On Wednesday 29 May, the permanent representatives of the Member States to the EU (Coreper II) gave the green light to Block 7, which is dedicated in particular to the definitions of the common provisions regulation (CPR) between the structural and investment funds.
Member States have made some changes and clarifications to the definitions (Article 2), most of them of a technical nature. They added a definition on the European Investment Bank that did not exist in the European Commission's proposal (see EUROPE 12029), in order to cover the European Investment Fund and all EIB subsidiaries. Member States have introduced the principle of a “careful” ex ante evaluation to calculate the multiplier ratio for guarantee instruments.
Another important point is the definition of “beneficiaries” in the case of State aid schemes, in order to introduce an exception when State aid is less than €200,000. In this case, the Member State may decide that the beneficiary for the purposes of this Regulation is the body granting the aid, and not the company. This is intended to align with the modalities in the ‘omnibus’ regulation revising the current legislation governing the use of structural and investment funds (see EUROPE 11991/4).
Member States have also abolished the principle of “climate proofing”, a process that aimed to ensure that financed infrastructure is “resilient” to the effects of climate change. The notion has been removed because there are other mechanisms at the national and international levels to ensure such resilience, we are told.
Audit. A recital has been added so that the Commission may share an audit report on a Member State with other Member States (with the prior agreement of the country to which the audit report relates). At present, audit reports are confidential. However, they contain recommendations that may be of interest to other Member States.
Originally, several national delegations wanted to introduce more transparency directly into the definitions, but this was perceived as too “strong”. The European Commission reportedly expressed concern that such a provision, if made binding, could cause many leaks against the will of Member States.
Project continuity. Member States have also added another recital to ensure the continuity of the implementation of current projects in the context of the next multiannual financial framework, without having to repeat the entire selection procedure. This is a situation that could jeopardize many funded projects, we are told.
French request. The French request, supported by Spain and Italy, to introduce a new conditionality linked to the European pillar of social rights in Annex III, which is dedicated to enabling conditions, is being debated and has not yet been settled.
The French approach, which was outlined by the French president in Gothenburg in 2017 (see EUROPE 11907/1), aims to accelerate convergence in the social arena. However, in the view of some delegations, the European Social Fund (ESF) already pursues such a goal, as does Objective 4 of the CPR Regulation. Such an addition could hamper the effectiveness of the funds’ use, according to some, by introducing administrative burdens.
The issue of conditionality will be discussed in the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) on Wednesday 5 June. The subject could be put on the ministers' agenda at the ‘General Affairs’ Council on Cohesion Policy on 25 June. According to one source, France would like to take the issue to the highest political level by presenting it to the European Council.
With the completion of the seventh block, the Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU has finalised the EU Council's position on the Common Provisions Regulation (see EUROPE 12239/26). Only the points related to the negotiating box for the next European budget cycle are still outstanding. All that remains is to wait for the European Parliament to get back to work. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)