41st General Assembly and 40th Anniversary of the CPMR/Saint Malo
Dear friends
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is always nice to be among so many advocates of Cohesion Policy. You couldn’t have chosen a better setting to celebrate the 40th anniversary of an organisation that since its inception has been promoting territorial cohesion. Representing some 160 regions in 28 countries from Europe and beyond it has been over the years a very efficient lobbyist and an important think-tank, not least in the way it has helped to shape Regional Policy over the years.
Of course, this is due to very active and engaging members but also due to a very active and convincing president!
Minister, dear Jean Yves, I would like to thank you for your support and strong leadership throughout the whole reform process.
I am a very lucky Commissioner.
The positions of CPMR were not only very constructive but more importantly, we shared the same vision for the future.
Now we are on the final stretch of the negotiations. As you know, it has been a difficult and challenging process.
Together we managed to fight for a strong and fair cohesion policy which assumes the role and responsibilities it stands for, namely economic and social development.
The importance of Cohesion Policy is growing!
In 7 member states structural funds amount to more than 60 % of total public investment, In 10 more than 50% and in 13 more than one third. And there is a clear trend to show that these figures will increase. For many member states and regions Cohesion Policy is the last available source of investment for underpinning structural reforms and investing in growth and jobs.
The need for reform – fair architecture of the policy
I am glad to say that we succeeded in convincing all stakeholders of the crucial points of our reform.
We faced some headwinds in the past. When I took office and presented the new architecture of Cohesion Policy, especially the transition category, there were many critics.
They said that this would create a dependency on financial support for eternity and regions would slip back.
I very much opposed this view. First of all, it is a matter of equal treatment. Regions in the same socio-economic situation need to be treated the same way budget-wise.
Secondly, the objectives of Cohesion Policy are changing. The traditional aim has been to help poorer regions to catch up. This objective is of course still relevant and aspired to.
However, Cohesion Policy also assumes more and more the role of implementing European wide agreed objectives like the EU 2020 goals. If we want all regions to contribute to the EU 2020 objectives, it is necessary to give all regions the necessary financial incentives. Otherwise, it would be rather naïve to believe that all regions would contribute to a common European goal at the same time.
Despite tough discussions on this matter, the transition category prevailed for the benefit of many regions, not least here in France, and also thanks to your help.
Less infrastructure more stimulus for economy
Ladies and Gentlemen, we haven’t just managed to set up a fair architecture we have also managed to move Cohesion Policy into a new direction heading towards more results and investments in growth and jobs.
We managed to shift from a more infrastructure focused policy to one focused on a real stimulation of the economy.
When I talk about cohesion policy as an investment policy I don’t forget about the aspect of solidarity.
Solidarity is still important for cohesion policy. This is reflected in the budget allocation. 70 per cent of the budget is allocated to the 25% of Europe’s poorest regions and 30% of the budget is allocated to the remaining 75% of regions. I think this clearly illustrates the solidarity principle.
But, how the money in a given region is spent follows the investment principle – which is simply to get more out than you have put in.
I think this was an important step in times of budgetary constraint. And this context and approach has helped change peoples’ minds, their attitudes, perceptions and expectations of the policy.
Partnership principle and strategic approach are key
Suddenly, decision-makers and stakeholders alike have begun to see the potential of a reformed Regional Policy.
In preparing for the new period, I followed a very inclusive approach.
It was a genuinely bottom-up approach. And I have to say that also in the preparation of the partnership agreements, member states are respecting the partnership principle. In this regard, I told my people to ask specifically in each meeting about the partnership agreements how the relevant stakeholders have been involved.
Up to now, I have had very positive feedback on this. Of course, not all issues can be addressed or still need some more discussions.
At regional level what we call the Smart Specialisation Strategy facilitates strategic planning. It brings together all the main stakeholders and should be rather seen as a process than as a document to identify regional strengths and potentials.
For the first time there is a clear strategic link ensuring consistency across all levels, from the European to the national and the regional.
No pre-allocation but prioritisation
In this regard I would like to stress an issue which comes up regularly in the negotiations of the partnership agreements.
Multi-level governance is at the heart of cohesion policy.
However, multi-level governance should not lead to a sort of “homeopathic disbursement” of cohesion money. What do I mean?
We see that there is a tendency in some member states for Cohesion money to be pre-allocated for regional and local entities rather than for themes. As a former politician in a regional government I can understand such an approach for political reasons. However, as Commissioner I strongly object to such an approach. It simply leads to an inefficient use of precious budgetary resources.
Thematic concentration matters
We all need to ensure that we get the most out of the available funds. That is why we have introduced the concept of thematic concentration.
Such a prioritisation ensures that the funds will have the maximum impact and added-value.
As a result, 80% of the funding in more developed regions, 60% in transition regions and 50% in less developed regions, will be concentrated on four investment priorities. Namely in innovation and research, low carbon economy, SME competitiveness, and ICT.
There are several reasons for targeting those thematic objectives.
In 2012 Europe could have had a positive trade balance with a surplus of 317bn EUR.
Due to our dependency on energy imports and raw materials we have a trade deficit of 105bn EUR.
This dependence is Europe’s real Achilles’ heel and weakens our position in international negotiations.
So, the reduction of CO2 emissions and increase of energy savings is not just a climate goal. It is also a geo-strategic role.
Our dependency on energy is still increasing (in 2008: it was -374bn EUR, in 2012: -420bn EUR)
However, Europe’s dependency on rare earths is slightly improving (in 2008: -6,8bn EUR, in 2012: -1,4bn EUR; 30 million people are now employed in the raw materials’ industrial sector).
This improvement is due to mainly two factors.
One is the ability to replace rare earths by other materials which do not need to be imported. On a European level there will be some future research programmes dealing with this issue.
Let me give you an idea about the importance of such research activities. Tellurium for example is a rare earth used in solar panels and photoreceptors of copiers and printers. The prices of Tellurium increased due to the high demand of solar panels but due to the replacement by another material (Selenium) costs can be tackled.
Another important factor in reducing our dependency on rare earths is the innovation of the process of how to deal with waste, particularly how to innovate the recycling path.
To give you a concrete example. In Europe, over 100 million mobile phones go out of service every year. Recycling those phones would recover 2.4 tonnes of gold, 25 tonnes of silver, nearly one tonne of palladium (rare earth) and 900 tonnes of copper every year.
These are just some examples why thematic concentration matters and is of strategic importance for all of us.
Ladies and gentlemen,
As Commissioner for Regional and Urban policy I am in the privileged position to visit many corners in Europe, like here in this picturesque region of Saint Malo.
I can tell you that every corner and region has its strengths. I saw a lot of promising projects in regions where geographical handicaps were turned into new economic opportunities. I just visited the Orkney Islands where they use the tides for producing energy and testing it
for the rest of Europe
I visited the Azores which wants to become the world hub for cruising/container ships.
And I know that a small village in the Alps of Austria managed to accommodate the highest GDP per capita.
I could continue listing these kinds of cases.
What I want to say is that Europe’s strengths lie in the capacity of regions to innovate and to reinvent themselves.
In this regard CPMR is an important hub to exchange experiences, to pool ideas and to present solutions.
I am looking forward working with you and dear minister thanks a lot for all the work you have done!
Source: European Commission Press Room
