation should therefore continue in future to be independent of one another, as they each deal with specific and not entirely overlapping aims, though they do interact within a framework of integration and complementarity;










37.


supports the proposal set out in the Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion to draw up a Common Strategic Framework that would include the structural funds and the other European territorial cohesion funds, i.e. the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), albeit each with their own resources and specific rules. Considers it positive that the European funds for structural policies be integrated within a single strategic development framework, which should enable better coordination;










38.


considers it necessary that, in the context of the ongoing discussion on the future structural fund regulations, the development and investment partnership contracts, based on the Common Strategic Framework, should become a means of making national and EU interventions, with the same aim of reducing economic, social and territorial disparities, truly complementary, setting priorities for investment, the allocation of European and national resources, the agreed conditions and the objectives to be achieved;










39.


reiterates, however, that such contracts must, in accordance with the principles of multi-level governance, be drawn up and developed with the full involvement of regional and local authorities, which are the institutions responsible for implementing and managing the measures on the ground, and not simply between the Member States and the European Commission, with the aim of more effectively coordinating and synchronising the various political agendas and strengthening strategic and not just operational governance;










40.


considers that development and investment partnership contracts, depending on the specific conditions in individual Member States, could be an appropriate expression of the territorial pacts that the Committee of the Regions is promoting in relation to the National Reform Programmes;










41.


considers that national regional development policies and European cohesion policy thus coordinated would reflect in a tangible way the principle of concentration of assistance by maximising the synergies of the various instruments that operate in a given geographical area and taking account of existing interdependences. In this way, it would be possible to ensure greater coordination not only between the use of the ERDF, the ESF, the Cohesion Fund, the EAFRD and the EFF, but also with national measures with the same development aims;










42.


also considers it to be of strategic importance not to consider national regional development polices and European cohesion policy in isolation from sectoral policies. The Committee believes it essential to achieve greater coherence, coordination and synergy between measures. The fact is that, in many sectors, public policies often have interdependent effects and could have a greater total impact if they were implemented in a well-coordinated manner (8);










43.


takes the view that this would help align the programmes with specific objectives by focusing on functioning policy instruments and existing financial resources to achieve these goals, setting priorities for support areas, investment, and availability of EU resources defined on the basis of an analysis of the resources of individual regions. Such an approach would enable the best possible use of each territory's potential and of its understanding of its own priorities.





Brussels, 11 October 2011.


The President of the Committee of the Regions

Mercedes BRESSO




(1)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Budget for Europe 2020 – COM(2011) 500 final.

(2)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank – Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy – COM (2010) 642 final.

(3)  Conclusions of the seminar organised by the Umbria Region and the CoR's Commission for Territorial Cohesion Policy (COTER) in Perugia, Italy, on 29 April 2011 on the subject of New indicators – measuring progress in cohesion policy.

(4)  Study carried out by Rona Michie and John Bachtler: Managing Structural Funds – Institutionalising Good practice, European Policies Research Centre – University of Strathclyde – 1996.

(5)  See CoR opinion on the Fifth Cohesion Report – CdR 369/2010 fin (rapporteur: Michel Delebarre, FR/PES).

(6)  Study carried out by Chiara Del Bo, Massimo Florio, Emanuela Sirtori and Silvia Vignetti, Additionality and regional development: are EU Structural Funds complements or substitutes of national public finance?, CISL – Centre of Industrial Studies, undertaken in 2009 at the request of the European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy.

(7)  Commission Communication Regional policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020 – COM(2011) 17 final.

(8)  Study carried out by Laura Polverari and Rona Michie: Complementarity or conflict? The (in)coherence of Cohesion Policy, European Policies Research Centre – University of Strathclyde – 2011.