Brussels, 15/09/2014 (Agence Europe) - In Brussels, the centre of gravity in regional policy has shifted eastwards and become more feminine. Political horse-trading has seen Corina Cretu of Romania designated as regional policy commissioner and Bulgarian Iskra Mihaylova as the chair of the European Parliament's regional development committee.
Both come from countries which take a lot of structural funding but which are not always the best at absorbing them (52.9% for Bulgaria and 37.6% for Romania in July 2014 for the period from 2007 to 2013).
Mihaylova is a newly elected Liberal MEP and has won the only committee chairmanship allocated to the ALDE Group in the negotiations that followed the European elections. She succeeds Danuta Hubner (EPP, Poland) who is, of course, a former European commissioner for cohesion policy.
Another piece of political manoeuvring meant that Cretu, a Romanian Socialist MEP, would be designated to replace Johannes Hahn of Austria. Pressed by the incoming Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, desperate for more women to join his Commission, the Romanian government elected at the last moment to put forward Cretu. Bucharest was thus able to negotiate a strategic portfolio and one of importance for the country, squeezing out current agriculture commissioner Dacian Ciolos, who is also from Romania, in passing.
That two key posts in managing cohesion policy be placed in the hands of two MEPs, novices at EU level and from countries which cannot boast the proudest of records, may, at first sight, seem somewhat injudicious. Particularly as it will be for Cretu to handle the reform of cohesion policy, shifting it, precisely, more towards performance. The current Romanian MEP will undoubtedly be tackled by her counterparts on this issue at her hearing before the Parliament, scheduled for the end of the month (in addition to possible past links with the KGB). Romania is the second worst country, ahead only of Croatia, in terms of absorption of European structural funds for the previous planning period, 2007-2013 (a further year is allowed for the absorption of the money available). Over the last few years, Romania has not been spared by scandals over the management of European money made available to it. Juncker has thus presented Romania and Cretu with a massive challenge. He has charged Cretu with “boosting the absorption of European funds” and guaranteeing that the new partnership agreements between the Commission and the member states for European funding 2014-2020 are “well targeted and have a swift impact”. May Juncker's choice be interpreted as a sign of encouragement for Bucharest? It should be noted that the country has recently made serious efforts to improve matters in cohesion policy. Romania was, indeed, one of the first countries to sign its partnership agreement with the Commission on good performance and strategic use of structural funding until 2020. (MD)