Enhancing territorial cooperation and thinking in terms of ‘macro-regions’

The results of the European Commission’s consultation on the EU’s future Cohesion Policy ⁽¹⁾ are clear: there is strong demand for strengthening territorial cooperation instruments beyond 2013. Territorial cooperation became an integral objective of the Structural Funds in 2007. Its resources will probably be increased for the next programming period. Former Regional Policy Commissioner Danuta Hübner, in the discussion paper on the future of Cohesion Policy that she presented a few months before leaving office, states her conviction that “there is considerable scope to further develop the role of territorial cooperation in providing common solutions to shared problems”.

There is one concept – the ‘macro-region’ - that seems to be of particular interest to the Commission. There has been a lot of talk about it since the Commission kicked off the first concrete experience in this area last June, the Baltic Sea strategy, which is being put in place for the moment (see separate article). There are already plans to present another strategy for the Danube region before the end of 2010. The Mediterranean Basin is expected to follow and certain regions are calling for the same approach for the Atlantic Arc.

In short, macro-regions have the wind in their sails and this is expected to be reflected in the EU’s future Cohesion Policy. Taking the example of the Baltic Sea strategy, Danuta Hübner explains in her discussion paper that there is potential for going beyond the cooperation mechanisms currently provided for under the territorial cooperation objective. The Commission could explore the possibility of allocating aid by programmes rather than by individual member states. The new Regional Policy Commissioner, Pawel Samecki, recently took up the torch at a ministerial conference on the Baltic Sea strategy. There is a need to analyse whether macro-regions can “become the medium to deliver significant EU funding, for example via the objective of territorial cooperation within the EU’s Cohesion Policy,” he said. He reiterated Danuta Hübner’s idea of the possibility of no longer granting funds on the basis of a budget set for each member state or region, but by macro-regions instead.

Tightening up link with Lisbon strategy

Whether some like it or not, the European Commission is not prepared to challenge the connection between Cohesion Policy and the Lisbon strategy. Under existing rules, a certain percentage of credits granted under Cohesion Policy must be allocated to the Lisbon objectives. It is no secret that the Commission would like to strengthen this link. It considers itself all the more justified in doing so since the results of the consultation on the future of Cohesion Policy show that those involved would “clearly” support the allocation of a significant share of financial resources to investments related to Lisbon (‘Fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion’). Addressing the EP’s Regional Development Committee, in early September, Pawel Samecki took a similar stance, calling for more “Lisbonisation” of Cohesion Policy.

The question is nevertheless likely to spark debate when the Commission presents detailed proposals. It has its detractors, those who think that putting too much emphasis on the Lisbon strategy could create new territorial disparities by boosting investments in the central regions. The Committee of the Regions is among the sceptics. In an opinion adopted towards the end of November 2008, it clearly expresses its “doubts” about competitiveness objectives specific to the Lisbon strategy being shifted to Cohesion Policy. The question divides the European Parliament as well. During the previous legislative period, MEPs asked the Commission to evaluate carefully the impact of this approach on the evolution of regional disparities. Parliament’s message was roughly: “Be careful not to give precedence to regions that are already dynamic” (EP resolution of 21 February 2008 on the ‘Fourth progress report on economic and social cohesion’). In a resolution adopted a year later, however, it stated that a “much greater” investment effort had to be made in areas linked to the Lisbon strategy and that stronger EU guidelines should be adopted in this connection (resolution of 24 March 2009 on implementation of the Structural Fund Regulation 2007-2013).

Establishing special rules for regions ‘in transition’

Targeted solutions will no doubt have to be worked out for regions whose per capita GDP is only slightly above the level of 75% of the EU average (those under the 75% mark are entitled to higher aid). Some German, British and Spanish regions are concerned. A transitional support scheme already exists in Cohesion Policy for both ‘phasing-out’ regions (whose per capita GDP has risen above 75% of the EU average due to enlargement but that would have remained below this threshold in an EU of 15) and ‘phasing-in’ regions (which used to be covered by Objective 1 of the Structural Funds but have exceeded the level of 75% of GDP of the EU15). Both the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament have already called for “targeted solutions” for such regions, which otherwise risk losing large amounts of resources from 2014. The fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion makes for the first time a separate category, in its analysis of growth, convergence and economic restructuring in the EU, for regions ‘in transition’.

Territorial cooperation became an integral objective of the Structural Funds in 2007
⁽¹⁾ Summed up in the fifth progress report on economic and social cohesion - June 2008