Fourth Cohesion Report

Key points

This Fourth Report has been published at the crossroads of two different programming periods: thus it offers a preliminary assessment of the impact of European cohesion policy in the period 2007-2013, and is both an analysis of achievements to date and a launch-pad for discussion of the future.

The EESC commends the European Commission on the level of quality and detail achieved in the report. It also welcomes the initiative launched by the Commission to hold a large-scale debate on the future of cohesion policy; its opinion includes a series of answers to questions posed by the Commission.

The Commission argues that Europe's disparities have decreased and continue to do so; thus, the report states that by the beginning of the next programming period, nine of the 12 Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 will have risen above the threshold of 75% of EU GDP per capita. As a result, this benchmark will lose relevance. The EESC feels that this issue should be addressed right away.

With reference to the issue of the economic indicators used in cohesion policy, the EESC proposes considering whether it would be more pertinent, during the next Structural Fund allocation phase, to use the economic indicator of Gross National Income (GNI) rather than GDP. The objective is to have a better picture of the living standards in the regions while avoiding the bias due to commuters and foreign direct investment which swell the GDP of a region but not the wealth, since commuters spend their income in their region of origin and the profits generated are often repatriated back to the parent company.

The EESC opinion includes three maps drawn up by ESPON (the European Spatial Planning Observation Network), providing a very visual illustration of the polarisation and increasing metropolitanisation that would occur by 2030 should the Lisbon Strategy be further developed along current lines. An alternative cohesion-oriented scenario has also been envisaged by ESPON, the relevant map clearly showing the feasibility of extending the economic hub and, above all, fostering the emergence of other growth poles (the Baltic regions; an area to the East taking in Vienna, Berlin, Warsaw and Budapest; the South of France and Catalonia). The EESC reaffirms the importance of developing and implementing dual-level polycentrism in the context of harmonious development, in order to avoid the detrimental effects of polarisation.

The EESC also considers the issue of partnership and strongly regrets that this consultation process does not address the role of the social partners and organised civil society in the framing, development and implementation of the Structural Funds. At national and regional level, consultation of civil society organisations must be improved: the deadlines for responding to documents must be adequate and their comments must be given greater weight.