Germany is proposing an entirely new approach for the allocation of cohesion funds in the future. According to a Committee of the Regions (CoR) study seen by EUROPE on Thursday 1 June, this approach will abandon the three categories of regions currently in place.
According to the CoR study which compares the position adopted by the CoR for post-2020 cohesion policy (see EUROPE 11787) with a position presented on 11 May by the German government, the latter would encourage the scrapping of the three categories of regions (most developed regions, transition regions and least developed regions) and replace them with a “linear model” that would distribute funds on the basis of per capita GDP. Aid would therefore be inversely proportional to per capita GDP, which would help prevent the effects resulting from the current threshold and provide a more appropriate and accurate application of funding between the regions.
This approach was not, however, envisaged in the CoR opinion, despite the fact that it was put forward by a German member of Saxe-Anhalt, Michael Schneider (EPP), who appears to prefer the current system.
Convergences and divergences between German and CoR positions
The CoR’s internal study obviously illustrates many areas of convergence but also highlights the divergences between the position of the regional and local authorities and that of the federal German government.
The CoR and the German government agree on some crucial points. They agree on: maintaining a strong cohesion policy that covers all European regions; increased simplification of ESI funds and a differentiated approach (audits and controls); the need for a long-term multiannual financial framework; an enhanced role for the cities and metropolitan areas; a rejection of quotas in the use of financial instruments; including ex ante conditions; reform of the “European Semester” in an effort to take territorial factors better into account.
On the other hand, there are areas of major opposition, beginning with what position should macro-economic conditions assume. Germany supports these conditions and is even proposing for them to be strengthened by setting out a one month deadline to the Commission so that the latter can introduce a total or partial suspension of aid. The CoR, however, repeats its clear opposition to this point and sees it as an example of the regions and cities “being taken hostage” in exchange for implementing a policy for which they are not responsible.
Another area of significant difference: setting out conditions for the allocation of funds on the basis of respect for human rights, a position that the CoR rejects. The proposal, however, does appear to be gaining headway. The European Commission has been won over by the idea and it has its supporters, such as Vĕra Jourová, the Commissioner for Justice. It does have its opponents, as well, such as the Commissioner for Regional Policy, Corina Creţu (see EUROPE 11782, 11742).
Finally, on the principle of introducing greater funding flexibility, the CoR and Germany are on the same wavelength. The former, however, would like to provide the authorities with the possibility of managing the reprogramming of some of the funds. Germany, on the other hand, is looking at the idea of setting up a flexibility reserve or a un-programmed reserve that could be used in a unexpected circumstances such as waves of migration.
The German position on the question was expected. The biggest net contributor, will effectively exert its weight in the future negotiations that will officially begin at the end of the year with the European Commission’s proposal.
On 8 and 9 June, member states will examine the subject during an informal meeting in Malta. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)