On Thursday 2 April, the European Commission may present a second initiative (CRII) mobilising EU structural and investment funds to boost the European response to the coronavirus and its socio-economic consequences.
In response to the criticisms made by some Member States on the measures of 13 March (see EUROPE 12456/1), the Commission is considering further amendments to the Regulation (1303/2013) laying down common provisions between the Structural and Investment Funds, in particular the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF).
The content of these proposals is not yet final and still needs to be discussed in the College of Commissioners on Wednesday 1 April. However, the proposed measures will go in the direction of certain requests made by the Member States and the European Parliament, including greater flexibility in the use of the Structural and Investment Funds, with possible transfers between funds, particularly the Cohesion Fund.
On Monday 30 March, the Commissioner for Cohesion and Reforms, Elisa Ferreira, discussed this initiative with the chairman of the Regional Development Committee (REGI), Younous Omarjee, and the coordinators, as well as possible measures under a new proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027 (see EUROPE 12457/2).
During this meeting MEPs are said to all have welcomed the Commission's proposals made on Friday 13 March, which include financial aid of €37 billion through the structural and investment funds, based on the use of unspent pre-financing (see EUROPE 12449/2). However, like the Member States, several MEPs perceived the limitations of these proposals: by means of unspent pre-financing, the measures would help regions with a lower absorption rate, but not necessarily those most affected by the epidemic.
During the debate, MEPs are thought to have asked for more simplification of procedures and the maintenance of a special regime for the first 2 or 3 years of the next multiannual financial framework. Some suggested increasing co-financing up to 100% to finance medical equipment for 2020 or allowing transfers of funds between categories of regions, from the richest to the poorest and vice versa.
In general, they insisted on the need to revise the MFF 2021-2027 proposal in order to strengthen investment in the social field, stimulate economic recovery and address the territorial crisis that the pandemic may cause.
The Just Transition Fund would also have been discussed. Some would prefer to redirect funds earmarked for climate change to address the health crisis. Others, on the contrary, are requesting a strengthened health component to be added. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)