Luxembourg, 24/04/2012 (Agence Europe) - Storm clouds are brewing over cohesion policy funding within the next multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020, due to the opposition between, on one hand, the net contributor countries of the EU that wish to make cuts in funding and, on the other, the cohesion-friendly countries that are calling for the policy to have at least the current programming level in the future. On Tuesday 24 April, in Luxembourg, the General Affairs Council did not come to a decision on the future budget and also voiced contention regarding certain chapters of cohesion policy, such as the introduction of a safety net, the capping of structural fund allocations, the introduction of a transitional region category, macroeconomic conditionality, and the Connecting Europe Facility.
The General Affairs Council provided an occasion for those in favour of “spending better” (Austria, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden) to confront the “friends of cohesion” (Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia). The latter consider that the Commission's budgetary proposal on cohesion policy is an absolute minimum and that the policy cannot be used as the adjustment variable for reducing the budget proposed.
As austerity is in the air, a number of member states such as Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy, criticised the introduction of a category of “intermediary regions” (a category that is nonetheless supported by France, Belgium and Poland). Those defending the intermediary region category consider it is necessary to focus one's efforts on the poorest regions, the developing regions. Some countries nonetheless called for transition mechanisms to be kept in place for convergence regions after the programming period.
In order to ensure their regions receive minimum funding, a number of countries have put forward the idea of a floor “safety net” (for the moment, 55% of amounts allocated between 2008 and 2010, albeit on hold at this stage in the negotiating box). This has given rise to the proposal which could be attributed to Germany, of an inverted safety net: - capping of allocations for the next programming stage but without figures being set as yet. During the talks, however, many countries (including Poland, Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Spain) criticised the idea of this digressive safety net.
The question of capping was again discussed, with the Baltic states and Hungary feeling that a maximum allocation level of 2.5% of their GDP was detrimental to them. Due to the crisis, this has fallen considerably. These countries therefore feel unjustly penalised by the ceiling established given that they have exemplary rates of absorption for European funding. At this stage, the negotiating box opens up the possibility of another percentage (2.X) for countries with GDPs lower than the EU27 average in 2008-2010.
Finally, the principle of macroeconomic conditionality (suspension of structural funds for a country that has breached the Stability and Growth Pact rules) is still making life difficult for the Danish Presidency. A clear dividing line is taking shape between those in favour of spending better, who uphold the principle, and those who are friends of cohesion, and who call for more reflection in order to ensure the mechanism is used equitably and who want conditionality to concern only future commitment appropriations and not payment appropriations.
The Connecting Europe Facility (aid for investment in crossborder transport infrastructure) was again discussed by several member states, all the more as it is planned that €10 billion earmarked for this should come from the cohesion policy budget. For some member states, savings should be made here in order to alleviate the EU budget. (MD/transl.jl)