On Wednesday 15 January, the European Commission presented the Just Transition Fund (JTF) to the Member States' Ambassadors to the EU (COREPER) - this new fund is to smooth the consequences of the ecological transition for the populations and regions most affected by decarbonisation - and the contribution key envisaged by the European Commission on a country-by-country basis.
So, unsurprisingly, Poland is the largest beneficiary of the Fund. It is expected to receive at least €2 billion from the Fund (endowed with €7.5 billion over 7 years), which is, together with co-financing from the other Structural Funds and national co-financing, around €7.6 billion (€27 billion including the three pillars of the Just Transition Mechanism).
In general, the Member States of Central and Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania) will receive the bulk of the Fund, in line with the European Commission's original objectives (see EUROPE 12400/8). Germany will be the second largest beneficiary with €877 million (€4.6 billion with Pillar I and €13 billion with all three pillars).
During the presentation, all Member States took the floor. 14 Member States, mainly from the 'Cohesion Alliance' or major beneficiaries of the Common Agricultural Policy, insisted that the Fund should be fed with 'new money'. While the "frugal four" (Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria), joined by Germany, insisted on a reorientation of funding within the next multiannual financial framework.
Several Member States were concerned about the inclusion of the Fund in the budget line linked to the Common Agricultural Policy and not the Cohesion Policy, as well as about the conditionalities for receiving aid from these funds. Spain and Portugal, which benefit relatively very well from the allocations presented by the Commission, thus pointed out that they have made significant efforts to accomplish the green transition.
Several Member States also are said to have questioned the overlap between the objectives of the new Fund and those already provided for in the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund plus.
An equally dubious Parliament
These concerns echo those expressed within the ranks of the European Parliament. Contacted by EUROPE, the Chair of the Committee on Regional Development, Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL, France), welcomed the Commission's initiative, considering that the methodology proposed by the European Commission for the distribution of funds is "coherent". But "there will be real added value if, within the framework of the MFF, the resources allocated to cohesion do not decrease. Because what is obtained on the one hand with this fund must not be lost on the other in the traditional envelopes allocated to the regions", he added.
This is basically the position of most of the other political groups, both for the EPP and the Social Democrats. Romanian Siegfried Mureşan (EPP) and Constanze Krehl (S&D, Germany), co-rapporteur on the umbrella common provisions regulation, insisted that traditional and existing policies should be preserved. Niklas Nienaß (Greens/EFA, Germany) spoke of a "sleight of hand" by the European Commission between the Structural Funds and the Just Transition Fund.
The regions and municipalities are worried. The concern is the same on the part of local and regional authorities, whether within the Committee of the Regions (see EUROPE 12403/2), the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) or the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR). For these latter, the initiative is commendable, but the funding is not sorted, not to mention the overlapping objectives with the ERDF and the ESF.
However, CEMR welcomed the fact that the JTF is covered by the common provisions regulation, as it will be subject to the partnership principle. Furthermore, CEMR considers that NUTS level 3 is the best level to address territorial issues.
To consult the allocation of the Fund between Member States: http://bit.ly/2u0Q4Pt (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)