The European Parliament and the Finnish Presidency made great progress on the regulation laying down specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation objective (Interreg) at a first interinstitutional meeting on Wednesday 20 November. They are expected to meet again, perhaps for the last time, on 10 December.
There are still four main political points under discussion. The first concerns the question of the fourth Priority Axis relating to social issues (Article 14) in the Interreg programmes. Parliament wants to make its budgetary allocation automatic (and insists on using the verb ‘shall’), whereas the EU Council wants a certain degree of flexibility (‘may’) to take into account the particular contexts of the programmes, for which the social aspect is sometimes only a minor regional issue (above the Arctic circle for example).
Another debate concerns the option proposed by the European Commission for transferring financial sums from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), dedicated to investments in the field of employment and growth, to the Interreg programmes. Parliament would like to set a threshold at 20% of the dedicated sums, while the EU Council has removed this option. There would be a need for clarification on the part of the EU Council to ensure that such an option would not disrupt ERDF programming.
Parliament and the EU Council also addressed the issue of cross-border maritime cooperation. As a reminder, the European Commission had removed this option, leaving only the option for transnational maritime cooperation (see EUROPE 12024/10). This was not to the liking of either Parliament or the EU Council, which put cross-border maritime cooperation back into the legislative text. However, there is some doubt about what constitutes a maritime border. The EU Council has thus added a maximum limit of 150 km between two islands or two regions with maritime borders for a cross-border programme to be considered. However, this limit could introduce a threshold effect that could be problematic for some Mediterranean maritime regions.
Finally, the last point is the question of the integration of migrants and refugees. Here, Parliament suggests that Interreg should also contribute to the social and economic integration of migrants and refugees, as part of the “a safer and more secure Europe” objective. On the contrary, the EU Council wants to maintain the greatest possible degree of flexibility on the issue. For the Member States, Interreg will have only a limited financial allocation. In addition, the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) already pursues this objective, according to the Member States.
These differences are by no means insurmountable, according to several sources. And, unlike other legislative dossiers in the field of cohesion (such as the European Regional Development Fund or the umbrella regulation on common provisions between the Structural and Investment Funds), the negotiations should be concluded quickly, perhaps even on 10 December next. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)