Minutes Meeting of the 10Th Structured Dialogue with European Structural and Investments Funds' Partners Group of Experts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ref. Ares(2019)1659727 - 13/03/2019 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Political and Inter-Institutional Coordination and Document Management Minutes Meeting of the 10th Structured Dialogue with European Structural and Investments Funds' partners group of experts 28 February 2019, Brussels I. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The Commission (DG REGIO) announced the agenda, which was approved. II. NATURE OF THE MEETING The meeting was public, i.e. recorded (available to anyone inside and outside the European Commission) but not web-streamed. It was an ordinary session dedicated to providing an update on the negotiations of the legislative package 2021-2027; the links with the European Semester, programming for the period 2021-2027; state of progress of implementation and the Open Data platform and presentation of the new policy objective 5 Europe close to citizens as proposed by the Commission. III. LIST OF POINTS DISCUSSED 1. Update on the negotiations of the post-2020 legislative package The Commission (DG EMPL) presented the state of play of discussions on the ESF+ regulation including the amendments proposed in the European Parliament report (increase of the ESF+ budget to €120.5 billion; specific objectives extended to certain target groups and actions; additional thematic concentration requirements, compulsory earmarking for YEI amongst other). On the Council side, DG EMPL mentioned the amendments proposed in the provisional agreement as regards the specific objectives of the fund such as the addition of “disadvantaged groups on the labour market” to specific objective 1 on access to employment, the split specific objective III into two. No questions nor comments from partners followed this presentation. The Commission (DG REGIO) presented the state of play of co-legislative discussions on the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), the Regulations proposed for the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, Interreg and ECBM. A first reading vote in the Parliament had taken place for ECBM, while a target date for first reading on the other texts (CPR, ESF+, ERDF/CF, Interreg) is planned for April. 1 The main amendments proposed by the European Parliament to the CPR included: extension of CPR to the EAFRD, strengthened partnership with empowerment to amend the code of conduct, extended coverage of partnership agreements, limitation to the (optional) transfers to investEU, new transfer possibility to Horizon Europe, extension of cross-financing between ERDF and ESF, extension of criteria for selections (art 67) and possibility to recourse to actual costs for TA among other and maintaining major projects above EUR 100 million. The main changes proposed in Council for the CPR included: restricted text on partnership, with mere reference to the code of conduct, partnership agreement optional for Member States with less than 3 programmes or with allocation < EUR 2,5 billion, restriction of criteria for selection, consultation of COM, reference to 2014 EIA Directive, climate proofing replaced by impact assessment on climate, limited reference to consistency with smart specialization strategies, deletion of the reference to EPPO, possibility to recourse to actual costs for TA, possibility to submit reimbursement for unfulfilled enabling conditions and revision of the midterm review mechanism: “flexibility amount” corresponding to 50% of 2026 and 2027 allocation among other. REGIO also presented the state of progress of trilogues which focused on block 1. REGIO also presented the main changes of the Parliament and Council proposed for the ERDF Regulation. Parliament proposed: moving digitalisation from PO3 to PO1, eligibility of administrative support to public authorities, reviews thematic concentration (applicable at category of regions, lower thresholds for PO1 and introduction of requirement for category 1 under PO2, possibility to reduce requirements by 5 or 10%), derogations under article 6 and increase of minimum requirements for urban development to 10%. Council proposed moving public transport from PO3 to PO2, opening on financing support to large enterprises (to small midcaps), openings in article 6 (exclusions), airports, security and safety, treatment of residual waste: phasing possible, fossil fuels, opening (1% of ERDF / CF) for supporting transition from coal to gas), deletion of article 8 and article 9(1), specific allocation for outermost regions not subject to thematic concentration among other. Finally, REGIO presented the main changes proposed by the European Parliament for INTERREG. CAN Europe asked why the horizontal principles were not mentioned such as gender equality, sustainable development and climate proofing. CME United highlighted how fundamental partnership is in cohesion policy, expressing concerns about the Council’s position on it, and asked about the Commission’s position on Article 6 vis-à-vis the Council. EURAF asked about the sustainable agenda and the possibilities of reimbursements under CPR. REVES asked if the Commission would accept the Council’s removal of Articles 8 and 9 of the ERDF regulation, which includes instruments that aim to ensure the efficiency of spending and bringing the EU closer to citizens. EURADA asked about the Council’s position on climate impact studies, resilience and smart specialisation. EESC noted with satisfaction that the EP wanted maritime cooperation to be reintegrated in the Interreg regulation and asked about the Commission and Council position on this matter. Atlantic Cities (ex-CAAC) asked whether the composition of monitoring committees for Interreg programmes would be identical as for other mainstream programmes in terms of participation of civil society and asked whether there was the intention to continue with macroregional strategies. Eurocities asked about the budget for URBACT. COPA-COEGECA noted that it is important to have same rules for cohesion policy and rural development. 2 CEMR-CCRE noted also for the period 2014-2020 the code of conduct has been adopted later than the start of programming and inquired about the delays in the strategic plans for CAP/rural development. EURoma asked about tools available for transnational cooperation, the role of the Commission in supervising the implementation of the funds and called for more emphasis on social inclusion. EUROCHILD asked clarifications about the mid-term review mechanism and the links with the European Semester. DG EMPL and DG REGIO gave factual clarifications on all the points received noting that the Commission has been maintaining its initial proposals. The Commission (DG AGRI) presented the state of play of the negotiations on the CAP and rural development. Contrary to Cohesion Policy, no mandate has been agreed by any of the two co-legislators. The intention of the Romanian Presidency is to progress as quickly as possible. Presidency is working based on a partial general approach. More than 8000 amendments have been tabled by the EP on the three CAP regulations, some 6000 of which concern the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation. In his reply to a question asked in the meeting, he noted that the integration of the EAFRD in the CPR would lead to a very complicated legal framework, notably due to the fundamental differences in the delivering model of the future CAP compared to Cohesion Policy. At the same time, he confirmed that the EAFRD would still contribute to the achievement of the goals linked to territorial cohesion. If needed, Commission will timely provide transitional rules, to ensure continuity in rural development support. DG REGIO (on behalf of DG MARE) gave an update on the state of progress of negotiations on the EMFF with the report of the lead European Parliament Committee to be voted in April plenary and partial general agreement expected in Council in June. CERM-CCRE asked about the application of the partnership principle in the CAP. EAPN expressed concerns that the EAFRD would not support social objectives. DG AGRI stated that the proposed CAP legal framework proposes clear rules to involve partners in the implementation of the CAP and reassured that the EAFRD would continue to play a key role in supporting social objectives in rural areas. 2. Alignment with the European Semester; programming, negotiations The Commission (DG REGIO) explained the reinforced links proposed between cohesion policy and the European Semester, underlining the new features of the country reports including analysis of regional disparities and Annex D identifying Cohesion policy relevant investment needs for Member States. DG REGIO outlined the main stages of the upcoming programming process including the events launching programming between early March and mid-April in Member States (organised back to back with the events on the European Semester). She stated that the code of conduct (CoC) on partnership is valid already at the programming phase. Member States are being asked to give the Commission a roadmap by June on programming. The Commission’s objective is to adopt all partnership agreements and programmes by the end of 2020. The Commission is hopeful that a provisional agreement can be reached on programming during the current trilogues. ENIL showed concerns over weakened provisions on de-institutionalisation including Commission control of Member States compliance to use the funds. EDF asked about the date of the events launching programming and how to get an invitation. 3 CEMR asked why PO5 is not relevant to all Member States and inquired about the partnership mechanism in the context