What are the main messages that the associations of regions in Brussels intend to promote? How do they see the structure of cohesion policy in the future?Europolitics interviewed the leaders of the Assembly of European Regions (AER – 270 members from 33 countries + 16 interregional member organisations), the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR, 50 national associations from towns and regions in 38 countries are members) and the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR, 161 member regions from 28 countries).

What are your association’s basic principles with regard to cohesion policy after 2013?

Michèle Sabban, president of AER:First, a European policy with cohesion between European regions as its main objective and not only focused on stimulating national economies regardless of the increasing inequalities between their territories. Needless to say, this policy cannot become the subject of any renationalisation. It must be a policy based on solidarity, which all the EU’s regions can benefit from. It must also be a decentralised policy, which allows the regions to put in place territorial development actions within the framework of multilevel governance. That does not only mean that the implementation must be closer to the citizens. It also implies that the policy must really be defined with and for European regions.

The cohesion policy of the future must be a strategic policy whose objectives are in line with ‘Europe 2020’ and deal with the main economic, social and environmental concerns that Europe is facing today. And it must be an integrated policy that is better coordinated with the sectoral actions at the European and national levels.

Frédéric Vallier, secretary-general of CEMR: We hope that the European Commission will make this policy more flexible, more able to adapt itself to the appropriate territorial scale, more responsive to local needs and better coordinated with other policies, at all levels of governance. Cohesion policy must integrate a decentralised dimension, by involving a number of local authorities and not just regional authorities, as the local level is the most appropriate to meet local needs. Local authorities must be involved in all phases of the policy. They must benefit from more responsibilities and appropriate resources, while respecting the principle of partnership.

We also want wider criteria for guiding and assessing cohesion policy to be introduced to complement indicators that are traditionally based on GDP [gross domestic product]. A series of indicators for analysis and checking purposes could include socio-economic development, socio-cultural criteria, socio-demographic factors, socio-environmental criteria, access to services and social inclusion indicators. The CEMR advocates setting up a ‘governance indicator’ measuring the involvement of local authorities in the decision making process at the regional level.

Eleni Marianou, secretary-general of CPMR: One of the main principles that need to inspire cohesion policy after 2013 is the maintenance of a cohesion policy for all European regions and coherence with the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy. This coherence must, however, be in no way in contradiction with the primary function of cohesion policy, which is to contribute to the goals of economic, social and territorial cohesion. Another main principle is the maintenance of the regional dimension at the heart of cohesion policy. We must also strengthen the conditionality linked to cohesion policy for more transparency and efficiency. Finally, the governance of cohesion policy must be based on an integrated and contractual approach directly involving the regions.

What are your biggest fears with regard to the future of this policy?

Michèle Sabban: First of all, renationalisation. That would mark the end of a real partner policy between the different levels of governance. It would be a setback not just for the regions but also for European integration. Sectoralisation is another fear. The economic crisis seems to have led to European decision makers forgetting that, in 2007, they signed a territorial agenda advocating better integration of European policies and governance based on partnership and coordination. It is only by tackling these issues as a whole that the territories can face up to the difficulties. Finally, we’re frightened of the process stagnating. Without deep-rooted reform, cohesion policy will not be able to give the regions the tools to face up to the challenges of the 21st century. The EU must finally show that it is able to give this policy a real strategic orientation, which is based on the main objectives that Europe wants to set itself in the future. That’s why AER recommends cohesion policy has a dedicated Council of Ministers.

Frédéric Vallier: Our biggest fear is that the policy may be under-resourced. The CEMR maintains that cohesion policy must cover all the regions in Europe. However, we think that particular stress must be maintained on the regions lagging behind in terms of their development. We will firmly oppose any attempt at renationalising cohesion policy because it would lose all meaning. Cohesion policy is an expression of European solidarity. It is considered as a counterpart to the single market and is based on continuous action that translates the vision into concrete actions for citizens. This policy is the EU’s most visible expression for citizens and thereby contributes to the emergence of European citizenship by giving people the feeling of sharing the same project.

Another fear is that cohesion policy might be sectoralised to the detriment of an integrated and global approach, which would be based on the individual needs of the territory in question. Finally, the CEMR is opposed to separating the European Social Fund from cohesion policy. The ESF has shown that it is an efficient structural instrument without which cohesion policy would lose its integrated, cross-cutting and global nature.

Eleni Marianou: Cohesion policy is today a very powerful tool for the implementation of European political goals. We think that its effectiveness, and therefore that of the development of the EU, would be particularly put in jeopardy by abandoning the significant principle of support for all the European regions and by granting it an insufficient budget line, such that it would not have a leverage effect on national and regional policies and play a role as a key instrument in multilevel governance in Europe. Its own end purpose, which is to reduce disparities between territories in favour of a sectoralisation that is designed to fit the lowest common denominator, should likewise not be abandoned.

Does the cohesion policy of the future have to be based around the three current objectives?

Michèle Sabban:The issue of which objectives it is based on is not the most important one. What is essential is to keep the principles both of solidarity and sharing between all the regions, as well as to continue to actively support territorial cooperation. It seems appropriate to separate programmes for the overall development of the poorest regions in Europe from those that aim to support other regions on more precise aspects of their development. In this sense, AER tends to validate the current organisation of objectives. AER also supports the creation of support programmes for innovative pilot projects, be that in the context of territorial cooperation, a new objective or all three existing objectives.

Frédéric Vallier: In principle, yes. However, it is important that the new policy gives all the regions the chance to develop according to a ‘place-based’ approach, ie according to their potential and their own needs, assets and challenges.

Eleni Marianou: The CPMR proposes that cohesion policy continues to be based on its current structure, on these three main areas: substantial and priority financial aid for regions whose GDP is lower than 75% of the EU27’s average, some aid for all regions whose GDP is above 75% of the EU’s average and more support for territorial cooperation. It is not necessarily about doubling support for territorial cooperation but this objective must support the use of multi-regional cross-border operational programmes, the development of macro-regional strategies and the strengthening of interregional cooperation for cooperation actions of least intensity. This is a question of effectiveness of action: the future regulations must give member states the chance to devote part of their financial budgetary envelope to work with another member state on joint projects.