Following the publication of a public consultation on the future of European funds and cohesion policy, the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) provided a heated response and was quick to say that it was “disheartened" after reading the said consultation.
The European Commission published a range of public consultations following the support provided by the College of the European Commission for the project put forward by Budget Commissioner, Günther H. Oettinger, for the next multiannual financial framework (see other article).
Eleni Marianou, the Secretary General of the CPMR, regretted that, “This is not the public consultation on cohesion policy we were expecting. The way this consultation has been framed means it will result in a biased vision of what cohesion policy is and what it should address. We fear that this questionnaire is misleading and poses a threat to the continuation of cohesion policy.” Another source at the CPMR informed EUROPE, “this consultation is not a consultation that focuses on cohesion policy in the true sense of the word but an exercise that seeks to undo this policy for the post-2020 period".
In its press release, the CPMR said that it was deeply concerned by the fact that the consultation does not mention cohesion policy at all apart from a reference to funds in the cohesion domain, which also covers the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), the Fund for European Aid for the Most Deprived (FEAD) and the Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) programme.
The organisation also underlines a number of elements it regards as “disturbing”. First of all, there is a clear hint about the potential “renationalisation” (questions 33 and 34) of cohesion policy, to which the CPMR strongly objects. The organisation particularly points out that there is no reference at all to territorial cohesion or to a territorial dimension of cohesion policy. In its press release the CPMR points out that the “regions are only mentioned once and there are only two mentions of cohesion policy”.
The CPMR also says that it does not understand why the consultation speaks of reducing regional disparities and underdevelopment exclusively “in certain EU regions”, without providing an explanation of why and on what basis the criteria will be set out. The CPMR also says it mixes up treaty objectives, EU objectives and cohesion policy thematic objectives, which fails to reflect the functions of Cohesion policy.
Lastly, the CPMR points out that the consultation states that the Structural Reform Support Programme contributes to achieving the objectives of Cohesion policy but there is no evidence of this contribution.
The CPMR has published a detailed analysis of certain biases it believes the European Commission has introduced in its questionnaire. The organisation’s analysis can be consulted at the following link: http://bit.ly/2meJQnw . On its Twitter account, the organisation published a number of questions it would have liked to see instead. In order to consult these questions please see: http://bit.ly/2mnzliD . (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)