At the request of the Committee of the Regions, the interview with Mercedes Bresso, CoR President, published in EUROPE 10494, has been amended as follows:
Brussels, 15/11/2011 (Agence Europe) - Mercedes Bresso, the president of the Committee of the Regions (CoR), provides us with her interpretation of the European Commission (EC) proposal on the future of cohesion policy. The institutional organisation she presides over is the main stakeholder affected by the new regulations and budgets proposed for European structural funds and the programming on 6 October for the 2014-2020 programming period. Today, Bresso expresses her concerns regarding the forthcoming year of negotiations and her point of view regarding the position of the regions in the European architecture. (MD/transl.fl)
AGENCE EUROPE - Are you concerned about the way in which the negotiations will go with regard to cohesion policy funding for 2014-2020?
Mercedes Bresso - I am not yet overly concerned, no, but it is clear that there are some areas of concern, yes. The letter from the eight member states requesting a reduction in the European budget (EUROPE 10457) and the fact that this has been publicly repeated by some of the states has all left us feeling rather uneasy. However, the position of the European Parliament is very clear, as is the position put forward by several members of the Council. We are somewhat reassured by the fact that the regions of some major states, particularly the signatory states of the letter, wield significant power and are all absolutely in favour of cohesion policy. Therefore, even if there is a reduction in the overall budget, which I certainly would not want, I tend to think that the cohesion policy budget is unlikely to be greatly affected.
AE - You have criticised macro-economic conditionality. Do you think this will be discarded during or after the negotiations?
M.B. - Ours is not the only voice raised against macro-economic conditionality. First and foremost, there are the consumers at every level and then the Parliament, which is firmly and clearly against, and many states, which have said they will oppose it.
My impression on this proposal is that it reflects an attitude for keeping deficit states in check, an attitude that is long outmoded. We are putting in place mechanisms that are more robust and binding. The threat of withdrawing funds is not compatible with the real situation, where Commissioner Johannes Hahn visits southern Italy, for example, to agree to reduce the national level of co-funding and allow European funding to be used. I am fairly confident that we will be able to either ultimately get rid of the macro-economic conditions completely or put them in such a strait-jacket that they are rendered unusable.
We have analysed things at a legal level. It is unlikely that macro-economic conditionality can be brought before the courts for breach of subsidiarity but, on the other hand, it has a very weak legal basis. We shall be working on this in conjunction with the Parliament and the Council's legal department.
AE - Would it also be possible to tie the regions in to partnership contracts concluded between the EC and member states, instead of simply integrating the regions upstream?
M.B. - We are currently attempting to develop an understanding because, legally speaking, it would seem that there is no point in the Commission's signing partnership contracts with the states, as this would not be a genuine partnership contract between the EC and the state in question. It would be more a partnership contract demonstrating that the state has the agreement of all stakeholders and, above all, the agreement of the direct users, which are of course the regions, and also the cities. If we look at things this way, partnership contracts would look very much like the regional pacts which we called for in the EUROPE 2020 strategy because we have always advocated a preliminary state-region-territory pact, allowing the state to negotiate with the Commission on this basis.
It would, in any case, be better because we are going to be confronted with an objective overload (EUROPE 2020, spending rules and usual cohesion policies). It will therefore be necessary to decide together what will be important and what we should push to attain the objectives of EUROPE 2020.
It is our view that it is important to clarify the procedure from the outset and that the Commission should also know that the regions, the towns and the other partners - all those who will be bringing the project to fruition - are committed.
AE - How would you describe relations between the CoR and the other institutions? Do you have the impression that the regions have been left out of the institutional architecture?
M.B. - I believe that, increasingly, the various European institutions recognise that we represent an essential level of government, the regions and local authorities. It is increasingly acknowledged that nothing can be done at European level without good partners at regional and local levels. We are the interlocutor with whom dreams can be made into reality. Even our relations with the Council, which were previously the most difficult and the most distant, have considerably improved. Relations with the EP have become excellent and truly productive, as has always been the case with the Commission. There is greater awareness of our value at European level.