Two major concerns emerged at the High Conference on Post-2020 Cohesion Policy in Sofia on Friday 8 June: the first on the level of budget cuts foreseen by the European Commission, and the second on the formula used for the breakdown of funding at national level.
‘I would say to a large extent there are differences, the major issues are based on mathematics and geography,’ said Bulgarian deputy prime minister Tomislav Donchev after the first debate.
Donchev clarified his comments to this newsletter, explaining that the two big issues occupying the co-legislators would be the total level of cohesion spending and the breakdown of funding among the member states.
In the first debate, many interventions expressed concern about the suggested budget cuts (around 105 of the current budget, see EUROPE 12029, 12031). Iskra Mihaylova (ALDE, Bulgaria) hoped a balanced solution would be found on this, while Lambert van Nistelrooij (EPP, the Netherlands) said the European Parliament would ask the Commission to present not only the model used for granting funding, but also the figures behind it, in order to determine whether the proposal on the table was balanced.
Backed by the secretary general of the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions CPMR), Eleni Marianou, the president of the Committee of the Regions (CoR), Karl-Heinz Lambertz described the ‘strong’ cuts in Cohesion Policy and territorial cooperation as ‘disappointing.’ He felt they were a mistake as Europe is the continent with the greatest density of borders in the world. Lambertz also regretted the planned cuts in the European Rural Development Fund (ERDF).
Slovakia expressed concern about the revised methodology for allocating funding, which it said generated more questions than answers. It hoped a re-balancing would be possible to avoid the cuts directly penalising the least developed regions.
Belgium asked why the European Commission had cut the budget for territorial cooperation. On Friday afternoon, there member states, including Slovenia and Croatia, also regretted the budget cuts.
Oettinger says an objective method was used
At a press conference, Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger said that the formula used by the Commission (known as the Berlin method) was objective.
The Commission proposes the following breakdown, based on 81% of GDP per inhabitant; - 15% for criteria relating to the employment market (level of unemployment, particularly of young people, and level of employment), education (early school leavers and tertiary education) and demographics; - 3% for those linked to migration from outside the EU; - 1% for indicators relating to climate (the level of greenhouse gas).
Questions and concerns were raised in Sofia relating to nationalising the European Social Fund+ (see EUROPE 12030). Some member states expressed concern about the rigidity of thematic concentrations and rejected the ‘one-size fits-all-approach’ recommended by the Commission. Other delegations did not take kindly to the shortening to two rather than three years of the timeline for closing projects (N+2). Some, like Germany, doubted the possibility of reprogramming funding mid-term, which it said would cause new administrative burdens. Others said the simplification proposals lacked ambition.
On the latter point, the director general of regional policy, Marc Lemaître, said the Commission would soon be giving details of its 50 proposals.
To a question from this newsletter about the impact of Brexit on Cohesion Policy post-2020, Oettinger said it would not be useful to set up a special fund to help countries negatively impacted by the United Kingdom leaving the EU, scheduled for March 2019. He said the EU would have instruments for dealing with asymmetrical shocks.
The EPP in the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12033) and the CPMR, are considering such a fund.
Oettinger said the European Summit in June would be ‘decisive’ because the net contributing countries would have to be won over to supporting a strong Cohesion Policy. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)