Contribution of French Regions:
Lower Normandy, Corsica, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Nord-Pas de Calais and Picardy
Traduction of Courtesy
As President of the Lower Normandy, Corsica, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Nord-Pas de Calais and Picardy regions, we welcome the proposals presented by the European Commission in the conclusions of its 5th report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, which call for the maintenance of an ambitious cohesion policy that concerns all European regions and focuses on the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, provided that these are consistent with the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion.
We applaud the European Commission’s decision to open the debate on the future of the cohesion policy and, in this respect, we fully support the position taken by the Association of French Regions (ARF), but feel it necessary to elaborate on certain points.
Towards a cohesion policy with a clearer and more egalitarian structure for intermediate regions
It should be remembered that reducing economic, social and territorial disparities, divisions and inequalities remains a key unifying issue for the EU, and working towards the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy must not involve marginalising certain areas.
Alongside a territorial cooperation objective, and as part of a global “cohesion” objective, we would strongly advocate the re-classification of regions into 3 categories, convergence – intermediate – competitiveness, so as to facilitate understanding of future cohesion policy’s structure.
As part of this approach, we are calling for the implementation of transitional support for regions which not only complete their convergence process but which also, having made the regional competitiveness and employment objective an integral part of their current programme, remain fragile from a socio-economic point of view.
Regions whose economies remain fragile…
It is important to remember that the main socio-economic indicators of our regions are still highlighting structural difficulties, characterised, depending on the region, by unemployment rates higher than the national average and a fairly weak economic fabric, dominated by sectors with low added value and limited growth prospects. Over the last few years, some of these sectors have experienced industrial setbacks that have had dramatic consequences for the local labour force, with the adoption of numerous social programmes that keep several of our regions trapped in a structurally fragile economic situation.
1 Our agriculture-based regions are suffering in particular from the effects of depopulation and the closing of public services in rural areas.
Generally speaking, regardless of the economic sector concerned, regional economic growth continues to be impaired by several key factors: a fledgling ability to innovate, a weak research and development sector, insufficient entrepreneurial spirit and a lack of strategic jobs (upper tertiary roles).
Furthermore, other socio-economic indicators point to certain worrying social trends within our regions. For some of these regions, their ageing population is causing difficulties in the job market (company transfer and takeover problems, recruitment issues in certain sectors, etc.). For others, their youthful population often suffers from low qualification levels, which is reflected in a high unemployment rate amongst this particular age group. At the same time, limited job markets are forcing many of our young graduates to leave our regions to start their working lives elsewhere, thereby exacerbating the regional demographic trend in some of our regions.
Put more concisely, our regions are shown to have some of the lowest human development indexes (an indicator combining demographics, education levels and economic development) of all French metropolitan regions.
… require specific forms of support
It cannot be denied that the cohesion policy has helped to improve growth and prosperity within our regions, but we can only conclude that the pace of our growth is too slow and that our GDP per capita remains well below the national (cf. appended statistical data) and EU averages.
There is therefore a very real risk that our regions will be left behind if they do not receive the appropriate help and support during the next programme period.
As a result, we are demanding the implementation of a simple, fair and effective system designed to take into account intermediate regions; a system that will include all European regions with a GDP per capita of between 75% and 90% of the EU average. Based on the clear and recognised criterion of GDP per capita, this category will provide an unbiased mechanism for bringing together those regions under the current convergence objective and the regional competitiveness and employment objective.
Comparing statistical data from intermediate regions currently eligible under the regional competitiveness and employment objective with data from intermediate regions under the current convergence objective highlights a number of similar economic situations.
In such conditions, it is impossible to justify treating these regions differently, and the regions with comparable GDP per capita must be treated in a similar way. This is a perfect illustration of the fundamental principle of equality of treatment, which means the ban of discriminations consisting in treating different situations in the same way and identical situations differently.
Introducing this third category for regions situated between the “least developed” and the “most developed” ones will make it possible to reduce the unjust consequences caused by thresholds and encourage the implementation of optimum conditions designed to enable our
2 regions to achieve their objectives for sustainable growth, employment, social inclusion and competitiveness.
Fund allocation methods designed to heighten the impact of funds on regional growth
We approve the Commission's intention to strengthen the leverage effect of European funds across our regions by concentrating these funds towards a limited number of thematics.
However, within the framework of a new intermediate category’s implementation for the next programme period, we consider it necessary to be in a position to use the funds on the basis of a wider range of priorities and flexible cofunding rates (ERDF and/or ESF) peculiar to the category of intermediate regions. Therefore, whilst being careful not to detract from other issues pertinent to individual regions, we are particularly keen to highlight two structuring elements to boost the competitiveness of our territories. The first is to make them more accessible through high performance, sustainable transport infrastructure and universal high speed broadband connections. The second is to create the right conditions for encouraging research development, by providing support for the appropriate infrastructures.
In terms of transport, several of our regions remain isolated from the main European transport axes, and find themselves marginalised as a result. Others, whilst better served, run the risk of being merely areas that are travelled through, and/or excessively polarised around major urban centres, to the detriment of other parts of the region territory. Future structural Funds should help fund new sustainable transport infrastructures, be they standard or high speed railway lines, port infrastructures or secondary waterways.
In terms of research and development (R&D), the Europe 2020 strategy highlights how far the European Union is lagging behind in comparison with its main global competitors, and emphasises the importance of stepping up support in this area. Despite the efforts made over the course of several years, our regions are yet to fulfil the conditions required for successful R&D growth. Unsurprisingly, the amount of infrastructure found to be obsolete – in both the higher education and the research sector - remains too high. Renovating and adapting research premises, as well as increasing the capacity to accommodate both students and researchers, are fundamental conditions required in order to develop R&D and achieve scientific excellence. We are therefore requesting permission to use one part of the structural Funds to enable our regions to shorten the time it takes to catch up in these areas.
Finally, we would like to point out that other European policies and measures, particularly those relating to transport, energy, environment, agriculture, competition and SGEIs, etc. have a resulting effect on regions’ economic, social and territorial cohesion. With cohesion policy closely linked to the national regional aid regulations, we would therefore request that the entire territory covered by our regions be eligible for article 107.3.c) of the Treaty.
3
************************
In conclusion, within the context of the next structural Funds programme period, the French regions of Lower Normandy, Corsica, Languedoc-Roussillon, Limousin, Lorraine, Nord-Pas de Calais and Picardy strongly back the move to implement a new category of intermediate regions, which would adopt the criterion of GDP per capita to group together regions under the convergence objective as well as those under the regional competitiveness and employment objective.
Laurent BEAUVAIS Paul GIACOBBI Christian BOURQUIN Jean-Paul DENANOT Président de la Région Président du Conseil Président de la Région Président de la Région Basse-Normandie Exécutif de Corse Languedoc-Roussillon Limousin
Jean-Pierre MASSERET Daniel PERCHERON Claude GEWERC Président de la Région Président de la Région Président de la Région Lorraine Nord-Pas de Calais Picardie
4
STATISTICAL ANNEX
Regional GDP per capita EU27 (2005-2007) Source : Eurostat
French Regions covered by the Regional Compettiveness and Employment objective 2007-2013 and potentially eligible to the intermediary category post 2013
2006 2007 Average 2006-2007
Basse-Normandie 89,4 88,3 88,85 Corse 85,8 84,5 85,15 Languedoc-Roussillon 86,1 85,6 85,85 Limousin 89,5 87,7 88,6 Lorraine 89 88,7 88,85 Nord-pas de Calais 88 88,2 88,1 Picardie 86,3 85,7 86 Moyenne nationale 109,5 108,5 109
European Régions covered by the Regional Compettiveness and Employment objective 2007-2013 and potentially eligible to the intermediary category post 2013
2006 2007 Average 2006-2007
Burgenland (AU) 82,1 81,4 81,75 Province du Hainaut 77,1 75,3 76,2 (BE) Brandenburg – Nordost 75,5 76,1 75,8 (DE) Mecklenburg-Volpommern 78,8 81,1 79,95 (DE) Chemnitz (DE) 81,1 82,6 81,85 Thüringen (DE) 81,6 83 82,3 Sachsen-Anhalt (DE) 82,4 83,6 83 Lüneburg (DE) 84 83,7 83,85 Brandenburg – Südwest 85 87,3 86,15 (DE) Dresden (DE) 87,4 87,7 87,55 Leipzig (DE) 87,7 88,6 88,15 Andalucia (ES) 80,8 81,2 81 Castilla la Mancha (ES) 81,1 81,5 81,3
Galicia (ES) 86,5 88,8 87,65 Murcia (ES) 86,9 87,1 87 Dytiki Makedonia (GR) 76 75,8 75,9
5 Peloponnisos (GR) 77 75,7 76,35 Kriti (GR) 82,8 83,7 83,25 Malta (MA) 76,9 76,4 76,65 Mazowieckie (PL) 83,6 87,1 85,35 Algarve (PT) 81,2 79,6 80,4 Bucuresti – Ilfov (RO) 83,8 92,2 88 West Wales and Valley 77,3 73,4 75,35 (UK) Cornwall and Iles of 77,6 75,2 76,4 Scilly (UK) Highlands and Islands 90,4 87,2 88,8 (UK)
6