Brussels, 08/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - After having brilliantly steered negotiations on behalf of the European Parliament on reform of cohesion policy, Danuta Hübner (EPP, Poland) gave EUROPE her comments, on Thursday 7 November, on the final compromise reached by the regional development committee under her chairmanship (see EUROPE 10959). The reform, which is due to apply from 1 January 2014, must still pass the hurdle of the plenary session at the end of the month. Failure cannot be ruled out, if Hübner's colleagues maintain their rejection of macro-economic conditionality. The former commissioner for regional policy explains why amendments along these lines would not be judicious.
Agence Europe: Are you generally pleased with the compromise your committee adopted this week?
Danuta Hübner: We managed to find a compromise that, I think, is the best possible. But it was a very difficult package, not only because of the huge disparity of views between the EP and the Council but also surprisingly with the European Commission on the approach to those financial issues negotiated over the last two months. This package is acceptable to all political groups as it reflects the diversity of situation across Europe and the regions. The policy will now be much more territorially responsible and moves towards simplification of the policy from the point of view of final beneficiaries, not only from the point of view of management authority. Also, we managed, as the Parliament, to finally achieve a compromise that has dramatically reduced all the risks linked to macro-economic conditionality from the point of view of the interests of regions, of their interest.
It has really been the burning issue of the final negotiations. On this point, is it really such a good deal even if, initially, the EP rejected conditionality?
It is not as if it is a bad compromise. We have changed the initial proposal of the Commission and of the Council dramatically. It just maintains this instrument of sanctioning as a good stimulus for performing well, which was important for the Council and the Commission. I also convinced the Council to change the name, moving away from macro-economic conditionality towards “measures linking the structural funds and investment with sound economic governance in the EU”. I think this link is important because we clearly now have cohesion policy as THE investment tool for the EU which is linked to the entire process of the European Semester, and which is part of this process. But the price for it is that the policy is used as a sanctioning instrument. However, we have deleted the risk of using this instrument too often or too automatically. Indeed, the list of social economic factors to be taken into account before the process of suspension of funding starts is very convincing. It is not only unemployment but the length of the recession, or the poverty level, for example. Additionally, involving the EP in the whole process of suspension of funding was really important.
All these safeguards make us think that the mechanism will, in the end, be impossible to apply.
That is true. It is such a very light form that it brings close to zero the probability of abusing it or using it in a way that would put at risk the funding for continuing the programme. That's why I don't think it deserves a second reading.
However, half of the payments may still possibly be suspended. Does that not give a bad signal to investors? If they are reluctant, then the policy itself might become counter-productive …
Indeed, one might imagine that, if the government is not responsible in its activities on the macro-economic discipline side, then there might be uncertainty given that financing can be suspended. But it will also be the duty of those governments to compensate for the loss, and reimburse from their own budget to allow the projects to be continued. Also, governments care about their political position at home and would not risk being accused of the fact that, because of them, regions or SMEs do not receive their funding. Keeping that in mind, I trust that there is no big risk that will lead to real uncertainty on the continuity of the programmes.
If these arguments are not convincing, is it possible for the whole package to fail in plenary and go into second reading?
That would be a disaster because funding is really awaited by the regions. The second reading would mean an extremely limited possibility for reopening issues already negotiated and agreed. And, in my opinion, there is no hope that we can find a different solution in second reading. That is why I do not see much added value to a second reading. Of course, some colleagues would like a stronger penalty instrument, while others would like to completely abolish this link. It means that there might be a tendency to go to the plenary with amendments. What I find surprising is that, at the end of the day, you just focus on the one or two things that you personally think you did not achieve. But you do not see the 99.9% of solutions with which we are very satisfied. I hope that, before the plenary session, colleagues will take into account the fact that we have a policy framework that is much better than it was in the Commission's initial version back in October 2011. (MD/transl.jl)