The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CRPM) believes the combination between the structural and investment funds and the EU Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is extremely cumbersome and should be completely revised for the next financial period, according to the political position adopted on Thursday 22 June by its political bureau.
The organisation's objections are many in number. It reiterates that the EFSI is not bound by the same constraints as the structural and investment funds (SIF) as regards State aid, which is a point regularly made by the regions (see EUROPE 11810). It regrets the fact that the SIF are taken into account in the calculation of debt, unlike the EFSI – a point which is regularly debated in the European Parliament (see EUROPE 11791). The same goes for the audit and control rules: the cohesion policy is subject to a weighty control system, whilst the EFSI is subject to just one single criterion. In this framework, as well as highlighting the inequality of treatment between the cohesion policy and the EFSI, the organisation lays emphasis on the difficulties encountered in combining the cohesion policy and the Juncker plan.
The organisation's analysis is as follows: due to its long-term nature, the cohesion policy is a better fit for SMEs, research and development and social issues (employment market, youth unemployment, social integration, etc.), while the EFSI is more suitable to respond to the needs of large-scale projects, particularly in the fields of energy and transport. The CPMR therefore proposes clearly ringfencing the SIF and the EFSI and focusing the combination of these on major regional infrastructure projects, taking the regions into account. The organisation is also calling for the EFSI to take account of risks related to certain regional specifics, for instance in the extremely remote and island regions.
An end to macro-economic conditions and a "regionalised" European Semester. Like the European Parliament (see EUROPE 11807), the CPMR is in favour of scrapping macro-economic conditions for the forthcoming period. The reason given remains the same: in the view of the regions, it is an unfair mechanism that punishes the regional level for policies issued nationally. Conversely, ex-ante conditions have proven their worth and should be maintained in the next period, albeit in a simplified form, the organisation argues. In particular, it believes that the European Semester budgetary exercise should have a greater regional dimension. Here, the organisation is calling for structured dialogue on cohesion within the EU in the framework of the European Semester, involving the management authorities on a more formal basis.
One regulation, no differentiation in audits and controls. Like Commissioner Cretu, the CPMR is calling for a single regulation to be adopted for the forthcoming period, including for the cost calculation method. The organisation is calling for a single online system and, in particular, a single control and audit system. This position appears to deviate from the general tendency calling for differentiation on the basis of risk in the implementation or of the sums invested (see EUROPE 11805). The CPMR proposes reducing controls at national level or increasing the error tolerance threshold on expenditure from 2% to 5%. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)