22.2.2008

Bringing the extremes closer together is a main goal of the EU regional policy

How can the differences be reduced between the hyper-urbanized and the non-prestigious regions in Europe? How can some remote, boundary and high-mountain areas become attractive for living and doing business? The European Union has long found the answer to these questions, choosing the cohesion (because the term cohesion means exactly bringing the extremes closer) as a main political tool. In order for this tool to work, the EU has established a number of sound financial depots, such as the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Funds.
Would however the spending of those funds lead directly to the desired impressive growth? This is the analysis performed by the European Commission in the Fourth Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. The regional policy issues were discussed over the past week at a plenary session in Strasbourg, and this is the field within which falls the non-legislative report by the French Democrat Ambroise Guellec who established that the cohesion policy often conceals increasing differences between the regions even when the latter demonstrate formal cooperation.
I would like to stress here that even the recent approval of the set of reports by Strasbourg will not end the discussion on whether the regional policy actually leads to unification of standards and increase in the quality of life of all citizens of Europe. Since the Committee on Regional Policy at the European Parliament, whose Vice-Chairwoman I am, places a constant accent on these topics, I will try to summarize the Bulgarian contribution to this discussion and outline my proposals, which this week became part of the guidelines of the European policy.
Along with the approval of the Fourth EC Cohesion Report, the European Parliament in Strasbourg discussed in detail the regional policy of the European Council and it became clear how and in what areas will the application be intensified of the major mechanisms and financial tools. I joined this discussion by suggesting new texts and editorial changes, which I am positive will contribute to the increase of the standard of living in the regions in need of support. My task is to guarantee that the interests of all Bulgarians are protected and that the targeted priorities will lead directly to increasing the standard in those Bulgarian areas that need more European reforms.
As a result, four of my six suggestions were recoded as Bulgarian contribution to the cohesion policy. For example, my statement that ‘this report, which is more detailed than previous ones, contains a variety of indicators and gives useful comparative data for other countries such as the United States, Japan, China and India, reflecting the international context in which the EU economies operate’ was entered in the final report.
My opinion was also accepted that attention should be paid to the fact that not always and not all governments appreciate sufficiently the potential of cohesion as a political tool. The text I suggested on enhancing the trans-boundary cooperation also became an integral part of the European Parliament position on cohesion policy, and namely by:

• Noting that increasing differences at the regional and local scale can be observed in many areas with regard to occupation, productivity, income, educational levels, and innovation capacity;
• Highlighting also the role of territorial cooperation in support of overcoming those issues.
• Further, Paragraph 32 of the report features my amendment, which is of particular significance to the Bulgarian conditions with regard to unifying the standard of living in the villages and towns:
• 'Recommends better interlinking of urban and rural issues;
• Stresses that the development of rural areas should be coordinated with the ongoing activities carried out as part the regional policy;
• Expresses concern about the usefulness of a separate approach to cohesion and rural development (via FEADER);
• Demands studying the consequences from increasing the funds intended for rural development by the mechanisms of compulsory modulation.'
• One of my proposals was aimed at increasing the cooperation between the nations and the regions within them through public-private partnerships at a local scale. I am positive that the other major key factor for successful cohesion is to support educational opportunities and to invest intensively in the education of minority groups. Among my future tasks as an European politician is to identify better mechanisms for ensuring equal access to labour market for minority groups.
• Next I placed an accent on the need to supplement the structural funds and tools for financial stimulation of agricultural regions within EU countries. This is the direct way to increase the quality of life of the Bulgarians, and it would also have a positive impact on the balanced development of the entire European Union.
• My experience as a former minister without portfolio at the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha government helped me in my work as a Member of the European Parliament, and allowed me to be precise and to contribute by providing guidelines on correcting and facilitating the usage of the specialized Solidarity Fund. This fund is intended to provide timely and adequate support to Member States when they face the need to deal with natural disasters and accidents. I received support by my colleagues from the Committee on Regional Policy and also by the delegates at the plenary session in Strasbourg for Paragraph 45 of the final report that reads:
• ‘Recalls also the importance of adopting the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund within the establishment of an efficient overall policy for protection against natural disasters and emergencies, which provides for timely and adequate measures in response to natural disasters, which are often devastating in certain regions because of their geographical situation.’
• To summarize what has been accomplished, I would like to point out that the European parliament adopted a pragmatic approach to the improvement of cohesion as a main tool of the European policy, and that will certainly lead to direct benefits for the Bulgarian population.