Brussels, 04/05/2012 (Agence Europe) - The Committee of the Regions has perfected its stance on the Commission's legislative proposals for reforming cohesion policy for the post-2013 programming period. Representatives of the regions of Europe adopted several opinions on this during their plenary session on Thursday 3 May: - on the Common Strategic Framework (CSF), on regulations relating to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), on the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund.
Common Strategic Framework. Catiuscia Marini (PES, Italy) developed the CoR's position on the five-fund CSF (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, EAFRD and EMFF). CoR representatives took Marini's stance on board, rejecting the macro-economic condition. The Commission's proposal provides for funding to be suspended if a member state does not comply with the budgetary stability pact. The Committee of the Regions has always been firm in its condemnation of this possibility, seen as a double sanction against member states. Furthermore, the CoR does not support the Commission's proposal on the creation of a performance reserve (5% of funding set to one side and redistributed to the best pupils). However, the CoR is in favour of a flexibility reserve. Not having commitments for any one specific purpose, the reserve may finance more experimental projects or come into play in times of crisis. The CoR also takes up the fight on the partnership contract (which would link member states to the Commission for the management of programmes financed by the structural funds). Marini's opinion underlines the need for regional authorities to be involved in the development of such partnerships, especially when it comes to defining conditionality and sanctions stipulated in contracts. On the other hand, the CoR opinion acknowledges that the proposal for a category of regions in transition is of use, and that ex ante conditions are needed so that funding may be granted. However, regions are still calling for greater flexibility for thematic objectives, and for these to be focused on the EU 2020 strategy. They believe it would be useful for the local authorities themselves to determine what their objectives should be, and that they should not have to keep within capping thresholds.
ERDF - not restrictive. The idea of quotas displeases Michael Schneider (EPP, Germany), who drafted the CoR's opinion on the ERDF, also adopted on 3 May. The opinion is opposed to establishing rigid spending quotas for thematic objectives. In the same vein, the opinion rejects “restrictive concentration” of ERDF resources on three thematic objectives (research/innovation, competitiveness/SME, and a low-carbon economy). The Commission's proposal on this would restrict the ERDF's margin of manoeuvre, the CoR deplores.
European Social Fund - for all. ESF Rapporteur Konstantinos Simitsis (PES, Greece) also regrets the rigid nature of ESF participation depending on the regional category. He also bases his argument on the principle that all regions, irrespective of their category, should be able to receive ESF intervention. Even those that are not lagging behind in development may be faced with pockets of poverty. The CoR also points at the lack of funding foreseen by the Commission. Although the ESF has had its means modestly increased, the report explains, it is weaker than it would seem, given that this structural fund will henceforth be responsible for food aid for the EU's poorest (hitherto under the responsibility of the common agricultural policy).
Precaution on Connecting Europe Facility. Finally, the CoR is relatively less critical about the cohesion fund. The opinion adopted by the local representatives, on the basis of the paper drafted by Romeo Stavarache (ALDE, Romania), above all calls for vigilance so that the budget of the fund is not reduced in favour of the CEF (whose aim it is to finance cross-border projects for the transport, energy and telecoms networks). It is foreseen that the instrument should receive €10 billion from the cohesion fund. The CoR is also concerned by the way the amount of national contributions to this mechanism will be calculated, and by the fact that the facility will be managed in a centralised manner. (MD/transl.jl)