Brussels, 05/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 4 April, EU member states were divided over the future of cohesion policy, especially with regard to funding that must be allocated to the policy during the next EU multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.
COREPER (Committee of Permanent Representatives of EU member states) held an initial discussion on Wednesday on the cohesion policy and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) elements of the “negotiating box”, which is intended to facilitate talks on the 2014-2020 financial framework. This was with a view to preparing discussions scheduled for 23 April between European ministers responsible for general affairs. The next General Affairs Council will also discuss Heading 2 (agricultural spending) and COREPER will discuss the Heading 2 part of the negotiating box on 18 and 19 April.
Generally speaking, delegations that spoke out in COREPER supported the principle whereby support to cohesion policy should focus on the least developed regions and countries of the EU. Positions differed, however, when it came to the scope and exact terms and conditions of cohesion policy.
A number of countries that are net contributors to the EU budget - such as Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Sweden - called for the amounts proposed by the Commission for cohesion policy to be scaled down, in order to contribute to the total reduction of €100 billion advocated by these countries on the whole envelope proposed by the Commission for the 2014-2020 period. The main beneficiary countries of cohesion policy asked to keep a sub-heading for cohesion policy (rather than a sub-ceiling as the Commission had suggested), and preferred to keep the CEF outside this sub-heading.
Some member states backed the concept of transition regions, arguing that regions with a comparable development level should enjoy the same support. Others, however, like Germany, were against the proposal as they consider it costly and prefer the safety net concept for regions that are leaving the convergence objective.
On the capping of cohesion policy transfers to the different member states, some delegations said the option of a differentiated approach (as in §25 of second option) could prove to be a solution. These countries, however, were highly critical of the “reversed safety net”, fearing it might lead to double capping.
As they had done during the last General Affairs Council, several delegations reiterated their request that macro-economic cross conditionality (suspension of funding in the event of breach of Stability and Growth Pact rules) should not only related to cohesion policy, rural development funds and aid to fisheries but also all the other funds from the EU budget.
The performance reserve was favourably viewed by many delegations as long as it is voluntary and restricted to a national reserve.
Many member states felt that the amounts proposed (€10 billion), with regard to the Connecting Europe Facility, were too high given the austerity efforts being made at national level. Some requested that the CEF should focus on transport-related projects.
We would recall that the General Affairs Council on 26 March this year had discussed the first elements of the negotiating box describing the main questions and options relating to certain parts of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020: Headings 1 (smart and inclusive growth), excluding cohesion policy and the CEF; 3 (security and citizenship); 4 (Europe in the world); and 5 (administration), as well as a number of crosscutting subjects, especially that of knowing whether some instruments should fall within the financial framework or remain outside. (LC/transl.jl)