After two and a half years at the head of the Committee of the Regions, or even five years if we count his vice-presidency alongside Finland's Markku Markkula (EPP), Karl-Heinz Lambertz (PES, Belgium) is reaching the end of his mandate. It is therefore time to take stock of his political action, but also to analyse the worrying changes in the local political landscape, which are gradually changing the face of the Committee. But there is also hope for the future of cohesion policy, which is inseparable from the future of the European Union, according to the Belgian, who is about to blow out the fiftieth candle of his political career. (Interview by Pascal Hansens)
Agence Europe: How do you feel about the short-lived election of the liberal Thomas Kemmerich in Thuringia, who was elected with the support of Germany's far-right AFD party?
Karl-Heinz Lambertz: Over time, the European electoral landscape has been transformed everywhere, with paradigm shifts. Right-wing populism has become deeply rooted in the landscape in the wake of the migration crises. The fact that in a place of political stability, Germany, that one can witness scenes of this kind proves definitively that the composition of the electorate has changed profoundly. What happened in Thuringia is a bit of a culmination of that.
Is this trend, the entrenchment of right-wing populism, visible in the Committee of the Regions?
The Committee of the Regions is likely to be among the last places where this change will be visible, because here we are in a second-degree designation system. It is the associations of municipalities, regional parliaments and regional governments that nominate the candidates. And there, it takes a very strong presence for a right-wing populist party to be able to appoint a member. But we are already a little bit there today: we have representatives of the PiS party in Poland, and we have the Italian La Lega.
Is it not paradoxical to say that the rise of right-wing populism is less strong in the Committee of the Regions than elsewhere, when the Committee is the institution that is supposed to represent the level closest to European citizens?
If you analyse the situation in a number of countries, you will see that where populists are sometimes very strong at the state level, the landscape of communities is, on the contrary, much more differentiated. Analyse the composition of voivodeships in Poland, analyse the political composition in Italy, you will see!
At the beginning of your mandate, you wanted to strengthen the political dimension and networking activities of the Committee. Did you achieve both of these objectives?
My first objective was to improve our strike force in the three corners of the Bermuda triangle which make up the European institutional system. The Committee is there to give a voice to the local and regional authorities, of which there are many: One million elected officials, 100,000 municipalities, 300 regions, 2,000 intermediate authorities.
To make their voices heard, we need to know the worlds of the Union well. Parliament, the EU Council, the Commission: these are three very different worlds, very compartmentalised from each other. The best example is our participation in the Task Force Subsidiarity or the Cohesion Alliance. Here, we have made progress, as we have done for the past 25 years, with ups and downs, with a method of learning on the ground.
The second objective was to be much more anchored with our constituents, by introducing more lively and concrete elements in plenary with the current affairs debates. We've also been trying to get a handle on the follow-up. Because once the opinion has been adopted, the real work begins: selling it to the other institutions. Networking with the regional representations here in Brussels has been intensified. Within a radius of 5 km, there are 300 representations and that's an asset where improvements were still possible.
There has also been an increase in travel to local and regional authorities in conjunction with EU Council presidencies. An attempt has been made to systematise this, focusing on the parliamentary and governmental heavyweights in the regions. I also wanted to focus on the associations of regional or national municipalities.
In the future, in the short and medium term, how do you see the Committee of the Regions?
In the short term, there are three challenges: we need to finish up with the negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). But not at any price: cohesion must remain a priority. I want local and regional authorities to be more involved in each of the chapters of the MFF. The six priority points set out by Ursula von der Leyen in her guidelines are good priorities. But we want to bring in, at each time, the territorial dimension. On the Conference on the Future of Europe, for us in the Committee of the Regions there are two things that are important to us: we want to be properly involved and we want to contribute. Above all, there must be a permanent mechanism for consultation at the end of the Conference, with a system of drawing lots that would follow the ordinary legislative process.
And how do you see the Committee in the long term?
That's not the real question. The real question is how will the European Union develop. Because the Committee will necessarily only be the consequence of that. And here, fundamentally, for me, the Union needs the regions and the regions need the Union. The future of the Union also lies in this diversity and local anchorage. If we manage to convince the one million local and regional elected representatives that the Union has real added value for them, then there will be no need to worry about the future of the EU. But for that to happen, the Committee must have more power.
More power, meaning?
Let its opinions be more binding. Some people talk about a Senate of the regions, but in the current complexity of the system, adding a new institution is not the solution. But perhaps, in the follow-up to the Task Force on Subsidiarity, we can imagine a better involvement of the regions in the pre-legislative phase or also the possibility of taking a look at the final outcome of the provisional agreements reached in trilogue concerning compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
Do you find it problematic that the Just Transition Fund is mainly based on the structural and investment funds?
Cohesion is not a sectoral policy. Cohesion is a system that targets priority sectors. That being said, Cohesion must be in synergy with what is being done elsewhere, as well as with the financial instruments and the intelligent implementation of the Stability Pact. When one says that the Just Transition Fund should be linked to the Cohesion Fund, I can accept that. What I would not accept is for money to be taken from the Just Transition Fund in the Cohesion fund.
You're in talks with the ‘frugal four’ and Germany?
Yes, the Germans, we don't really know where they stand. It depends on who you're talking to and what documents you're reading. That being said, they are certainly not the leaders of the 'Friends of Cohesion'. Of course, we are in close cooperation with the 'Friends of Cohesion'. But, obviously, we are working with the countries that are the most resistant. But right now, we're doing it our way. We are trying to mobilise local and regional authorities in these countries. Because my writing to Merkel, I want to, but it's not going to change the world. That I am mobilising the German Länder is already something else.