Oliver Röpke (© EU 2024 – Source: European Parliament)
Ahead of the discussions on the future EU budget, we interviewed Oliver Röpke, President of the European Economic and Social Committee, on the principles that should guide the way cohesion funds are delivered
There are still a few months to go until the European Commission's proposal for the next EU budget for the seven-year period 2028-2034 is presented, but rumours about a possible revolution in the general architecture and methods of disbursement of cohesion funds are worrying several actors representing local authorities and civil society organisations from various corners of Europe.
Among these is the European Economic and Social Committee, whose president Oliver Röpke has raised the alarm about the dangers that could arise from extending to cohesion funds a model similar to the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) that governs the National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRP).
We could move from the myriad of different programmes currently in existence to a single programme for each member state, responsible for managing and distributing cohesion policy resources, and this distribution would be conditional on the implementation of specific reforms agreed between the various governments and the European Commission.
"Creating a single envelope for each Member State would seriously undermine the principles of cohesion policy", says Oliver Röpke in this interview with OBCT.
What is the position of the European Economic and Social Committee on the possible assimilation of cohesion policy to the model introduced with the various NRRPs?
The Committee rejects the idea of transforming cohesion policy into an instrument similar to the Recovery and Resilience Facility. That experience has shown the lack of structured involvement of civil society actors and social partners: it is a top-down approach that is not compatible with cohesion policy.
There may be some reforms needed to make EU cohesion policy more effective, but we believe that it is not a good idea to proceed in this direction.
So which direction would be better to proceed in?
Even in the current cohesion policy we see that investments are sometimes made without adequate involvement of social partners and regional actors on the ground. This is instead a fundamental assumption of that policy, which could certainly be improved.
One can also make a critical assessment of the results of some of the investments made, but we cannot support a shift towards greater centralisation. As far as we know, many Member States also have strong reservations about this option, including Poland, which will hold the next rotating presidency [of the Council of the EU].
What risks would the adoption of a model similar to the one governing the NRRPs entail for civil society organisations?
The greatest risk is that the social function of cohesion policy – that is, promoting greater social convergence within the EU – would be endangered. At the heart of this European policy must be a strong participation of all social actors.
The European Economic and Social Committee has been very involved in this, and European Commissioner Elisa Ferreira [responsible for cohesion and reforms in 2019-2024, ed.] has worked hard to include civil society and social partners in all the main activities and discussions on the future of cohesion policy after the end of the current cycle in 2027. We have expressed our views, often in agreement with the European Committee of the Regions. This approach must continue – this is what we are demanding from the new European Commission.
Speaking of the new Commission, is your Committee concerned that Cohesion Commissioner Raffaele Fitto might support the push for greater centralisation of cohesion programmes?
So far we have not seen any official proposals, but some leaks have alarmed us, because we have learned that a single Plan for each Member State is envisaged. This is not what we want, nor what we will be able to accept. There seems to be an idea to link cohesion investments more closely to the implementation of certain policy objectives, following an approach similar to that of the NRRPs, and we react strongly against this perspective.
On the other hand, we are fully committed to working with the new Commissioner to find a common vision on cohesion policy, strengthening the EU's multilevel governance and placing subsidiarity – and not centralisation – at the centre.
So what principles should the future cohesion policy be based on in your opinion?
The European Economic and Social Committee has always strongly supported cohesion policy, as one of the main investment instruments of the European Union; it is the glue that holds the EU together. That is why the principles on which it is based must be maintained in the future too: partnerships, multi-level governance and clear rules for civil society involvement. "Leaving no one behind" must remain a precondition.
We call for a strong involvement of civil society in the preparation of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034. For us, it is crucial that all social, economic and regional actors are fully involved.
And what should the European Commission focus more on in its upcoming proposal for the future EU budget?
Reforms may be needed to make cohesion policy more effective and targeted, but the three key principles I mentioned must not be overlooked. If we instead move towards more centralisation of cohesion funds, these principles and regional management will be undermined. This is a position we share with the European Committee of the Regions.
We are also against basing the EU budget more on policies than on programmes: one of the great advantages of cohesion policy is the possibility of making investments tailored to different regions, promoting social cohesion with a bottom-up approach and respecting the characteristics of individual territories. A policy-based approach – top-down – would put especially the most vulnerable groups within the different Member States at risk.
A third point to mention is the need to keep cohesion policy results-oriented. This means focusing more on regional links, on the effectiveness of the results and on the opportunities that are offered to beneficiaries. Our Committee is currently working on an opinion on this subject, which we will present early next year and which will be discussed at one of the informal meetings of the Council of the EU in which I will participate.
Looking ahead, the accession of new Member States could put additional pressure on cohesion policy. Should we consider increasing the resources allocated?
The European Economic and Social Committee strongly supports the enlargement of the Union, as does civil society in the candidate countries.
Cohesion policy should already take future enlargements into account: we call for a stronger and more ambitious future EU budget. This is absolutely necessary, also in view of the EU's future investments in defence and in the new Member States. Adequate funding is needed to avoid competition between existing beneficiaries of cohesion policy and the states that will join in the future.
This material is published within the framework of the project "Cohesion4Climate" co-funded by the European Union. The EU is in no way responsible for the information or views expressed within the framework of the project; the sole responsibility for the content lies with OBCT.
