Europese Beweging:
Toespraak Eurocommissaris Hahn over regionale samenwerking (en)

Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning

First of all I would like to thank the Polish Presidency for organizing this meeting in such a wonderful way, and I would like to extend my thanks to the previous presidencies, the Belgian and Hungarian in particular.

I am pleased to see that there is broad consensus on the key principles of the Commission proposal. The need for cohesion policy to enhance the focus on results and effectiveness is undisputed.

At the same time, it is precisely the proposals which aim at enhancing the effectiveness of the policy which generate the most debate. The Commission needs to explain its choices in detail.

We now need to move beyond this phase and ensure that everything will be in place in 2012.

The economic crisis and the deepening debt crisis have shown that “business as usual” is not an option in Europe.

The debate on the future of one of the biggest items of the EU budget cannot be seen in isolation from the broader economic environment and EU's growth agenda: all EU policies need to contribute in conjunction to deliver growth in the context of a rapidly changing economic climate and weakening markets' confidence.

Today, I would like to first recall very briefly the main elements of the new architecture of cohesion policy and the new programming system. I then intend to focus on one element in particular, which I know is triggering a lot of discussion and concerns. Finally, I would close with few words on simplification.

Evaluations have shown that insufficient concentration of EU funding often led to suboptimal outcomes and reduced overall effect of the policy. We cannot afford dispersing resources on many areas and projects. Concentration is a must and choices, sometime difficult choices, need to be made.

The first element of the new architecture is therefore linked to the need to focus available resources on few priorities. I'll come back on this point.

But concentrating resources is not enough. Public resources cannot be spent without setting in a transparent and clear way what we want to achieve with those resources. The second element concerns the need to fix clear objectives, accompanied by equally clear targets, and indicators to monitor and to measure progress. It may seem a technical issue, but it is in fact a fundamental political issue about the functioning and the accountability of public policies.

This is the essence of the performance framework. We can debate whether the mechanism proposed would create perverse incentives and lower the ambitions of programmes. We can discuss the mechanism. But we should not hesitate about the need to respond clearly to the EU taxpayer if asked: “What is this money for?” “What do you want to achieve?” “How will things improve thanks to cohesion programmes?”

The last element is linked to ex-ante conditions. While several Member States acknowledged that these types of conditions can enhance effectiveness, concerns remain in relation to its application.

Ex-ante conditions are an indispensable element of the new architecture. Critics of the policy often argue that the funds have not provided solid foundations for sustainable growth. The effectiveness of the funds in some instances has been undermined by weaknesses in policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks.

Moreover, ex-ante conditions are not new. Mechanisms have been introduced to ensure effective support in the current period. But their application however has been unsystematic.

The proposed ex-ante conditions have been selected on the basis of their contribution to improve the effectiveness of the funds. The conditions proposed are not aspirations or targets but generally accepted minimum requirements that should be in place before the start of programming. And, let's be absolutely clear, there is no intention to extend the Commission’s competence.

Let's discuss the exact drafting of certain conditionality provisions; let's test whether they all credible, enforceable, and shared; let's revise where necessary the criteria for their verification. But I am not ready to put into question the very need of introducing ex-ante conditions in the future policy.

As you know the preparation of the new generation of programmes will be based on a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) at EU level and 27 Partnership Contracts at national level.

I consider that the CSF is a key element of the strategic programming process since it would ensure a coordinated response of EU policies and funding instruments. It will shift focus from drawing demarcation lines to establishing complementarities.

The CSF has two functions. First, it should provide guidance on how to ensure that the different sources of EU funding can be combined most effectively to maximise the impact towards our common objectives. This is necessary not only for the structural instruments, but also other EU policies such as Horizon 2020 or the Connecting Europe Facility.

Second, and most importantly, the CSF shall provide Member States and regions with guidance to design integrated territorial approaches which respond to the challenges that our territories face: how to develop truly territorial strategies, how the different funds could better interact at regional and other territorial objectives to contribute to those strategies.

The Partnership Contract is the second element of the programming system. Concerns have been expressed on how the Contract would be adapted to different institutional contexts, how it would implement the integrated territorial approach and how Council recommendations issued in the context of the European semester would be taken into account.

The Contract will provide an overview and ensure coherence of commitments of partners at national and regional level to delivering common objectives. The exact combination of top-down guidance and bottom-up priorities will depend on the different institutional and constitutional contexts.

It is clear however that the overall economic context will determine more than in the past the design and the content of the Contract. When the fiscal space is narrow and cohesion funding represents in many Member States more than 50% of their investment capacity, there is an obvious need to ensure that these resources also contribute to address the bottlenecks and gaps identified in the country-specific recommendations issued by the Council.

Yet, while the Council recommendations are essential to define the overall strategy, they must be addressed in the context of already existing national instruments as well as national and regional needs and strategies. The Partnership Contract is therefore a key mechanism for the territorialisation of our common European targets and objectives.

I would like to open at this point a short parenthesis on thematic concentration. This is a point which is creating a lot of discussions and doubts. I hope I will be able to show that some of these doubts are misplaced and what we propose will not prevent to design and implement strategies reflecting specific territorial needs.

First, we propose a menu of policy "issues". This is not a list of expenditures, but of important policy domains where action is needed. The precise combination of investments is a matter for programmes to define.

Second, we propose to concentrate a significant part of the available resources on policy domains linked to the Employment Agenda. These will be primarily financed by the European Social Fund (ESF).

Third, a significant part of investments in transport and environment infrastructure will be covered as today by the Cohesion Fund in the less developed regions and countries, though less budgetary intensive investments will still be supported by the European Regional Development Funds (ERDF).

Finally, we propose to concentrate a great part of the ERDF on three policy domains. These are the domains which determine the future of our economies; these are the areas which current programmes are already concentrating resources on.

Research and innovation, competitiveness of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME) and transition to the low-carbon economy are key priorities for the EU. Successive European Council conclusions called consistently for improving conditions for research; for strengthening the backbone of Europe economy: its SMEs; and for increasing investment for renewable energy and for energy efficiency.

Given the commitments and financial needs over a prolonged period of time needed in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable, the Commission considers that a minimum level of investment is justified.

I consider therefore that the concentration we have proposed for the ERDF is necessary. At the same time, the thematic objectives proposed are broadly defined and provide flexibility for Member States and regions to define the mix of interventions which deliver the specific objectives set in their specific context.

I am ready to explore with you ways to make the system even simpler and better adapted to different contexts, but the underlying logic, the main priorities and the level of ambition cannot be weakened. We will not be able to defend the budget we have requested for this policy, if we are not committed to truly concentrate resources on few priority areas.

A final word on simplification. I know that many of your consider that we are adding new demands without reducing existing obligations. At the end of the day, each provision needs to be examined on its own merit and whether its design is proportionate to achieve the intended objective.

I am convinced that the gains related to the reinforcement of the performance orientation of cohesion policy will largely outweigh the limited workload involved. I also think that we have introduced important novelties to reduce the administrative burden of beneficiaries and ensure an efficient distribution of administrative effort required at national, regional and EU level and reinforcing legal certainty and assurance at all levels.

To pursue these goals, harmonisation of rules for the CSF Funds (and beyond) is foreseen. More flexibility is introduced in the set-up of management and control systems. There is increased proportionality, taking into account the volume of funding and the risks involved. For example, for small projects under 100,000 EUR will be subject to only one audit by national and Commission auditors during the period of their implementation. Another example: when the national audit opinion gives a clean bill of health to a programme, the Commission can agree with the audit authority on lighter audit arrangements.

A wider application of simplified reimbursement methods is foreseen such as flat rates, lump sums and unit costs. Investments at national and regional level in the development of methodologies will be reduced allowing for the possibility to use rates established for other EU policies and national schemes as well as using “ready-made" rates established at EU level. The use of financial instruments is facilitated by clearer rules governing such instruments.

Administrative burden will also be reduced by introducing electronic data exchange systems for fund management allowing also for the possibility (not an obligation) for the beneficiaries to use electronic systems. Lighter reporting requirements are also being introduced.

The bottom line is that together we need to be able to ensure and demonstrate the sound financial management of EU resources. Everything else can be discussed. I can assure you that the Commission has no interest in complicating things. On the contrary, we have a common interest to make this policy leaner, simpler, and quicker to deliver needed investment on the ground.