MEPs from the Committee on ‘Regional Development’ (REGI) lowered the classification level from national to regional for future regulations related to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) 2021-2027 when they voted on the text presented by Andrea Cozzolino (S&D, Italy), which was adopted by a solid majority (28 votes to 3, with 3 abstentions) on Thursday 14 February while the plenary session was taking place in Strasbourg.
“I am overall very satisfied of the text we managed to define. It is now more flexible as we shifted the focus from the national to the regional level”, the rapporteur explained to EUROPE, referring to compromise 29, a proposal he has been making since the beginning (see EUROPE 12118). In particular, the Member welcomed the increase in the minimum for the allocation to urban areas to 10% (compared to 6% in the Commission's proposal). “For the first time, a minimum of 5% could also be allocated to small villages and rural areas, which were hit hard by the crisis”, he added.
The European Commission had proposed setting the classification at the Member State level to define the breakdown of funding between three typologies: - a group 1 comprising Member States with a GNI equal to or greater than 100% of the European average; - a group 2 with a GNI equal to or greater than 75% and less than 100% of the European average; - finally, a group 3 with a GNI below 75% of the European average. This typology has been lowered by parliamentarians to the regional level. In addition, MEPs have introduced another change: the differentiation will be based on GDP per capita.
The Commission has also modified the thematic concentrations: for the most developed regions (Group 1), at least 50% of the total ERDF resources should be allocated to Priority 1 (dedicated to innovation) and at least 30% to Priority 2 (combating climate change). Here, the Commission had proposed that Group 1 Member States should allocate a minimum of 85% to priorities 1 and 2, stressing that at least 60% should go to priority 1.
Similarly, for transitional regions (group 2), at least 40% should be assigned to priority 1 and 30% to priority 2. The Commission had proposed that this distribution should be 45% for priority 1 and 30% for priority 2. As for the less developed regions (Group 3), 30% will now be allocated to priority 1 and 30% to priority 2, compared to 35% to priority 1 and 30% to priority 2 in the initial proposal.
It should be noted that parliamentarians have introduced additional flexibility on thematic concentration for the outermost regions (ORs).
In general, MEPs have changed the scope of the different priorities by substantially broadening priorities 1 and 2, deleting priorities and integrating them into other priorities, with the risk of diminishing the impact of concentration, another source tells us.
In addition, they have limited the cases in which the ERDF and the CF cannot intervene. For example, while the Commission had included the rejection of investments in airport infrastructure (except for the outermost regions), the European Parliament provides for exemptions only for “new regional airports”, investments in the ORs, investments in the TEN-T network and investments that aim to mitigate the environmental impact of these airports.
They extended support to infrastructure that can benefit SMEs and stressed the importance of taking into account the regions’ demographic circumstances. They also voted in favour of an amendment that added to the recitals the need for financial support for regions that will be directly affected by Brexit.
The text is expected to be adopted at the second plenary session in March. “Concerning the trilogue, I am not that optimistic since the Council has not yet defined its position”, added Mr Cozzolino. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)