In an interview with EUROPE on Thursday 4 October, Frédéric Vallier, Secretary General of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), spoke of the major challenges of cohesion policy in coming months and gave a particularly bitter account of action taken by the current European Commission. (Comments noted by Pascal Hansens)
Agence Europe – Negotiations on the future cohesion policy have now begun. In your view, what are the negative and positive aspects of the European Commission’s proposals?
Frédéric Vallier – It is deplorable that the Commission is cutting the budget for cohesion policy (around 10% compared with the current budgetary cycle). This sends a bad sign to citizens and to their elected representatives. Also, one has the impression that preference is being given to large towns and cities. There is the risk of creating a several-speed Europe. One should help the intermediary towns, the small towns and the rural areas, which are the most in difficulty. It is those regions and territories that are most pitted against digitalisation and globalisation.
What would you recommend to co-legislators?
Access to programmes must be simplified. The territories that need support the most must be helped as in actual fact they find it most difficult to complete dossiers. The rate of co-funding should also be reviewed. The more one demands high co-funding, the more difficult it is for the regions that do not have the means. I know that some say more co-funding means there can be a budgetary envelope for everyone ... at the same time, if budgetary aid is taken away from those who need it the most, there is the risk of misrepresenting cohesion policy.
Above all, we are calling for the principle of partnership between member states and regional and local authorities to become binding. The CEMR was the first to speak of partnership governance instead of multi-level governance, as the latter underpins a hierarchy in the decision-making process. In this partnership framework, one also calls for the creation of a one-stop-shop for all funds that can be used by regional and local authorities.
We have submitted ten key messages for the future of cohesion policy (https://bit.ly/2PbX2qu ) and we are preparing a manifesto for December for the European elections and the next Commission.
Do you believe co-legislators are working along the right lines?
There is a lot of vagueness but, when it comes to flexibility and simplification – even if these do not go far enough – they do go in the right direction. In Council, one no longer speaks of clear cuts. The question of conditionality, linked to respect of the law, has a great influence on the debate. This idea causes us concern as it would penalise local and regional authorities, which are pro-European, for measures at national level that are indeed highly questionable.
The plan to create a fund for the European regions affected by Brexit (EUROPE 12041) is emerging at the moment. What do you think of it?
It all depends on what kind of Brexit we have. If it is a “hard” Brexit, then it will be necessary to help the regions affected. If it is a “soft” Brexit, this could be less necessary. In either case, the new fund must not be levied from the budget of cohesion policy. A new fund requires a separate budget.
To conclude, what is your assessment of the current Commission?
At the beginning of his term of office, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, had spoken of a “last chance Commission”. We can only say he has missed the boat. One has the impression that the Commission has simply papered over the cracks rather than build a vision of the future. This was the case with the previous Commission also. On the contrary, it is necessary to reinvent a Europe that is supported by its regions, setting out a direction to be followed, a vision. That is one of the major failings of this Commission – the fact that it has not understood the force that the regions can give to the European project. The Union is a project to unite the European peoples, not central States. Juncker has taken great support from the Council. He should have called on the regions and territories – especially with regards the migration issue – which stand ready to commit to ambitious projects. It is a shame that he failed to grasp this opportunity.