Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-12-Speech-4-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070712.5.4-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, it is a pleasure to come before Parliament to exchange views on the Geringer de Oedenberg report on the role and effectiveness of cohesion policy in reducing disparities in the poorest regions of the European Union.
Let me underline the substantial contribution of our policy to this overall positive convergence process. Independent evaluation studies have shown that cohesion policy has supported much-needed investment in infrastructure, human resources, modernisation and diversification of regional economies. Between 2000 and 2005, public investment in the four cohesion countries has been around 25% higher than it would have been without cohesion policy. It has contributed to the growth of GDP. Increasing GDP levels attributable to regional policy ranged from 10% in Greece and 8.5% in Portugal in the period 1989-1999, and 6% for Greece and Portugal, 4% in the German
and 2.4% in Spain in the period 2000-2006. Preliminary estimates for 2007-2013 suggest an impact of between 5% and 9% in the new Member States.
It has also contributed to reduced social exclusion and poverty. Cohesion policy cofinances the training of nine million people annually. More than half of them are women, leading to better employment conditions and higher income. For example, over 450 000 gross jobs were generated in six countries: Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Between 2000 and 2005 it accounted for two thirds of Objective 2 funding. It has helped shift the policy mix of public investment in Member States towards growth-enhancing investment.
According to the most recent data, the amount of cohesion investment earmarked for research and development, innovation and information and communication technologies (ICTs) for 2007-2013 has more than doubled in comparison with the years 2000-2006. Clearly, it remains to be seen how these plans will be implemented, but we already see, among both the Member States and the regions, an increasing awareness in their development strategies for the next financial period.
Certainly, one of the keys of this success lies in the fact that cohesion policy is an integrated, fully-fledged policy; it is not a sectoral policy, or a disjointed bundle of sectoral policies, but an integrated instrument aimed at delivering specific tailor-made solutions for each European region or territory. At the same time, it is not just an EU policy that operates in isolation but it certainly depends on the active involvement of partners at national, regional and local level.
Your report correctly points to a number of issues which are particularly relevant for the poorest regions if they are to make the best use of the allocated funds. I shall mention just a few likely to provide them with appropriate technical assistance. The importance of designing tailor-made development strategies, or the value of implementing effective partnership and encouraging good practices.
I took note of your proposals. I am convinced that some of them will find their way into the current legislative framework that has given rise to the new initiatives recently adopted by the Commission, like the three ‘J’s – Jasper, Jeremy and Jessica – or Regions for economic change. The flexibility of cohesion policy makes it possible to implement the best measures adopted for each case. In this regard, Mrs Hübner will ensure that the Commission pays particular attention to the needs of the poorest regions in the ongoing negotiations on the programming documents for the years 2007-2013.
I also appreciate the contribution of your report to the debate on future cohesion policy, which was launched by the publication of the fourth cohesion report. I welcome these valuable recommendations aiming at increasing the efficiency of cohesion policy.
As you know, we are now at the initial stage of reflection on the future of cohesion policy. This debate aims at nurturing the review of the EU budget that the Commission has to undertake in the years 2008 and 2009.
In conclusion, you are aware that the public consultation on the future of cohesion policy will be launched following the cohesion forum to be held at the end of September. A dedicated internet site will collect the contributions of Member States, regions, cities, EU institutions, economic and social partners and, of course, civil society organisations. The Commission intends to present the results of this consultation in spring 2008, together with the fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion. On the basis of this and other own-initiative reports recently approved, I am very much looking forward to Parliament’s contribution to this debate.
Once again, as in the case of other own-initiative reports adopted by the Committee on Regional Development, this proves the excellent collaboration between our two institutions. I am speaking on behalf of Mrs Hübner, who has had to go to Romania, and she sends you her best wishes.
I welcome this report and I appreciate its positive contribution to the debate on the impact and effectiveness of cohesion policy at a critical moment of the 2007-2013 programming period and on the eve of the budgetary review to be carried out in the year 2008/09. I fully share the view that the cohesion policy is not only essential but also effective in reducing socioeconomic and territorial disparities and in tapping the development potential of all EU regions.
The value added of cohesion policy has already been proved, and we all recognise that it goes well beyond financial transfers to include, among other things, the development of partnerships, exchanges of best practice, budgetary stability and a strategic approach.
I particularly appreciate the theme and the content of your report because it touches on the backbone of cohesion policy. Indeed, the main goal of our policy is to reduce the socioeconomic and territorial disparities in the poorest EU regions. The challenge is not negligible. These disparities have dramatically increased following the recent enlargements, and cohesion policy is the only Community instrument specially designed to this aim. For instance, disparities in GDP per head between the top and bottom 10% EU regions have almost doubled after the two most recent enlargements.
In fact, regional disparities in the EU are very important, much more than within the United States or Japan, or of a similar dimension to that in China and India for instance.
Despite impressive growth rates in the new Member States and the convergence of many regions of the EU-15, there are still 70 regions – home to 123 million Europeans – with a GDP per head below 75% of the EU average. In addition, there are a number of regions – the majority of which are among the most developed ones – which are losing ground. In 27 regions, GDP per head declined in real terms between the years 2000 and 2004 and, in another 24, growth was under 0.5% per year.
Nevertheless, as explained in full in the recently published Fourth Cohesion Report, convergence
taking place. This is due both to the accelerated growth of most of the new Member States and to the sometimes sluggish performance of some of the most advanced ones. On the whole, the periphery of the EU is catching up with the core of Europe not only in terms of GDP per head but also of employment, productivity and other indicators, and this is good news. This includes the former cohesion countries which, with the exception of Portugal, in the last few years have experienced impressive progress.
This phenomenon – the long-term convergence process – is especially occurring at EU level between Member States and regions. We know that, at national level, the picture is somehow different, since in many cases growth is increasingly concentrated in the capital region or in the main metropolitan areas, which deepens the internal disparities and causes problems related to agglomeration, like transport congestion, pollution, housing price rises and so on."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples