In a matter of days, at its plenary session on 7 October in Brussels, the European Parliament will be adopting a resolution setting out the key principles that should underpin the EU’s future cohesion policy. These are the fruits of the analysis of a working group set up in November 2009 in the EP’s Committee on Regional Development (REGI). All the political groups, apart from the United Left (EUL), participated in the initiative. The resulting document therefore represents the ‘common ground’ of all these groups and the main positions they will defend together in the forthcoming negotiations. The initiative seeks to “prevent unnecessary institutional variance,” explained REGI Chair Danuta Hübner (EPP, Poland) in a letter sent in mid-July to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and Regional Policy Commissioner Johannes Hahn. It is a way of highlighting Parliament’s new co-decision powers on cohesion policy and the fact that the institution has to be reckoned with in this area.

Which points do MEPs plan to defend?

1. Parliament considers that the basic design of the current objectives of cohesion policy should remain (the three objectives of aid for convergence, aid for competitiveness and jobs, and aid for territorial cooperation) and that the territorial cooperation objective should be enhanced. Logically, since competitiveness should continue to be supported, it stresses the need for a policy that covers all European regions. Parliament rejects any attempt to renationalise cohesion policy and wants the regional dimension to be fully considered in the proposed EU budget overhaul. There is no mention of figures at this stage, but MEPs seek a “strong and well financed” policy. It is also important to avoid any “sectoral dispersion” of regional policy resources. Hübner had the opportunity to express this view when, at the end of 2009, a highly controversial Commission document on the future budget review was leaked. It tended to weaken cohesion policy for the benefit of a “sectoralisation” of expenditure. MEPs insist that the European Social Fund must remain part and parcel of cohesion policy.

2. Connection with the ‘Europe 2020’ strategyis still an area of concern. No doubt: MEPs support the 2020 strategy, stating that the implementation of cohesion policy is key to its success. The draft resolution adds, however, that cohesion policy “remains an independent policy”. In other words, cohesion policy – the aim of which is to reduce development disparities between regions – is not a 2020 strategy, part two. Each has its own objectives. Parliament expressed this position in a resolution adopted on 20 May on the contribution of cohesion policy to achieving the Lisbon objectives and the 2020 strategy. Cohesion policy “is not subordinate to the 2020 strategy,” it stated at the time. ‘Earmarking’ (mandatory allocation of part of Structural Fund resources to Lisbon and 2020 projects) is addressed cautiously, although Parliament supports the principle overall.

3. MEPs do not seem to want to enter into detail yet – given the sensitive nature of the subject – but they call for assurances that the post-2013 cohesion policy will offer something to transition regions. A “simple, fair and transparent” transition regime is needed, but they do not spell things out at this stage. The fact is that this issue is divisive once the practical arrangements are raised. With some calling for a generous transition system and others pushing for criteria that strictly limit access to this category, MEPs prefer to await the Commission’s proposals before venturing further.

4. Parliament considers that special provisions should still be the rule for very remote regions, border regions and regions with particular geographical characteristics. This is interesting since it entails eligibility that would remain at least partially based on criteria other than economic development, an idea to which certain member states are opposed.

5. The urban dimensionof cohesion policy must be enhanced. MEPs hope that the next programming period will reserve funds for investment in urban areas and even call for an ‘appropriate instrument’. A special fund for cities or ‘earmarking’ for urban projects? Without going into detail – “I am not so much in favour of ‘earmarking’ for certain categories of territories” – Hübner appears to prefer a support system comparable to the earlier Community initiatives, which would allow the financing of certain elements of urban development, such as a clean urban transport system.

Parliament’s draft resolution is available at www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/regi/re/825/825490/825490en.pdf

Cohesion policy is not a 2020 strategy, part two

Hübner on ‘earmarking’

“I think that this was one of the good decisions taken when the 2007-2013 framework was established because it allowed for a better concentration of resources on competitiveness projects. I would say that a number of members of the European Parliament, particularly in the Greens group, have never been satisfied with ‘earmarking’. They are very critical but I think that a large majority backs the principle. Thanks to ‘earmarking’, the Lisbon agenda was taken seriously into consideration. So I think that for the future we should give thought to having a certain form of ‘earmarking’ in this policy. Those opposed to it have failed to understand that today’s investments have to be different from those of 20 years ago.”¨