Toespraak eurocommissaris Hübner over het Europees regionaal beleid als ontwikkelingslaboratorium (en)

SPEECH/07/611

Danuta Hübner

European Commissioner responsible for Regional Policy

"European regional policy - a development laboratory"

Seminar "Regional policy in a global perspective"

Brussels, 9 October 2007

Ministers, Ambassador, Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a real pleasure for me to have the opportunity today to welcome such a distinguished audience which rarely meets in such a configuration. I would thank in particular Ministers Geddal Vieira Lima from Brasil, Minister Du Ying who came from China and Mr Vladimir Chizhov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation accompanied by Brazilian, Chinese and Russian experts.

My warm welcome goes also to the representatives of Norway, Australia, OECD, UNDP, CPMR (Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions), and AER (Assembly of European Regions). They kindly accepted our invitation to come here and present their approach to regional development. And, last but not least, we have in this room representatives from European institutions, Member States, associations, and regional and local authorities from more than 30 countries.

I would like to address three issues which seem to me relevant to our discussion. I will start by briefly looking at the origin and achievements of European regional policy. Then I will say a couple of words on social and economic challenges lying ahead of the Union but also common, to a lesser or greater extent, to the countries represented at this seminar. Finally, in the light of this, I will end up by focusing on cross-cutting elements of European regional policy which may be shared with our partners.

Although the notion of EU cohesion policy can be traced back to the Treaty of Rome, it was not until 1975 that the small European Regional Development Fund was created. In these early years, ERDF operations remained purely national, with little European or regional influence. A more genuine `European' regional policy was given impetus by the Single European Act of 1986, which triggered the creation of Single Market.

I emphasize this, because it was a moment in which cohesion policy moved away from a marginal redistributive policy to a fully fledged development policy, underpinning European economic integration. The economic argument advanced at that time was economic integration tends to strengthen economic activity in the core area, at the expense of poorer regions. Hence, diffusion of economic benefits of integration required an accompanying policy speeding up adjustments in structurally weak regions and countries.

Single European Act designed other three other key features of cohesion policy which were developed over time. They include a regional dimension, an idea of growth based on endogenous resources and a need to tackle structural change. Thus, the Act described social and economic cohesion through the necessity of "redressing regional imbalances" through regions "participating in economic development" and undergoing "structural adjustment".

This formula, firstly, gives the cohesion policy a very clear regional dimension. Hence the idea of regional development, tailored to local needs and resources, which is central to cohesion policy today. Secondly, it calls for the region's participation in economic development. This sets a clear objective for the cohesion policy - it should be about mobilizing local potential of development. Finally, Single European Act mentions the policy which shall foster structural adjustment. This means that its focus should be on the long term change and on overcoming structural barriers to development. Hence the concept of multiannual programming and strategic approach to development.

What have we achieved with the regional policy until now?

Our recently published 4th Cohesion Report shows that EU cohesion policy has played an important role in the convergence process. In shifted Member States' policies towards growth enhancing investments. It reduced social exclusion and poverty by providing skills for the knowledge economy and reinforcing labour market policies. It has improved administration and public governance and it encouraged an integrated approach to development which improves the overall impact of sectoral policies.

On the basis of all of these elements, cohesion policy contributed to more growth and jobs in the Member States. Between 1989 and 1999 the additional GDP growth impact of EU funding has been at 10% in Greece and 8.5% in Portugal. Between 2000 and 2006, it has been in the order of 6% for Greece and Portugal, 4% in the East German Länder and 2.4% in Spain.

If we look at the 2007-2013 period, studies suggest that cohesion policy will add between 5 and 15% to GDP in most of the new Member States, on top of a baseline scenario without cohesion policy. For example, additional 8% of GDP growth for Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are estimated, and 5.5 - 6% for Bulgaria, Poland and Romania, 3% for Greece and 1.5% for Spain, the German Länder and the Mezzogiorno.

This is the picture of today; but we must also think about long term future, about the main challenges the Union is facing and which are likely to have different effects on European regions in economic, social and territorial terms in the years to come.

So, what are the challenges ahead of European Regions?

The 4th Cohesion report depicts European territory at the crossroads of numerous factors of change. Many of them are external in nature, such as accelerating globalisation, rising energy prices, stronger external immigration pressure or emerging climate change. Others are more indigenous in nature, such as population ageing or the struggle to improve the living environment. I am convinced that in the coming years all these challenges will draw the new regional map of Europe and overshadow the borderlines we are used to today - such as those referring to new and old Member States.

This global context gives a new meaning to catching up and makes the role of external developments more prominent than today. We cannot look only at comparisons and convergence within the Union. The role of new cohesion policy must be to help regional economies find their place in world markets, in critical global networks and clusters; to allow them to measure their strengths and weaknesses against global challenges and opportunities and to foster their internationalisation.

These are the challenges which are not only relevant of European territory, I believe. In fact, when we look at our countries in terms of regional disparities, we might see a lot of similarities. So, let us turn to statistics for a while.

Within the Union, the ratio in terms of GDP per head between the richest Member State, Luxembourg, and the poorest one, Bulgaria, is 7.6 to one. In China, the richest region, Shanghai represents 362% of the average GDP per capita in China, which is 11 times more than in Guizhou region (33% of the country average).

We can find also sharp regional differences within Brazil between the North and the more developed South. The richest State, Distrito Federal, represents 196% of the average GDP per capita compared to the poorest State of Maranhao (28.2%). This gives us a ratio seven to one, very close to the Union. Finally the GDP per capita in the richest Russian region of Tyumen is 33 times higher than GDP per capita in the poorest region of Ingushetia.

A similar pattern emerges if we look at the share of GDP produced in the poorest regions which account for 10% of the total population - it is 3,5% in the Union, 4% in China and 3,5% in Brazil. We have no data for Russia but to illustrate the same point we can use another indicator - the share of the 10 wealthy regions (out of total 88) in the country's GDP increased from 41.5% in 1994 to 54.2% in 2002, and in particular from 10.2% to 21.1% in the case of Moscow.

Of course, what is behind these statistics is a number of structural challenges of major relevance for our societies - social polarisation, the developments in the energy market and climate change, the demographic changes and urban-rural divide. What is important, however, is that all these changes and new developments increasingly boil down to one thing - regional development.

So, let me end up by looking back at those key elements of European regional policy which seem to me of the most universal character and relevance to our partners

What makes the Union's experience unique is that it has a range of disparities similar to developing countries rather than economies such as that of US and Japan. This, of course, is mainly the result of the recent enlargements to poorer countries. However, it means that we learned a lot of lessons in putting poor areas, with very different characteristics, back on the track of economic growth and convergence.

The most important asset for this success is, I believe, the effectively functioning system of multi-level governance, based on accountability and partnership. This system which, on one hand, fosters economic efficiency and development through the co-operation between the European, national and regional levels, and on the other, empowers the Union's territories and citizens. Put it in a nutshell, we can harness new resources for the sake of economic development providing that we will involve new actors into economic governance.

Secondly, European regional policy has a clear objective - it is not about redistribution; it is about mobilizing endogenous, local potential of development. Operational Programmes which are negotiated between the Commission on one side and Member States and regions on the other can be compared to contractual arrangements - under which Member States and regions design a development strategy aiming at best use of their growth resources.

The last key element which seems to be worth mentioning here is the recognition of the link between the diffusion of benefits of economic integration and cohesion policy. At the moment of the policy creation, 20 years ago, the economic argument was that Single Market creates winners and losers. This argument is valid today more then ever. We see that the core of the Union and Single Market expanded to previously peripheral areas and that new growth poles - Madrid, Dublin, Lisbon, which will be followed soon by new Member States - burst with economic activities. This would not be achieved without European regional policy.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Our meeting is about co-operation, about networking and exchange of experience. This way of thinking has been present since long in the European regional policy under the form of regional networks and territorial co-operation. Through cooperation we have been pooling our knowledge, talents and resources together, in order to ensure a more efficient, and joint, management of economic, environmental or social challenges.

I am telling you this because it is an important policy asset in light of a which can be drawn from the new growth and business theories. Profound changes in the nature of the global economy give rise to new models of production based on collaboration and lateral agreements rather than on hierarchy and control. This collaboration transcends traditional boundaries between actors of economic development, between competition and co-operation. It takes, for example, a form of open innovation systems where competitors work together on a joint project.

If this new mode of production is to become dominant in the future it is good news to all of us, I believe, and for a number of reasons. Firstly, because it would involve our regions in global networks whose members could collectively benefit from knowledge pooling and sharing. Secondly - and this relates to the first point - because it would mean that the competitiveness is not a zero sum game which can be reduced to shifting finite resources from one place to another. And, finally, because it would involve into co-operation and economic development the whole new range of local and regional actors - giving our citizens more security and confidence about their lives.

I am convinced that with our Regional Policy dialogues we make a right move in this direction, through the recognition, in concrete terms, that we share similar interests, ideals and aspirations.

Thank you very much for your attention.