Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.3.3-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, before coming to the main subject of my address on behalf of the Commission this morning, I should, with your permission, like to raise one point very briefly.
There has been progress. Per capita income in these regions has moved closer to the Community average. It has increased from 63% in 1988 to 69% in 1997. Partly with the help of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds, the countries covered by cohesion policy have experienced economic growth at a rate higher than the Community average. Yet, within an increasing number of Member States, the tendency is not towards the elimination of disparities. Disparities continue to exist and are even being exacerbated. Unemployment stands at more than 20% in some regions, regions which have for a considerable length of time been left out in terms of progress due to their remote nature and depopulation, and the employment rate for women is 19 percentage points below that of men. These are the observations you can read in the report, in which we describe the territorial inequalities, the pockets of poverty, sometimes extreme poverty, in some urban districts and some rural areas.
How can we address these issues? Ladies and gentlemen, in our view, cohesion policy must continue to be the key element in the European Union’s societal model. We are part of a European Union which wishes to formalise its structures of solidarity. This means we have to ask three questions of cohesion policy: why, for whom and how?
Why? I sometimes hear it said that it is not possible to do everything from Brussels and that more subsidiarity is needed. I am all in favour of greater subsidiarity, but I am not and I shall never be in favour of allowing cohesion policy to become nothing more than the transfer of funding. It is not enough just to send cheques. We cannot accept any form of renationalisation of cohesion policy for we still have shared priorities, genuine Community priorities and it is in our shared interest to ensure the sustainable and balanced development of a frame of reference for cohesion policy. The debate is only just beginning. I do not have any decisions to offer you, just some thoughts, perhaps. One of these thoughts is based on the experience gained over more than ten years of cohesion policy, and leads me to think that there are matters that are more crucial and more serious than others for the development of our territories. As I have mentioned already, there is the urban issue, networking, or even the specific issues affecting areas that are handicapped in geographical terms; by remoteness, mountainous topography or other natural handicaps.
Human resources, too, must be taken into account, since that affects employment. Our report specifically lays down some guidelines to achieving more high quality jobs, improved social integration and equal opportunities.
Finally, taking this debate into consideration, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission could be ready, when the time comes, to propose a more strategic and coherent approach to EU territorial development to the other community institutions, so that our continued objective of economic and social cohesion would be strengthened by an increased territorial dimension and territorial support. For whom do we implement cohesion policy? I am convinced of two points in this respect, and these convictions are shared by the Commission as a whole.
The first is that we must continue to prioritise support for the regions lagging the furthest behind in development terms, for future Member States but also for current EU Member States. The whole problem of priority support for the most underdeveloped regions, of course, raises the question of the level at which we shall have to set the eligibility threshold for regions which are developing too slowly.
My second conviction is that the regions lagging behind in development are not the only ones facing problems to which we must find solutions. Other regions within the enlarged Union are affected too. If we are to have Community priorities then we must contemplate measures that can be implemented throughout the territory of the European Union for often, within a single state, there are regions that are richer than others and sometimes even within a single region there are areas of exclusion right next to highly dynamic areas – as is shown in the urban audit which I issued a few months ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think it is increasingly possible to delegate implementation to the Member States, applying the principle of subsidiarity better than in the past, on condition that we are sure that Community priorities are being respected and that European funding continues to go to those that have the greatest need. How are we to carry out this cohesion policy? This can be summed up in two phrases, improved efficiency and improved management. I have presented my explanations to the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, and I shall present my explanations to the Committee on Budgetary Control – but it must be a credible policy with ambition, as I have just mentioned, and with sufficient funding. We did not, at this stage, wish to carry out assessments or budget estimates. It would be too early; we would be putting the cart before the horse. Let us first discuss objectives, content and European priorities. Only afterwards will we have to find the resources to support these priorities. My only observation, one which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, is that among the various issues decided in Berlin in 1999, one specific decision was that in 2006, at the end of this programming period, by adding up the amounts allocated to the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Funds and the pre-accession appropriations, particularly ISPA, and the appropriations set aside to cover the costs of the first accessions prior to 2006, we obtain a total allocation, combining all these, equivalent to 0.45% of Community GDP. I see that figure as a reference point. It will be a key figure in the discussion of financial matters that we shall have with you and the Member States when the time comes.
Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the level of expenditure in relation to the increase in disparities, I think it safe to say that any cohesion policy will be credible only insofar as it is supported by adequate funding. Whatever the level of structural expenditure, the key thing is that the content of other Community policies should also promote cohesion, as the Treaty recommends. In terms of coordination with other Community policies, there is still progress to be made, particularly in order to improve synergy. I am thinking here of the common agricultural policy.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your attention. Before answering your questions, I would like to stress that this report does not offer any firm or definitive guidelines. It does not put forward any decisions, it merely opens the debate. It is a tool for information and assessment, a snapshot of the European Union which includes 27 Member States for the first time, and at the end we ask a few questions and make a few recommendations. We shall be much more precise in the third report in 2004, which will be issued very shortly before the time when decisions are taken on the new agenda. I merely consider that this debate on cohesion policy and this report testify to the fact that cohesion policy has been effective and useful, in accordance with the goals of the Treaty. Increased European unity, increased solidarity between the peoples of Europe and respect for the diversity of the territories of Europe: this continues to be our objective. This debate on cohesion forms part of the broader debate on the future of the European Union which was initiated in Nice and in which we are going to take part. You may count on us in the next three years leading up to the new intergovernmental conference in 2004 in the matter of this broader debate and of the specific debate on our concept of the European Union, the concept of the level of solidarity between nations and territories.
Madam President, I should like to respond to the concerns expressed earlier by Mrs Figueiredo, and by the Secretary of State, Mrs Torres Marques and the Minister, Mr Cunha, following the very serious natural disasters which have stricken the northern region of Portugal. As I am the Commissioner responsible for dealing with these issues, I wish to inform them that we shall take advantage of every possibility of reallocating appropriations, just as we have done in other circumstances in the event of natural disasters elsewhere in Europe, in order to stand by the Portuguese authorities in meeting the exceptional costs of reconstruction, repairs or indeed preventative measures necessitated by these disasters.
Thank you, and may I assure you of the European Commission’s respect for the valued role that Parliament will play in these discussions.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this morning, the greater part of the discussion in the European Commission was taken up with approving the report, the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion in the Union, which it was my honour to present, with the agreement of my fellow Commissioners, Mrs Diamantopoulou and Mr Fischler.
I presented this report pursuant to Article 159 of the Treaty, with which you are familiar, just as Monica Wulf-Mathies did in 1996. It was as a result of this 1996 report that the first information became available, which was used in drawing up Agenda 2000. A detailed summary of the report is available in three languages at the entrance to the Chamber. The first part of the report which I am presenting gives, for the first time, a snapshot of the European Union in terms of cohesion for the 27 countries of the Union post-enlargement.
The second part of the report analyses the impact of other Community policies on the Union’s objectives. It assesses the results achieved by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds. Finally, in the synthesis section, the report outlines a number of potential avenues or recommendations for the future. Let me repeat, we have already made a summary available to each of you. The complete report, ladies and gentlemen, will be available as of this evening on the Internet, along with all the appended maps and statistics pertaining thereto.
There are two points I would like to make in my opening remarks, before listening to your views. What are the issues at stake in cohesion within the enlarged Union and how can we address these issues?
The first issue I shall raise is that of a global environment undergoing rapid and far-reaching change, which affects each of our countries and hence also the European Union as a whole: the issue of globalisation and the context of new activities based on intelligence and knowledge, the new economy, the information society, and the issue of demographic structure. This is compounded by the ever greater expectation on the part of our fellow citizens, as you are well aware, for our policies to be clearer, to involve the citizens themselves, and for increased partnership.
The second issue is enlargement. We face the prospect of a European Union with 27 or perhaps even 28 members, and what becomes clear from reading this report carefully is that this enlarged Union will contain greater disparities, greater inequalities, to an extent unprecedented in previous rounds of enlargement. There are three key figures you should bear in mind in this respect: with the forthcoming enlargement, the population of the European Union will increase by 30%, and the surface area of the Union will increase by 30%, yet the Union’s gross domestic product will increase by only 5%. That is why in this report we identified a third group of countries, which will include the eight poorest candidate countries, which will comprise 16% of the population of the enlarged Union, where the per capita income is approximately only 40% of the Community average. This is where the main challenge and the real change lie. Consequently, with enlargement, the centre of gravity of cohesion policy is going to shift eastwards. Of the 105 million inhabitants of the candidate countries, 98 million will be living in regions where the level of GDP per inhabitant is less than 75% of the average in the enlarged Union.
Yet, ladies and gentlemen, the entry of extremely poor Eastern European countries into the European Union is not going to turn the existing poor regions in southern, northern and central Europe – I am thinking of the remote and outermost regions too – all of a sudden into prosperous and rich regions, as if by magic. The regions currently covered by Objective 1 are still in difficulty, even if there has been some progress."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples