PAPER F
Purpose : For Decision
REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE
Date
: 3 NOVEMBER 2004
Title : UPDATE ON
EUROPEAN ISSUES – TO CONSIDER OBJECTIVES
REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, UK AND EU, REGIONAL ISSUES
IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 15 November 2004
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
1. In August a paper was submitted to the Executive summarising
current activity in Europe, the potential significance for the Isle of Wight
and actions the Council is taking to influence matters for the benefit of the
Island. Members requested that an
update report was submitted in October identifying objectives to be pursued in
the lead in to 2006 and to agree, as far as possible, a programme of action for
the coming year.
CONFIDENTIAL/EXEMPT ITEMS
N/A
BACKGROUND
2 In August a report was submitted to the Executive
summarising:
·
The
objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and Gothenburg agenda
·
Proposals,
as far as they were known, for European funding post 2006
·
Actions
taken and proposed by the Council to maximise any potential benefits for the
Island.
The following provides information on developments since
then.
Regional Development Funding
3 The proposals for this were summarised under Appendix 1 of
the August report under the heading “Third Cohesion Report on Economic and
Social Cohesion”. The regulations which
have now been released provide more detail, but do not change the summary
given.
4 As stated in the previous report, the implementation of
these proposals is dependent on Member States agreeing a contribution of 1.14%
Gross National Income (GNI) (this was previously calculated at 1.24% GNI but
has since been amended). The UK
Government is one of 6 who wish to limit their contribution to 1% of GNI. Negotiations regarding this continue at a
national government level.
Rural Development Funding
5 The proposals for Rural Development Funding post 2006 were not
released in time for the last report, but are now available. The importance of
the EU dimension of rural development policy lies in:
·
Accompanying
and complementing further Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform
·
Contributing
to other EU policy priorities such as sustainable management of natural
resources, innovation and competitiveness in rural areas, and economic and
social cohesion.
6 In due course a EU strategy document for rural development will
be produced by the Commission, and will serve as a basis for the Member State’s
national rural development strategies and programmes. The programmes will
translate the EU priorities to the national situation after a round of
stakeholder consultations.
7 It will be the responsibility of the Member States in preparing
their national programmes to ensure there is compatibility between the aid
offered under the rural development regulations and that accessible by rural
areas from regional development funds.
8 A summary of the main areas which could be funded is provided at Appendix
1
Regional State Aid Regulations
9 The August report outlined the proposals for future State
Aid regulations and the potential impact on the UK. The UK Government was not entirely in agreement with these and
has carried out consultation. The
Council made 2 responses to this, one via the Local Government Association and
one direct to the Department of Trade and Industry. These are attached at Appendices 2 and 3. The DTI has acknowledged receipt of this
and will be publishing a full analysis of comments received on its web site in
due course. DTI will be meeting with
the European Commission and other Members States before the end of the year to
discuss the proposals.
10 Key points that the Council has made in its response are:
i) When considering geographic
areas, it is considered that these should be based, at highest on NUTS 3
(National Units of Statistics) areas and not NUTS 2 as proposed as the latter
are considered to be misleading and often mask smaller areas with a depressed
economy which could benefit from state aid.
ii) The European
Commission have stated that they wish to see parity between the Structural Fund
regulations and those for Regional State Aid.
However the former have made provision for higher intervention rates for
horizontal themes in areas which have a “permanent physical handicap” (ultra-peripheral,
mountainous, sparsely populated, islands).
Whilst the State Aid proposals make special provision for
ultra-peripheral and sparsely populated areas, they make no such provision for
islands and mountainous areas. For
parity this should be addressed.
iii) The Isle of Wight lost
Intermediate Assisted Area status in 2000.
This has been a key factor in the decision of several potential larger
investors not to come to the Island. It
has also meant that the experience whereby two major investors who came to the
Island with the support of RSA (Regional Selective Assistance) and have
continued to grow and prosper to the benefit of the Island economy cannot be
repeated.
CPMR Conference
11 The 32nd General Assembly of the Conference for
Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) was held in Norway on the 22-24
September. The Leader, Portfolio Holder
for Economic Development, EU and UK Regional Issues and the Principal Economic
Development Officer attended on behalf of the Council. Also attending was the Senior Coastal
Manager on behalf of the Coastal Management Centre.
12 Over the three days sessions were held on the following
topics:
·
Energy
and sustainable regional development
·
Europe’s
maritime dimension – including presentations on maritime safety, sea transport
and territorial cooperation, fisheries and research.
·
The
future of territorial cohesion – centred around the implications of current
European Commission proposals for post 2006.
13 Of significance to the Isle of Wight was the amendment to the
final resolution which the Council’s delegate proposed and was adopted relating
to Regional State Aids regulations.
Further to the Council’s response to the UK Government’s consultation
(see Appendices 2 and 3) the following text (highlighted in italics) was added
to the formal resolution:
“On the other hand, the
Conference has been led to highlight the anxieties of its member regions with
regard to a number of European matters that have a strong territorial impact:
………
·
Likewise,
dialogue has been established regarding the regions’ involvement……
·
The
same applies, with the Commission’s departments, to the review of the State Aid
policy. The CPMR would like to recall
its support for the implementation of a principal of territorial
differentiation in horizontal regulations and category based exemptions. However, for parity with the draft
structural fund regulations it will be necessary to make specific reference to
islands and mountainous regions in the State Aid regulations in addition to the
Ultraperipheral regions and those with low population density”
14 This amendment was supported by both the Islands Commission
and the UK delegation.
15 The final resolution contains the main messages that the CPMR
wish to give the European institutions.
It is used by the CPMR and its members for lobbying at all levels, and
as the CPMR is held in some regard by Brussels as a body representing 149
regions from 27 states, it carries a degree of authority and weight which the
Council does not have as a small authority working on its own.
Dynamo Regions “Open Days”
16 The August report gave a brief summary of the principals
behind the formation of the “Dynamo Regions” group. In September this group took part in delivering a range of
workshops as part of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) “Open Days”. For each
of their plenary sessions the CoR has a main theme, which it then invites
regional offices in Brussels to participate in by holding workshops centred on
that theme.
17 In September the theme was regional policy reform, and South
East England House (SEEH) led the Dynamo Regions participation in this. Seminars were held in SEEH on :
·
Cooperation:
“bridges and barriers”
·
Competitiveness:
Promoting knowledge, innovation and entrepreneurship
·
Flagship
Event: “How can Structural Funds best help EU regions to deliver the Lisbon
Agenda”
18 In addition two smaller, less formal,
meetings with presentations from the EU Commission were held on:
·
Evaluation
on the contribution of Structural Funds to the Lisbon Strategy
·
The
future of ESF
19 The main events were well attended and had a significant
number of representatives from the Commission, a strong indication that it is
interested and listening to what these regions have to say. A summary of the conclusions of the seminars
was presented both at the flagship
event and in the CoR Plenary by Councillor Alec King. This is attached at APPENDIX 4
20 In parallel with these events was the CoR Plenary session,
which The Leader attended (as a political appointee) and the SEEDA / SEERA
Joint Europe Committee (JEC) attended by the Portfolio Holder for Economic
Development. EU and UK Regional Issues on behalf of SEERA.
21 The opportunity was taken to have a meeting of the Chief
Executives Support Officers Group (CECSNET) in Brussels at the same time, aimed
at raising awareness of European issues.
Unfortunately there was no representative of this Council at that event.
Objective
22
The
main objective of these activities continues to be to take every available
opportunity to influence developments both in the UK and in Brussels to maximise
benefits for The Isle of Wight by:
a)
trying
to ensure the Island will be eligible to apply for any future funding including
UK funds which are covered by the State Aid Regulations and
b)
influencing
policy and legislation emanating from Europe (70% of legislation Local
Authorities are responsible for delivering originates in Brussels)
. 23 This
will be done through a range of mechanisms including:
·
Responding
to relevant consultations as they arise
·
Active
participation in networks and bodies such as :
·
CPMR
·
Island
Commission
·
Local
Government International Bureau
·
Brussels
Office Partnership
·
Dynamo
Regions
·
South
East Joint Europe Committee
·
Committee
of the Regions
24 The Council is fortunate in having representation on some of
these bodies by virtue of political appointments rather than as the
Council. This gives us an excellent
opportunity to expand our field of influence.
Key Dates and Activities
25 Whilst the agenda is driven by the release of information
from the European Commission, we are in the middle of an 18 – 24 month period
of intensive activity which will set the agenda for the period 2006 –
2013. Now is the time to lobby and put
forward proposals, once the policies and funding regulations are in place it is
extremely difficult to change anything.
The Council has been actively involved in a range of activities and
these together with key dates are shown in Appendix 5. However with new MEPs (elected June 2004
) and European Commissioners currently being appointed it is not yet clear what
the timetable will be for the coming year.
However, with the help of the Brussels Office, the situation is closely
monitored to enable an early response to any developments.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
APPENDIX 1
Proposals for funding under the Rural Development Regulations
Support for rural development
shall contribute to the following goals:
Priority Axis 1 - Improving the competitiveness
of agriculture and forestry by means of support for restructuring through:
·
Improving
human potential
·
Restructuring
physical potential
·
Improving
the quality of agricultural production and products
Priority Axis 2 - Improving the environment
and the countryside by means of support for land management through:
·
Targeting
the sustainable use of agricultural land
·
Targeting
the sustainable use of forestry land
Priority Axis 3 - Improving the quality of
life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic activity
through:
·
Diversifying
the rural economy
·
Improving
the quality of life in rural areas
·
Vocational
training in specified areas
·
Capacity
building in order to prepare and implement a local development strategy
Leader Priority Axis – development of areas using
the “Leader” model
APPENDIX 2
Regional
Aid 2007-2013
DTI Consultation
Isle of Wight Council Response
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION QUESTIONS:
Views
are invited on any aspects of the Commission's proposals.
1
To
what extent would the Commission’s proposed changes to the Regional Aid
Guidelines, in your view, limit scope to provide business support in the
Regions generally or a particular Region in which you or your organisation is
mostly interested?
It has
been the stated intention of the European Commission to ensure a consistent and
compatible approach between the different regulations relating to economic
policy for the regions. One key area
where this is not the case is in the proposals for areas suffering from
permanent natural handicap. DG
(Directorate General) Competition’s proposals for regional aid post 2006 take
no account of recommendations contained in the third report on economic and
social cohesion, which clearly proposes that the three types of region
suffering from permanent natural or demographic handicaps (islands, mountain
areas and regions with low population density) should be acknowledged and
therefore accorded special treatment.
Whilst provision has been made for regions with low population density
in the regional aid proposals, none has been made for islands and mountain
areas, which seems to fail in the objective of moving towards territorial
cohesion.
As the only island in the
SE region of England, with specific issues related to insularity (additional costs
of transport, limited ability to benefit from economies of scale in the
provision of skills training and business support services, etc) the Isle of
Wight Council consider that this is something which could be easily rectified
by the provision that such areas are designated as Art 87 (3) ( c) areas and
subject to higher aid intensity levels for horizontal themes. This is unlikely to distort the figures for
population coverage in a significant manner, but would greatly assist areas
such as ours to develop the economy.
Views
are invited on the Government's objectives for State aid reform in general and,
in particular, reform of regional State aid. Do you consider these are the
right objectives?
2 For Article
87(3)(a) areas:
(i) Do
you support the Commission's proposal to identify areas assisted under Article
87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty at NUTS2 level?
No –
consider that NUTS 3 is a better level.
Statistics below NUTS 3 level are not considered reliable, but at NUTS 2
they can frequently mask significant pockets of deprivation where these are
included with wealthier adjacent areas.
(ii) Do
you support the Commission's proposal that areas in the EU eligible for
Structural Funds should have state aid coverage?
See
answer to next question
(iii) Do
you support the Government's initial view that Article 87(3)(a) areas should
not be restricted to areas eligible for Structural funds? If so, do you agree
that identifying these areas at NUTS3 level or by finding a means to take
account of a wider range of economic performance within NUTS2 regions would
give better targeting?
Yes – would agree with this approach.
(iv) Are
there any other options for defining the Article 87(3)(a) areas which you
consider the UK should argue for, bearing in mind that they would need to be
consistent with the legal requirement that the 87(3)(a) areas must be
determined on a consistent basis across the EU?
3 For Article 87(3)(c) areas:
(i) Do you support
the Commission's proposal to identify areas assisted under Article 87(3)(c) of the
EC Treaty at NUTS2 level?
No. Consider that if
geographic areas are identified these should be at NUTS 3 or lower level to
enable the intervention to address economic disparities at the sub-regional
level.
(ii) Do you support
the Commission's proposals that areas losing 87(3)(a) status purely as a result
of EU enlargement should be eligible as 87(3)(c) areas?
Yes
(iii) Do you support
the Government's initial view that to achieve better targeting, the 87(3)(c)
areas should be identified in terms of smaller geographical units than NUTS2
level?
Yes –consider that NUTS 3 is a more representative level. Statistics below NUTS 3 level are not
considered reliable, but at NUTS 2 they can frequently mask significant pockets
of deprivation where these are included with wealthier adjacent areas.
(iv) If so,
should these geographical units be at NUTS3 level, or should the Government
press for even greater flexibility to define areas?
NUTS 3 would seem to be the most appropriate level. Too small an area becomes ineffective and
expensive to administer, and as has been apparent in the current arrangement
(clusters of NUTS 5), the designated areas are not always those suitable for
development.
4 Should indicators
other than GDP per head be taken into account in defining which areas should be
eligible to receive regional state aid?
Yes. In particular areas suffering from permanent natural handicap
should have special provision. This
would take account of the objective of territorial cohesion and would also
bring the provisions for state aid into parity for the proposals for structural
funds.
5 Do
you support the Commission's proposal to reduce aid intensities within the
assisted areas in principle?
Yes
6 If
so, are the levels proposed right or would you prefer to see intensities give details.
The proposed levels would appear to be right.
7
If you do not support the Commission's proposals to
reduce aid intensities, please say what levels you consider would be
appropriate and why.
N/A
8 Do
you support the Commission's proposal to define initial investment on the basis
of Gross Grant Equivalent rather than Net Grant Equivalent?
Yes. This simplifies
calculation resulting in greater transparency and consistency with the way
other forms of funding are calculated.
It should also reduce bureaucracy (and hence administration costs) as a
result of simplification.
9 Should
the Government argue for additional criteria relating to the quality of
projects supported through regional aid to be included in the Regional Aid
Guidelines? If so, please give examples of the types of criteria that you
consider should be included.
If the principal of lesser and better targeted assistance is to be
implemented effectively, then there needs to be assurance that the quality of
business assisted will achieve the aims of boosting wealth and employment. Additional criteria will be required to
ascertain this and will need to be monitored carefully. Suitable criteria may
include:
·
Creation of real, long term employment
(ie say 5 –7 years, and will not include jobs displaced from elsewhere)
·
Environmental sustainability of the
project – linked to sound environmental requirements to ensure that economic
development is not being carried out at the expense of environmental
considerations and in keeping with the principals of the Gothenburg agenda.
10 Should the Government
argue for the guidelines to contain provisions to prevent aid from being used
to displace projects from one part of the EU to another, and if so how might
this best be achieved?
Yes Projects relocated from elsewhere in the EU should not be
eligible for regional assistance unless it is a genuine expansion creating
additional jobs. Provision should be
made for a minimum time scale (say 5 - 7 years) to prevent a short term
“expansion” followed shortly by “closure” of the original branch.
11 Should
the Government press for retention of the scope for modernisation investment?
If this is done then strict criteria must be applied, as otherwise
there is too much scope for abuse. All
replacement investment has an element of modernization and “upgrading”, and
clear definitions will be required to prevent abuse of the system.
12 Should
the Government support the idea of excluding either land in general, or
green-field sites only as eligible costs for Regional Aid investment?
Land eligible for inclusion in project costs should
be restricted to brownfield sites to encourage sustainability and working
towards the Gothenburg strategy.
Experience in areas where land has been eligible for assistance has
shown that this tends to distort the market and artificially inflate property
prices – the principal being that both seller and purchaser can benefit by
inflating the cost and claiming the grant, a recipe for encouraging fraudulent
practice.
13 Do you
support the Commission's proposals for transitional status for current 87(3)(a)
areas that would not otherwise be eligible ?
Yes
14 Do you
consider that the Commission should provide for some form of transitional
status for some or all of the current 87(3)(c) areas that would not otherwise
be eligible? If so, on what basis?
No
15 Do you
support the Commission’s proposal to increase the aid levels allowed to be paid
to SMEs outside the assisted areas? If so are the levels proposed sufficient?
Yes – the levels would appear
adequate.
16 Do you
consider that the limits within any of the horizontal guidelines should be
increased? If so, which guidelines and what should the limits be? Would you
support the UK Government differentiating regionally in terms of the aid
intensities permitted in different areas under the horizontal guidelines?
Yes – specifically
intervention rates should be higher in areas of permanent physical handicap (eg
islands and mountainous areas) to bring this into line with proposals for
structural funds (see above).
17 Do you consider that the Government should
argue for Member States to be able to pay additional levels of horizontal aid
in areas of local economic under-performance? If so:
o what should
these additional aids apply to;
o how much
flexibility should Member States have in selecting them;
o what criteria
could be used for determining local economic under-performance?
Yes. These could take the form of a “contingency”
provision to assist areas whose economies start to under-perform as a result of
specific, identified economic factors which are likely to have a long term
effect (state aid would not necessarily be considered suitable for a “quick
fix” solution). Each member state would be subject to a ceiling for such a fund
(say percentage of the country’s total financial allocation), and should have
some flexibility within European wide criteria. This would allow for assistance to areas which may not fit the
criteria for assisted area status at the beginning of the programme, but whose
economy suffers a reversal between 2007 and 2013.
18 Do you consider any changes are needed to the
horizontal guidelines other than in respect of aid intensities to provide
greater flexibility?
No
APPENDIX 3
Regional Aid 2006 – 2013
LGIB Consultation
Response of the Isle of Wight Council
1 Lesser and Better Aids
In principal the Council would agree with the
principal of “lesser and better state aids” and consider that the thematic
approach outlined is a reasonable way to achieve this.
2 Appropriate Geographic
level
Where geographic areas are to be designated it is
considered that these should be based on, at highest, NUTS 3 areas rather than
NUTS 2. Eurostat are concerned that
statistics below NUTS 3 are not reliable enough to provide consistency and
transparency across the Union (although clusters of NUTS 5 areas were used for
the current 87 (3) ( c ) designations), but
statistics at NUTS 2 level can be misleading and mask smaller areas with
a depressed economy which could benefit from state aid.
Where it is considered appropriate to concentrate
horizontal themes (eg by varying the
intervention rate) NUT3 or even NUTS 4 could be considered an appropriate
level. In addition to this, provision
for areas with permanent physical handicaps such as islands and mountainous
regions should be eligible for higher concentrations of aid – this would then
mean that these regulations were consistent with the proposals for structural
funding post 2006. (see 3 and 7 below).
3 Intensity of Intervention
With regard to intensity ceilings, whilst
acknowledging that there is the potential for displacement investment towards
the new Member States, the Regional Aid regulations are one element of a range
of influencing factors including structural funds available. It may be more appropriate to apply
additional criteria and conditions for recipients of state aid to minimise
displacement (eg only new or additional business capacity can be funded, not
that which is relocating from another Member State) – see comment on
additional criteria below.
To give consistency with the structural fund
regulations, provision should be made for higher intervention rates for areas
with permanent physical handicaps (islands and mountainous) – see comment under
“regional differentiation in aid intensities”.
4 Gross Grant Equivalent
This would appear to be a more equitable method of
calculation. It would bring State Aid
regulations in line with other funding regimes, provides a more transparent
methodology and should save on some of the bureaucracy, as it is easier to
calculate.
5 Additional Criteria
The Council would support additional Europe wide
criteria. If State Aid is to be
targeted more effectively then it needs to be linked to results which work towards
the Lisbon Agenda – creation of real, long term employment (ie not displacement
of jobs or short term jobs), sustainability.
These should also cover elements mentioned above relating to
displacement of business from one member state (or region) to another – it
needs to be real additional enterprise, not perambulation of existing business.
6 Eligibility of Land Costs
Land eligible for inclusion in project costs should
be restricted to brownfield sites to encourage sustainability and working
towards the Gothenburg strategy.
Experience in areas where land has been eligible for assistance has
shown that this tends to distort the market and artificially inflate property
prices. The principal problem being
that both seller and purchaser can benefit by inflating the cost and claiming
the grant, a recipe for encouraging fraudulent practice.
7 Regional Differentiation in
Aid Intensities
Criteria for any regional or sub-regional variations
in aid intensity would need to be either clearly defined at a European level or
subject to a member state ceiling to prevent abuse of the system. Allowing this to be agreed by regions within
each member state, subject to a ceiling, would provide the flexibility for
regions to address more localised areas of economic under-performance in accord
with the principals of subsidiarity.
One notable omission from Table 1 is provision for
higher aid intensity in areas subject to permanent physical handicaps – eg
islands. Whilst outermost regions and
those with very low population density are catered for, islands and mountainous
regions are excluded. This is at odds
with the proposals for structural fund regulations, which allow for higher
intervention rates in these areas.
Ideally these areas should be designated as 87(3)( c) areas, but at the
very least the provision for higher intervention rates for horizontal themes
would bring these regulations in line with those for structural funds.
8 Practicalities
With the last designations in 2000, the Isle of Wight
lost its intermediate assisted area status and companies have only been
eligible to apply for the UK Government’s Enterprise Grant scheme, which is not
classified as Regional Selective Assistance.
Whilst there has been considerable success in accessing these funds for
smaller companies, there have been several occasions when potential larger
investors have decided against coming to the Island, and the lack of RSA was
considered to be a key factor in making this decision.
Two major investors who did receive RSA when they
came to the Island prior to 2000 have continued to grow and prosper,
contributing substantially to the local economy. Withdrawal of RSA has meant
that it has not been possible to repeat this.
LMW26
August 2004
APPENDIX 4
Dynamo Regions Statement on the Reform of EU
Structural Funds
I
am speaking today on behalf of Dynamo Regions: Friuli Venezia Giulia,
Haute-Normandie, South East England, South Sweden and Oresund Region, Stuttgart
Region and the Veneto. We have come
together during Open Days to join in the debate on EU regional policy
reform. We call ourselves Dynamo
Regions because this reflects the dynamism of our regions and our influential
economic role.
We
are grateful to the Committee of the Regions for organising Open Days. This has given us an unprecedented
opportunity to raise awareness of the issues that are of greatest importance to
us at this important time.
Commissioners,
President of the CoR, Members of the European Parliament, distinguished guests,
Europe
is set on developing into the most competitive and knowledge based economy in
the world by 2020. Dynamo Regions can
make a serious contribution to these high-level European priorities for
sustainable growth – agreed by Heads of Government at the Lisbon and Gothenburg
Councils. Like many regions, we can
serve as the basis for a more competitive Europe, functioning as catalysts,
coordinators and initiators. We will
not achieve this, however, without the full support
Of
national governments and the EU institutions.
Like
many other European regions, Dynamo Regions also face the challenge of
sustaining our economic growth and tackling deprivation whilst using our
natural resources wisely and reducing environmental impacts.
Dynamo
Regions clearly support a future policy and funding framework that benefits ALL
EU regions. Therefore it is necessary
to have a regional policy that tackles need, but also accounts for change and
development opportunity and is implemented as closely as possible to the citizen. We especially underline the importance of
involving local authorities and regions in the implementation and
administration of the Structural Funds.
During
Open Days, Dynamo Regions have discussed models and concrete projects which
have been or should be set up in regions to serve both European objectives and
regional development. We have also
debated possible solutions to our challenges and celebrated the added value of
European funding to promote growth, competitiveness, innovation and increased
European integration across borders.
The
case for funds to maintain regions’ global competitive edge.
We
welcome proposals to devote 17.22% of the Structural Fund budget to the
regional Competitive and Employment objective.
This is essential to promote regional economic, social and territorial cohesion
as well as regional competitiveness and to carry out active regional employment
policy.
Presentations
and discussions during our seminars have shown that future funding of the
Structural Funds should support the development of regional innovation and
competitiveness systems and enable transfer of knowledge and experience from
the science, engineering and technology base.
Alongside support to traditional industrial sectors, the development of
excellence within regions must indeed be promoted if Europe is to reach the
Lisbon Strategy target to be the most competitive knowledge-based economy in
the world.
When
distributing structural funds between Member States and between regions within
Member States, it will be important that the European Commission and member
States take into account various facets of “regional prosperity”, including
growth potential, innovative environments for business to grow, education and
life long learning systems for a skilled workforce. Cooperation between strong and weaker regions will be an
essential ingredient for success, as would a certain degree of flexibility in
the programming process to manage and accommodate socio-economic change
throughout the lifetime of the programme.
The case for funds to promote cooperation between
regions
We
welcome the creation of a European territorial cooperation objective within the
Structural Funds. We believe this
represents an activity of high added value to all European regions and
therefore sufficient funding should be devoted to this objective. Cooperation across maritime borders should
be recognised as being as important as cooperation across land borders.
Regional
and local authorities should be fully involved in defining the cooperation
areas – be they cross-border or transnational areas – and should be involved in
the interregional management structures and the delivery of the cooperation
programmes.
We
encourage the Commission to continue to make interregional cooperation open to
ALL regions to foster long-term sustainability, as this is vital to strengthen
links between regions in the former EU 15 and the new 10 Member States.
We
fully support the Commission’s proposal to create European cross border
groupings to facilitate the delivery of the cooperation programmes and projecst.
To conclude
Dynamo
Regions welcomes the Commissions’ new approach to use the Structural Funds to
implement the Lisbon and Gothenburg Agendas.
We believe that a bottom up approach is needed and will help the Dynamo
Regions to support the Commission in achieving this ambitious goal.
Thank
you for allowing us to present our views and ideas before the Commissioners
present, the President of the CoR and this prominent audience.