Summary of views on the 2nd Cohesion Report Regions of Eastern , 27.8.2001

Regions of South , , , and

Starting point:

- The EU regional policy is important for the development of Eastern Finland regions.

- During the period 1995-1999 Eastern Finland was covered by the Obj 6, 5b and Interreg II A programmes. Of these the Obj 6 programme area was defined in the Accession Treaty of Finland and Sweden on account of specific circumstances of sparse population.

- In the present period until 2006 the South Savo, North Karelia, North Savo and Kainuu regions form an Obj 1 programme area. At the same time East Finland has an A support status according to Article 87.3 of the Treaty, allowing allocation of higher state aid. The region of is covered by the Obj 2 programme. In addition there are two Interreg III A programmes implemented in the area.

- The Eastern Finland regions consider that the additionality principle has not been followed in the implementation of the regional development programmes.

- The Eastern Finland (NUTS II area) GDP has lowered by 2.3 % between 1995-1999 in comparison to the EU average, and by over 5 % in comparison to the national average. It is very likely that the GDP/capita of Eastern Finland will not exceed 75 % of EU15 average without (national) specific measures.

Views on the future Cohesion Policy:

- The enlargement and increase of territorial inequality means that sufficient structural policy resources are required to guarantee a stable regional development. It seems that the proposed 0.45 % of the GDP will not be enough in the enlarged Union.

- The areas lagging behind should be the target of development also in the future Cohesion Policy. These areas need to be taken into account so that the eligibility criteria are defined for both the existing and the new Member States. Also unemployment and negative population trend should be taken into account in addition to the GDP criterion.

- Specific treatment of the sparsely populated areas were taken into account in the Accession Treaty of Finland to the EU. Specific problems of these areas (sparse population, small size of population centres, periferic location, long distances, cold climate) are permanent disadvantages to the business and industry, and have impact on the development of the area. Sparse population should still be taken into consideration when the geographically problematic areas and areas with difficult nature conditions will be defined. Eastern Finland Objective 1 regions and Objective 2 regions bordering to are examples of such areas.

P:\Web debate site\1 Member States and Regions and Candidate Countries\Finland\Regions of 1 Eastern Finland-27.08.01-summary.EN.doc - Development of the external borders of the EU is important. Especially the eastern border should be brought forward stronger in the next Structural Fund period. At the same time compatibility of the EU and cross-border programmes with Russia should be emphasized so that the regions themselves have the decision-making powers over the implementation of their border programmes.

- The present Structural Fund management should be simplified and developed. Local and regional decision-making should be emphasized more in future. Planning, implementation and decision-making of the development programmes should take place in the regions, under the leadership of the regional development authorities.

P:\Web debate site\1 Member States and Regions and Candidate Countries\Finland\Regions of 2 Eastern Finland-27.08.01-summary.EN.doc