Brussels, 16/12/2011 (Agence Europe) - Member states are formal - they want greater flexibility when it comes to allocating structural funds during the next cohesion policy programming period. They are not opposed, in principle, to the 11 thematic areas into which cohesion projects co-funded by Europe should fall, but they do want regional specificity to be recognised, while remaining in accordance with the objectives of EUROPE 2020 strategy.
The Polish presidency of the EU Council invited member states to discuss the matter, on Friday 16 December, during a General Affairs Council exclusively devoted to cohesion policy and to the Commission's proposals on reform for the 2014-2020 programming period. Member states spoke with a single voice on many points, which clears the ground for the Danish presidency, during the first half of 2012, to continue to lead the negotiations begun.
Thematic approach should be more flexible. The EU27 are not, by definition, opposed to the thematic approach set out by the Commission in its proposals (the 11 thematic areas being: research, ICT, SME, low-carbon economy, adjustment to climate change, environment, sustainable transport, employment, social inclusion, education, and effectiveness of public administration). This is all the more the case as the thematic areas arise from the EUROPE 2020 strategy, corresponding to the national strategies of European member state governments. Nonetheless, member states consider that the mix of priorities must above all be finalised by member states depending on their specific, regional needs. They therefore call for greater flexibility, in agreement with the principle of subsidiarity, as Hungary and Slovakia underline in particular.
Only France states it is fully pleased with the thematic area approach of this kind. Similarly, Sweden does not wish to see any “dilution of thematic concentration” but nonetheless joins the large majority of delegations calling for more margin of manoeuvre. Several countries supported the idea that action to counter youth employment should be among the thematic areas covered (the United Kingdom, Austria and Ireland are among these countries).
Cracks in the ring-fencing. Member states are more categorical about ring-fencing cohesion spending per sector according to the type of region concerned (a mix of energy efficiency, innovation and support for SMEs up to 80% for the most developed regions, 50% for transition regions, and 20% for less developed regions). It is generally the wealthier countries that are opposed to this. Belgium and Slovakia consider it is a matter of having a “bottom up” approach - the regions must determine what their priorities are so that these priorities are then reflected in partnership contracts with the Commission. The United Kingdom does not want its hands tied, while Germany argues that Brussels should not impose at what level resources are to be used. Ireland believes ring-fencing would bring a “harmful degree of complexity” as well as an additional bureaucratic burden. Finland and Sweden share this view.
Four states still find capping rates painful. The Baltic States and Hungary are sticking to their view regarding the fixing of capping rates for maximum allocations at 2.5% of GDP. They interpret this ceiling as a punishment (Estonia). Lowering the ceiling would, they believe, be unjust (Latvia), unacceptable (Hungary) and painful (Lithuania). They call for other Commission proposals, but the European commissioner for regional policy, Johannes Hahn, seems insensitive to this as the College has already approved proposals, capping being also linked to talks on the EU budget and, above all, a rise in GDP being synonymous with improvement, which is the aim of cohesion policy.
Annexed Common Strategic Framework - no delegated act. It is the general opinion of member states that the Commission should also go back to the drawing board at the purely legal level. Most delegations have said they are in favour of adding the Common Strategic Framework (CSF), described by France as very “structuring”, to the regulation stipulating common provisions in the form of an annex. This is a procedural provision that could provide greater political visibility while reducing the risk of delay, the Polish presidency of the EU Council said. Portugal, however, recalls that it will be necessary for changes to be made as quickly as possible early in 2012., On the other hand, several delegations are not happy with the Commission's proposal to bring about the future cohesion policy via delegated act procedure (Belgium, Austria, Ireland, Portugal are among these states). Member states and Parliament should be involved throughout the decision-making process, which provides greater legal certainty, states Elzbieta Bienkowska, Poland's regional development minister. (MD/transl.jl)