Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-290"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.12.3-290"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it must be pointed out that this report is being tabled before Parliament at a particularly important historical and political moment in European integration, namely just before the start of the Convention which is to lay the foundations of the new Europe, a Convention of which Commissioner Barnier is an important member. We are therefore especially glad that he can be here today.
The 'statistical convergence' must not be mistaken for 'real convergence' by the current beneficiaries, who will certainly not automatically become richer simply as a result of the accession of poorer regions. We need administrative methods which will improve efficiency; we need to streamline, clarify and facilitate the demarcation between the role of the Commission and that of the regional and national levels; it will be necessary to simplify procedures increasingly and we need greater subsidiarity and more decentralisation.
It will also be essential to rationalise the support instruments by reducing the number and size of funds and better coordinating Community policies and cohesion policies. Regions which continue to lag behind in terms of development, measured in terms of unemployment and other criteria in addition to
income, must be maintained under Objective 1.
Lastly – and this is a point of contention which prompted wide debate – the allocation of financial resources must be increased or, at least, revised and brought up to a sufficient level: the threshold of 0.45% is an absolute minimum below which it is impossible to go. We hope that Parliament and the Commission will both call for a increase in the budget dedicated to the future resources of cohesion policy.
It must be said from the outset that cohesion policy is a major success story in terms of Community integration. Indeed, it is, has been in the past, and will continue to be, one of the cornerstones of that process.
Consistently with the Commission’s second report, we have noted that between 1988 and 1998 per capita GDP in Objective 1 regions rose from 63% to 70% of the Community average – and this is a great success – moreover, the benefits of cohesion have not been limited to direct recipients of related funding but have also extended to countries which are net contributors in terms of exported goods and services.
Of course, the process has not yet reached its conclusion. Much still remains to be done and there are difficulties to address and overcome, including, in particular, the scourge of unemployment, which, I am sad to say, is affecting many regions where the unemployment rate has not dropped at all.
We need infrastructural investments in order to eliminate the marginalisation caused by geographical location and the remoteness of the islands and the most outlying regions; accessibility is a determining factor in terms of the competitiveness of an area and it needs to be improved, although without incurring excessive environmental costs.
In future, cohesion policy must be recast, first and foremost to cater for the changed circumstances which enlargement will bring for all of us, but it is also vital that the future regional policy should be based on the results of Commission documents, particularly the most recent document issued a few days ago, known as the periodic report.
I am afraid to say that the gap between rich and poor will grow as, after enlargement, one sixth of the Community population will have an income of barely 40% of the Community average. Preaccession instruments such as ISPA and the Sapard programme have been set up to assist the candidate countries, to enable them to prepare for the new situation of which they will have to become a part; these have been essential tools for the transition from candidate countries to Member States.
However, we need to promote a genuine regional development policy. In this regard, I feel that the European spatial development perspective can serve as an important technical source of major integration and development.
There are two key objectives to pursue: solidarity towards the new Member States and avoiding penalising, indeed protecting, those currently benefiting from cohesion policies. A major effort therefore needs to be made in terms of solidarity – especially political solidarity ensuring that all the peoples are involved and are provided with the requisite information – in economic and financial policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples