Brussels, 21/12/2011 (Agence Europe) - The positions of the Council and the European Parliament (EP) are not far apart on a number of points in the reform of cohesion policy after 2013, in particular on the need for flexibility in concentrating on certain priorities (thematic concentration) and in procedure: both are against delegated acts.
Consideration of the legislative package seeking to revise cohesion policy is continuing. Following discussion among member states' delegations at the General Affairs Council on Friday 16 December (see EUROPE No 10815), MEPs on the regional development committee (REGI) held a second debate on the subject on Monday 19 December. This focused mainly on thematic priorities, the common strategic framework and partnership contracts.
Flexible adjustment to themes. Just like the Council before it, the REGI committee, without rejecting thematic concentration, wants greater flexibility in setting the goals (structural funds should focus on only 11 themes that come out of the EU 2020 strategy). MEPs oppose the use of compulsory quotas for allocating structural funds (the Commission proposal calls for at least 80% of European aid for the most developed region, 50% for transition regions and 20% for the least developed regions to be concentrated on the three priorities of energy efficiency, innovation and support for small businesses). Lambert Van Nistelrooij (EPP, Netherlands), one of the rapporteurs on the common provisions regulation, said that “cohesion policy is more than just fulfilling the EU 2020 strategy”.
No delegated acts. The REGI approach on approving the common strategic framework (CSF) was similar to that taken by the Council at the end of last week: there is no question of it being passed as a delegated act. REGI, too, says it must be subject to the normal legislative procedure. Unlike the Council, however, MEPs did not take a stance on whether the CSF should be annexed to the general regulation (as the Council would like to see), or be a fully separate piece of legislation.
Multi-level partnership contracts. REGI did not adopt the same approach as the Council on partnership contracts. MEPs came out clearly in favour of multi-level governance, with the regions, and indeed, some argued, cities, being more closely involved in drafting partnership contracts. On this point, member states remain elusive, not keen to see their powers slip into the hands of local authorities. From the discussions, in circles other than the institutions too, it is clear that the definition given by the Commission to partnership contracts is too vague and lays itself open to various interpretations. This is a failing that Jan Olbrycht (EPP, Poland) was not slow to flag up: “It should be clarified between whom and whom the contracts are to be signed and if the Commission is to approve contracts between national and local levels”. (MD/transl.rt)