Annexes to COM(2009)295 - Sixth progress Report on economic and social cohesion - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2009)295 - Sixth progress Report on economic and social cohesion. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2009)295  |
| date | June 25, 2009 |
The goal of territorial cohesion is to encourage the harmonious and sustainable development of all territories by building on their territorial characteristics and resources.
The three basic elements proposed to achieve this goal were broadly supported:
- concentration (achieving critical mass while addressing negative externalities),
- connection (reinforcing the importance of efficient connections of lagging areas with growth centres through infrastructure and access to services), and
- cooperation (working together across administrative boundaries to achieve synergies).
The replies highlighted that territorial cohesion complements and reinforces economic and social cohesion and underlined that the three basic elements were already implicitly present in Cohesion Policy. For some, territorial cohesion essentially serves social and economic cohesion, while for most it is a wider, horizontal concept underpinning all policy areas at all administrative levels.
Many contributors underlined the solidarity dimension of territorial cohesion; some as a territorial dimension of the European social model. This implies that economic and social disparities between territories at all levels (from the EU to the regional and local level) need to be taken into account. Many replies stated that a good quality of life, equal opportunities and access to services of general interest in all territories are crucial both for solidarity and competitiveness.
A minority of respondents proposed to link territorial cohesion to a small number of geographical features which may influence development. They also proposed specific EU policies and funding or even comprehensive EU strategies for these territories. However, the majority of replies, including a clear majority of MS, argued that these features do not in themselves determine success or failure, nor take account of the capacities of Member States and regions to provide appropriate policy responses, and therefore do not require specific treatment, let alone compensation. These reactions confirm that the socio-economic situation of territories should be the basis for policy intervention and design. In addition, they emphasized that Cohesion Policy already provides sufficient flexibility to tackle different problems in different territories.
Many reactions argued that different issues (e.g. social exclusion or urban sprawl, accessibility to services or the risk of flooding) require policy responses at different territorial levels. These may vary from deprived urban neighbourhoods to metropolitan areas, from river basins to mountain areas. The need for European support and desired flexibility to address problems in a functional manner should be considered in the light of the subsidiarity principle.
Better coordination and new territorial partnerships
The majority of contributions associate territorial cohesion with an integrated approach, multilevel governance, and partnership; all three appreciated assets of Cohesion Policy. In particular, Community Initiatives such as URBAN and rural development's LEADER were mentioned favourably. Yet, many replies argued that territorial cohesion should lead to a further improvement of the territorial dimension in the design and implementation of Community policies. For example, many reactions asked for a better coordination and coherence between different EU instruments and funds.
A clear consensus emerged that public policies at different levels need to take into account their territorial impact to avoid contradictory effects. This is particularly true for European policies with a territorial impact, such as cohesion, transport, energy, agriculture, environment, employment, competition and research policies. Several contributions stressed that also the territorial dimensions of Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies should be considered. Taking the territorial impact into account during the phase of policy formulation would improve synergies and effectiveness. That is why a better understanding of the territorial impact of public policies is needed. Most reactions requested the EU to play a key role here, for example by testing ways to strengthen the territorial dimension of existing impact assessments.
All contributions agreed that coordination can also be improved through more multi-level governance. For the vast majority, this does not change the distribution of competences, especially as regards spatial planning. The important role of regional and local actors – including representatives from the cities and towns, private sector and civil society – in formulating, implementing, and evaluating policies was emphasized by many replies. Contributions invite the EU to facilitate territorial governance across borders (e.g. urban-rural partnerships, city-regions, networks of towns) so as to reach critical mass in providing public services or to develop projects of common interest. A number of contributions stated that the EU has a role in supporting institutional capacity at various spatial levels through Cohesion Policy, which also increases the efficiency of non-EU funded policies.
Better cooperation
The three strands of territorial cooperation are almost unanimously recognised as key for territorial cohesion and clear examples of EU added value. There is a strong demand for reinforcing territorial cooperation by making it more strategic, but – at the same time – more flexible and simple. In this regard, the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) is welcomed and its potential recognised.
Cross-border regions are regarded as laboratories of European integration. Stakeholders from cross-border agglomerations or natural areas, for example, could test integrated development plans and service delivery.
The majority of contributions underline the importance of coordinating national and regional strategies, regulations and funding in favour of the sustainable development of whole transnational areas, as was done in the Baltic Sea Strategy.
The EU should facilitate exchanges of experience and best practices. There is wide support for strengthening inter-regional cooperation (in particular INTERREG C and URBACT), especially networking and benchmarking on solving problems regardless of administrative borders.
Finally, contributions call for better coordinating cohesion and external policies; strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy; and using the EGTC on the external borders as well.
Improving understanding of territorial cohesion
All respondents agreed that better tools for territorial analysis and indicators to understand territorial trends are needed. Improved analysis at NUTS3 level, development of thematic analyses on migration or climate change, improvement of territorial impact assessment instruments, can all improve policy design. The ESPON programme and the Urban Audit are regarded as key assets in this respect.
The Commission is urged to complement for analytical purposes GDP per head with other indicators of quality of life (e.g. human development, sustainability, vulnerability, accessibility of services).
[1] COM(2008) 876
[2] SEC(2007) 1547
[3] COM (2008) 371
[4] Regional innovation Scoreboard 2006 , MERIT
[5] Summary of the OECD Ministerial Meeting: Building Innovative Regions March 2009
[6] Economic Forecast, Spring 2009, EC
[7] On creativity , 2008, Ernesto Villalba, JRC.
[8] Phasing in and Phasing out regions are grouped as Transition regions since both receive transitional support
[9] COM(2007) 637
[10] Remittance flows to and from the EU . 2007. Eurostat
[11] Art. 21 EU Charter of fundamental rights
[12] COM(2008) 394
[13] Jobs for Immigrants , 2008, OECD
[14] Creative class and regional growth . 2007 R.A. Boschma & M. Fritsch
[15] The Rise of the Creative Class. 2002 Richard Florida.
[16] Competitiveness of European Metropolitan Regions www.acre.socsci.uva.nl/
[17] European Innovation Scoreboard 2008 , 2009, MERIT
[18] Doing Business 2009 Report , World Bank
[19] http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/start-ups/startups2008.pdf
[20] Final Report, 2009, DYNREG http://www.esri.ie/research/research_areas/international_economics/dynreg
[21] Neglected Innovators, 2008, MERIT.
[22] Ex. Innobarometer 2007 , 2008, Flash EB213, and R&D in Europe , 2009, K. Uppenberg, EIB.
[23] Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009 , 2008, World Economic Forum
[24] COM(2008) 616
[25] http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/terco/consultation_en.htm