The European Parliament opposed the centralisation of cohesion policy in the EU

The European Parliament opposes the thought of centralising the management of cohesion policy in the European Union. In May this year, by a majority, he adopted a study on economical and social cohesion and its future after 2027. The vast majority of the political groups are in favour of decentralising the cohesion policy model, saying "no" to reduce the function of regional and local authorities. At the same time, it points to the request to make this main investment policy more flexible so that possible crises and fresh challenges can be addressed efficiently.

– Cohesion policy as a key investment instrument of the European Union should be maintained in the same form or strengthened. It generates local government investments, investments in companies across Europe, which reduce the improvement gap between European regions says Newseria Agency Jacek Protas, associate of the European Parliament from the Civic Platform, draft rapporteur.

Cohesion policy is an crucial instrument whose beneficiaries are almost all local governments in the European Union, including Poland. We have benefited respective times from EU budgets - for the years 2000-2006, 2007-2013, 2014-2020 and now 2021–2027, remaining 1 of their largest beneficiaries. Cohesion policy has contributed across Europe to thousands of projects implemented from the European Regional improvement Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund. The EP points out that it has increased gross home product, for example EU associate States from Central and east Europe, which increased from 43% of the EU average in 1995 to around 80% in 2023. By the end of 2022, cohesion policy supported more than 4.4 million companies, creating over 370 000 jobs.

Economic and social cohesion, as defined, is intended to "reduce disparities between regions and prevent the backwardness of disadvantaged regions". The Lisbon Treaty refers to "economic, social and territorial cohesion". This means that cohesion policy is besides to advance balanced, more balanced territorial improvement and thus to gain a wider scope of action than regional policy. This is closely linked to the European Regional improvement Fund and concerns tasks at regional level.

The ninth study on economical and social cohesion, which has late been debated in the European Parliament, sets out the direction in which cohesion policy in the EU should be shaped. The paper was widely consulted with organisations and institutions representing different environments and with the Committee of the Regions of the European Union. Its demands support an even greater decentralisation of cohesion policy, thus improving its effectiveness and expanding the function of local authorities.

– There have been speculations or proposals from the European Commission that have been moving towards centralising the governance of cohesion policy. As the European Parliament, we do not agree with this model. We believe that only decentralised cohesion policy can be effective, due to the fact that it is in regions, cities, municipalities that we know best what the needs of local communities are. Regional improvement cannot be managed either from Brussels or from the capital of any country. I firmly believe that with this strong message we are besides reaching representatives of the European Commission – explains the Euro MP.

In 1 point of the report, we can read that the European Parliament "emphasises that the key and affirmative elements of cohesion policy that find its effectiveness are a regional and local approach aimed at a circumstantial area, strategical planning and a decentralised model of its programming and implementation based on the rule of partnership, together with a more efficient implementation of the European Code of Conduct, the engagement of economical and civilian entities and multi-level management (...)".

– We request to respond to fresh challenges – the war in Ukraine, the request to decision distant from mined sources of energy from Russia, the request to strengthen the east border of the European Union, especially those regions and countries bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, but besides the request for greater competitiveness of our economy, due to the fact that unfortunately we are losing our share of global GDP late and the ability to respond to crises – mentions Jacek Protas. – Making housing policy stronger is besides a fresh direction.

At the same time, it points out that the tasks that have been included in cohesion policy so far, namely reducing regional disparities, are inactive valid.

– I firmly believe that in the fresh programming period we will have effective tools and resources for this – emphasises the Euro-Parliamentary. – We point out in the study the request for cohesion policy to finance dual-use items that will service residents during peace, while during war they can be utilized for example as shelters or field hospitals, military hospitals. The request to strengthen the burden capacity of roads, bridges, among another things, are the fresh challenges I draw attention to.

The EP calls for a clear discrimination between cohesion policy and another instruments to avoid overlaps between EU instruments and competition. As highlighted in the report, its backing after 2027 must be ambitious and easy available so that cohesion policy can proceed to be the EU's main investment policy while maintaining flexibility to meet possible fresh challenges, including the anticipation of financing the improvement of dual-use items. Importantly, the ability to respond flexibly to unpredictable challenges should not be at the expense of clear long-term strategical orientation and cohesion policy objectives.