Brussels, 18/11/2015 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 18 November, during the General Affairs Council's meeting on the European Union's cohesion policy, member states highlighted the need to simplify the way in which European structural and investment funds are (ESI) used. Nonetheless, they did not even agree on the common definition of the term, simplification.
This problem, however, was raised by the Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the EU last week at the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU.
Camille Gira, the Luxembourg secretary of state for sustainable development and infrastructure, informed EUROPE that “we do not have a single definitive definition of simplification”. She did, nevertheless, explain that it was not necessary to have a single definition because of the multiplicity of situations and problems encountered.
According to one diplomatic source, diverging views also characterised the timetable for revising cohesion policy. France, supported by Belgium, Cyprus and Poland, called for an immediate modification. The Commissioner for Regional Policy, Corina Cretu, appeared more in favour of a political revision after 2020 (see EUROPE 11377). The Czech Republic, on the contrary, is eager to avoid adding European level instability to that already existing at a European level. This also applied to Portugal, which believed that a redefinition of the objections could prevent them attaining them.
Other points were also raised, such as the issue of who would benefit from the simplification. Lithuania believed that simplification should not just be to the advantage of the final beneficiaries but should also involve operators at every level. Germany put forward the idea of stepping up the level of controls on the basis of the rates of corruption identified in each member state.
Refugee crisis. The reprogramming of funds to help tackle the refugee crisis within the cross-border cooperation programme, INTERREG, was mentioned. Hungary appeared to be the staunchest opponent and argued that the funds allocated to stimulate economic development should not be reprogrammed to help member states bear the costs of taking in refugees. This position is completely different to that of the peripheral and maritime regions (see EUROPE 11426). For the 2007-13 period, Italy has already reprogrammed €220 million. Slovenia and Croatia also said that they would be willing to do likewise, explained the Commissioner. For the 2014-20 period, Italy and Greece intend to reprogramme a certain number of projects. Sweden and Finland would like to do so too, explained another European source.
Gira was pleased to announce that the member states had finally managed to reach an agreement on the use of ESI funds for the transition to a low carbon-based economy. German is said to be very much in favour of this, according to one European source and only Bulgaria expressed a number of reservations about it. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)