The vast majority of European ministers responsible for cohesion policy, with the notable exception of Hungary, have supported strengthening the link between the 'European Semester' budget process and cohesion policy. They welcomed the recent "territorialisation" of the recommendations by country during a debate held at the Cohesion Council on Tuesday 25 June. On the other hand, many concerns have been expressed about the modalities of this link, revealing a divide between contributors and net beneficiaries.
Thus, several Member States, mainly in Central and Eastern Europe, insisted that regional specificities should be taken into account and, above all, that this link should not add new administrative burdens for managing authorities and beneficiaries. Poland has therefore insisted that the ministers responsible for cohesion policy should be more involved in the budgetary process.
In this context, particular attention has been paid to facilitating and macro-conditionalities. In advance of the Council, the Netherlands - with the support of Germany, Denmark, and Sweden - circulated a document, consulted by EUROPE, which proposes a monitoring mechanism to ensure that investments in cohesion policy are fully in line with the country specific recommendations made in the framework of the 'European Semester'. The proposal was met with a cold response from several net beneficiaries. Italy, for its part, has clearly indicated its disagreement with the maintenance of macroeconomic conditions.
The addition of new enabling conditions in connection with the European pillar of social rights - a proposal mentioned in the partial mandate of the Council of the EU (see EUROPE 12269/12) - was supported by France, Luxembourg, Greece and Spain. Finland, which is about to take over as head of the Council of the EU, mentioned the need to discuss ex ante conditionalities in relation to respect for the rule of law.
These proposals met with clear opposition from some delegations, in particular from Poland and Hungary. It is true that for several Member States, these new conditionalities represent a deviation from the original objectives of cohesion policy.
In general, several ministers questioned the relationship between ex-ante conditionalities and country-specific recommendations, the former being of a long-term nature, while the latter being more volatile.
Mid-term review. A split between contributors and net beneficiaries was also found on the issue of the mid-term review. The northern states, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, were in favour, while Italy, Cyprus and Malta expressed their doubts. The former see it as a means of putting pressure to ensure that investments are in line with the recommendations, while the latter perceive a loss of long-term visibility in investments and, potentially, of their sovereignty in the direction of investments.
Thematic focus. Several Member States, such as Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Estonia, wanted more flexibility with regard to the thematic concentrations introduced by the European Commission.
N+2. Several Member States, such as Slovakia, have asked to keep the N+3 rule, according to which the funds allocated in each programme should be spent no later than 3 years after the end of the budget cycle, contrary to the Commission's proposal to revert to the N+2 rule to accelerate disbursements.
Mrs Creţu's last Council. During her speech to the Member States, Corina Creţu indicated that this Council was her last as Commissioner for Regional Policy. As from next week, she will return to her seat as an elected member of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
Asked by EUROPE about the outcome of the negotiations on her legislative proposals, the Commissioner expressed her regret at the lack of a political agreement between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU earlier this year. As for her views and action in the European Parliament, Mrs Creţu remained unclear, indicating that she wanted to follow the interinstitutional negotiations as closely as possible.
To consult the orientation debate: https://bit.ly/2NcDLsJ (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)