On Friday 11 May during the annual State of the Union conference at the European University Institute in Florence (see EUROPE 12013), the President of the Committee of the Regions (CoR), Karl-Heinz Lambertz, described the draft 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF) as an "acceptable" starting point. He was, however, opposed to the re-centralisation of the European Social Fund and the proposal to link the granting of European funds to member states with respect for the rule of law (Interview by Lucas Tripoteau and Pascal Hansens).
Agence Europe - What do you think of the European Commission's proposal?
Karl-Heinz Lambertz - Obviously, we could still do a lot better. To use the analogy of a football match, one can say that the Commission has put the ball in almost the middle of the pitch. There were concerns that the match would be much more imbalanced at the beginning, with positions that were much more far removed than ours.
Our position was very voluntarist and similar to that of the European Parliament, which was in favour of capping spending in the EU budget to 1.3% of the gross national income (GNI) (see EUROPE 11981). Some countries, however, also wanted there to be a reduced budget due to the United Kingdom leaving the Union.
Therefore, in my opinion, what the Commission presented, is acceptable, as a starting point, for a debate.
It is now clear that not all the details correspond with the wishes of the Committee of the Regions. A reduction of 5 or 6% in the budget allocated to cohesion is mentioned compared to the current MFF. Nonetheless, as our first analysis and those more objective than ours have already demonstrated, constant price decreases are expected to be higher at around 10%.
We are also concerned about a re-centralisation of European Social Fund (ESF) management, despite the fact that it is very important that this is decentralised.
The real debate, before making any definitive conclusions, will not be able to begin, however, until after the publication of the draft implementing regulations on 29 May. It will be necessary to look at the way in which the funds are going to be managed, as well as the questions relating to the categories for the regions and the distribution criteria, etc.
It is now important to look at the whole of the MFF. How are cohesion and investment funds [like EUInvest, Ed] going to be structured? What shape will these resources take, subsidies, loans, etc? These are the real questions.
What do you think of the Commission's proposal to restrict access to funds in the event of rule of law violations?
First of all, I would like to point out that we are not opposed to respecting European values. On the contrary, we are convinced that this is the only way of Europe moving forwards.
Nonetheless, we have a problem with the Commission's approach of taking the regions and territorial bodies hostage in an effort to penalise infringements to European values or the European Semester, for which responsibility must lie with national government.
This condition can also be used in a demagogic way to strengthen anti-European feeling, especially if the political powers do not come from the same parties at national and regional levels, which is the case in the majority of countries, such as Belgium and Poland.
This is why we do not support this proposal.
What role are you going to play in the MFF negotiations?
Our main objective is to influence these negotiations through the reports that will be drafted by just under 10 rapporteurs appointed at the end of the month. We want to have real power and cohesion in the positions we defend.
We will also continue to take action through the Cohesion Alliance, which originally attempted to influence the Commission's proposal. This task has been fulfilled and we now have to ensure the follow-up and put forward our point of view.
The heads of state and government will perhaps obtain something. Concluding the inter-institutional negotiations before the European elections, as sought by Jean-Claude Juncker (see other article), is really ambitious. I hope that the European Parliament and Council of the EU will achieve this but I am not sure. I am not going to put a huge amount of money on it.
The member states that benefit from Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are much more concerned about the budget cuts to it than the states that benefit from cohesion policy. Who are your allies?
The CAP has always been an emblematic policy and therefore a very sensitive issue. Therefore, I'm not surprised by the reactions. Cohesion is something more diffuse that particularly affects regional bodies and certain states from whence noises have not been quite so loud.
We have strong allies, such as the German Bundesrat. We have also received support from the nine Austrian regions whose position contains a number of nuanced differences with that of the central government.
I also consider that we need a differentiated approach between the different pillars of the CAP. I can effectively see a lot of synergies between pillar II (rural development, ed) and the ERDF and the ESF.
When allocating funds, do we need to use other calculating methods in addition to those based exclusively on GDP?
I've been thinking about this a lot. [about this possibility, Ed].
GDP as the only criterion does not have any qualitative dimension. It is a calculation but if we go into the details, it is extremely complicated in knowing what is being measured or not because these are averages.
We can very easily have a very high GDP but a high level of social injustice.
There is a lot of work to do. This has, indeed been done at the Bundesrat, with regard to how to link wellbeing and the prosperity of a country. We will see how this debate eventually pans out.
I do, nevertheless, agree with the Commission on keeping GDP as a main indicator because we still do not have anything else as reliable.
But, let's begin by examining some other social indicators, such as unemployment. The demographic criterion also counts but, in this case, we need to provide a more detailed analysis because demographics as such cover several different situations, such as migration and urban development.
What do you think of the most recent political developments in Catalonia?
This problem has still not been resolved and is casting a more particular kind of shadow over the European regions.
A certain amount of confusion has been made between the desire for regional autonomy, which is a very legitimate point and indeed indispensable to us, and separatism. We have effectively been accused of supporting the latter cause.
The different lines emanating from Madrid and Barcelona are difficult to understand from a rational point of view. Nonetheless, one thing is certain, the damage done is ultimately going to be an enormous. The main thing today is moving forward and for dialogue to resume on improving the status of Catalonia and putting an end to the state of exception.
It would be good for Catalonia to have another government that is able to operate. Negotiations are needed that achieve a new balance… on a Belgian style arrangement.