Agence Europe spoke to the Commissioner for Cohesion Policy and Reform, Elisa Ferreira. This was an opportunity to take stock of the implementation of the REACT-EU initiative and the challenges that the European Recovery Plan represents for the implementation of the 2021-2027 Cohesion Policy. (Interview made by Pascal Hansens)
Where do we stand on REACT-EU currently, how many operational programmes did you approve and for what for?
First, REACT-EU was foreseen as an instrument to make the bridge between the emergency support during the pandemic - the Coronavirus Response Investment Initiatives (CRII and CRII+) - which was very flexible, and the new Cohesion Policy as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, which is the traditional and more robust tool to support growth with an emphasis on climate and digital transitions.
But the truth is that the crisis went longer than we expected. So, the emergency mode was prolonged, which will also have some reflex in the REACT-EU programming.
We are in a permanent dialogue with Member States. We discuss first the overall framework with each Member State to ensure the necessary requirements in terms of quality of the projects and the distribution of funding across the various objectives of REACT-EU.
So far, we already have approved about 30 modifications of operational programs corresponding to around five billion euros. It’ not yet a big sample, but work is gaining pace.
Most of the requests are for business support. The health sector continues to receive help but in a more structural way than just buying masks and ventilators as happened at the peak of the crisis. Investing in research, innovation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, in digitization of education and training, helping vulnerable groups and elderly people are the other axisof intervention.
Normally 25% of the investment should be concentrated on climate related investments. Several of the national programme amendments will not reach that target, because of the prolongation of the emergency mode. We will have to be flexible, but without letting go this climate dimension.
You are talking of a small sample. How long will you need to get approved most of the modification of operational programmes ?
We are talking about weeks. Every day the figures increase . I believe that by the summer we will have most of them on track.
Some say that the preparation of national plans in the framework of the European recovery plan is causing major delays in the programming of cohesion policy for 2021-2027.Can you tell us first what could be the consequences for the projects funded in concrete terms, and maybe what can the European Commission do to help and accelerate the programming within cohesion policy?
It’s a question you should rather ask Member States, not the Commission. But, the first priority urging the crisis, with the CRII and CRII+ initiatives, was to make the reprogramming of the unused 2014-2020 funds the easiest possible. And that was achieved, the whole process went extremely fast indeed.
For the first time, with a strong support from the Council and the European Parliament, we have allowed Member States to redirect the Cohesion funds in the national envelopes between different Funds and between regions. Member States could also ask for a 100% EU cofinancing. We managed the approval process in a record time, 14 to 16 days on average ! Our people have worked day and night. Now we have around 23 billion euros reallocated on emergency measures, such as support to small companies, job support measures, masks, ventilators, etc.
So, now, Member States are preparing REACT-EU and the recovery and resilience plans (RRPs) that are part of the Next Generation EU, whose payments run until 2026, as well as national cohesion programmes 2021-2027.
Therefore, some Member States gave priority to the RRPs, because of the regulatory date to present their programmes and the shorter timeline for expenditure (2026), as the payment of the “traditional” cohesion programming runs until 2029. Also, some countries will focus on finishing the execution of the previous MFF as the 2014-2020 cohesion funds, reinforced by REACT, can be paid until 2023.
This is a heavy package. But our main concern is to stimulate the real economy as quickly as possible, while guaranteeing the quality of the projects financed. Our aim is not spending money but rather investing it.
A recent study showed that the local and regional activities are not sufficiently taken on board during the elaboration of the Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs). What is the Commission, and more specifically DG REGIO, doing in practice to ensure that regions are taken into account in RRPs?
Although one of its objectives is to promote territorial and social cohesion, the RRF (Recovery and Resilience Facility) was not conceived as a cohesion and regional instrument. It has a national distribution and a stronger link to the country specific recommendations.
However, Member States have to involve regional and social partners in the preparation of their RRPs (Recovery and Resilience Plans) and they should also take into account the asymmetric territorial impact of the crisis in their investment plans. I have called for a “do no harm to cohesion” approach to be followed in the recovery.
Cohesion policy is not in the driving seat of European recovery steering. Within the European Commission, there is a Directorate General specifically dedicated to recovery, and for some aspects directly under Ms von der Leyen's Presidency.
I am also aware of the Committee of the regions plea for more engagement by the regions in the process. We also need to factor in the different capacities of regions and democratic legitimacy. Some regions are very strong, some are very weak. Nonetheless, we insist for a shared approach.
This said, cohesion policy will continue to fully uphold the partnership principle and promote convergence and correcting the imbalances between EUs regions.
The Common Provisions Regulation and the Regional and Cohesion Funds also require the establishment of monitoring committees involving social partners and regional and local stakeholders, to follow up the different programmes. One of the innovations of this legislation is that now they will vote. So you cannot be there, just I mean as a sleeping partner or being discredited by the by the Managing authority because you have the power to vote.
Some fear that if the European recovery plans work, which we can hope of course, it could have a strong impact on the future of cohesion policy in the post-2027 era. What do you think ?
That is a very theoretical and prospective question. I should not start speculating about how life will be after 2027, I’d rather focus on my present job. Cohesion has its full place in the EU, because of its unique multilevel governance and place-based approach. This is key for a sustained and balanced development. I hope that Member States will manage to explore synergies between the recovery plan and the cohesion funds.
The quality of the execution of funds needs to be improved overall. That relies often on the quality of public administration and varies a lot between Member States. In the follow-up of the 2008 crisis, some had to squeeze down the public expenditure and therefore cut their administration, losing capacities as a result. Often, the best elements went to the private sector by lack of promotions and professional perspectives. In the end, certain regions and certain countries ended up with very weak structures of public administration. Now they have to manage a volume of investments twice or three times bigger than they used to manage in the past.
DG REFORM was this year asked for the first time to support all Member States because they recognise the need to reshape their public administration, at the central level, but also at the regional and local levels, which play a key role in public procurement. For example, once a country opens a bid or a call for the construction of a highway, once the selection of the company is closed, the public administration may have to manage the frequent Court injunctions by not selected competitors. These procedures may last 4 or 5 years, or even longer, with a consequent immense burden on public administrations, to a point that sometimes, there is no highway in the end.