Ahead of the adoption of his draft opinion on the 'Simplification of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) from the perspective of local and regional Authorities', we have met with PES member Petr Osvald, Councillor of the City of Plzeň (Czech Republic).
As a local politician, you are closely following the implementation of EU cohesion policy on the ground. What needs to be improved?
Cohesion policy is one of the few EU instruments that has a direct, concrete and visible impact on citizens and thus has considerable potential to positively influence their overall position vis-à-vis the EU. It would be very unfortunate if this instrument were restricted, reformulated or possibly used for different policies, especially at a time when the EU's popularity is declining among citizens across the board. It is important to bear in mind, inter alia, that the EU institutions, and even the very existence of the EU as such, are directly dependent upon the will of citizens (voters), which they are expressing not only in the European Parliament elections, but above all in parliamentary elections in Member States and via various referenda. Cohesion policy should therefore undergo a process to increase its effectiveness and added value, with the aim not only of achieving the EU's targets and the Europe 2020 strategy, but also benefiting the general public, which will improve their perception of the Union as a whole.
Perhaps one of the most important ways of achieving this is by simplifying the overall implementation system and increasing its flexibility.
It is often pointed out at the present time that cohesion policy is not fulfilling its role, that it is not employed entirely effectively, that not enough new creative projects are emerging and that overall cohesion policy does not produce the anticipated effect.
Whenever we have the impression that something worked in the past but does not work now (whether it be cohesion policy, a car or a vacuum cleaner), we need to ask ourselves the question: "What changed?"
Is it a problem within cohesion policy as such, or did we manage the implementation process in such a complicated way that its core functions are no longer working?
Who is the key player in this policy that guarantees its purpose? Is it the European Commission, the national managing and audit authorities, or the beneficiaries that devise and create the projects?
I believe that it is the end beneficiaries, who create something new, who develop and provide a benefit to the EU as a whole. The entire cohesion policy should therefore be constructed above all with a view to stimulating the emergence of new creative projects. I fear that, at present, cohesion policy is reaching a state where its structure caters to the needs of the control and audit authorities that evaluate its implementation, rather than the needs of the end beneficiaries.
We should go back to the heart of cohesion policy and its original purpose – that is, a regional and not a sectoral policy.
For these reasons I strongly welcome Commissioner Corina Crețu's initiative on simplifying the ESIF. The Committee of the Regions represents local and regional authorities that are the end beneficiaries or the last links in the management of ESIF. This is why I have drafted my opinion on simplification, which provides the necessary grassroots perspective.
