#EU #Cohesion #post2020: Key Questions

What are the decisive factors which will determine the debate on the future of CP?

1) The first and central question is how EU cohesion policy can best contribute to its two complementary objectives, the two sides of its coin: competitiveness and cohesion. What is the added value of cohesion policy in this context?

2) what is the best way to support the lagging regions, especially those which in spite of decades of EU and national support, did not converge towards the EU average?

3) how should the architecture of the policy be defined? Should cohesion policy continue to invest in the advanced regions, especially in the metropolitan ones, which are not only richer, but also privileged by private investors?

What are the scenarios related to the future budget for CP?

4) what is the best use of cohesion policy funds to stimulate investment in Europe? Which form of support is most efficient: grants, repayable assistance, financial instruments, or their combination? Should the share of financial instruments in EU funds be further increased?

What are the most convincing arguments, narratives and rationales for the future of Cohesion Policy?

5) how can cohesion policy investment best contribute to overarching European priorities, while keeping its territorial focus? Should we pay a more specific attention to certain geographical areas?

Which levers in CP should be changed and which ones should be kept? What are the main dimensions defining the future EU model of Cohesion Policy as public investment policy?

6) how could cohesion policy address new or growing challenges (such as, for instance, energy security or migration)?

7) what should be the role of urban dimension in cohesion policy? Where can EU action bring most added value? On the contrary, how can cohesion policy better support growth, jobs and innovation outside heavily populated areas?

8) how can we further simplify the implementation of the policy for beneficiaries? How can cohesion policy stimulate better national and regional governance? Should the shared management model be revised? Should there be any kind of conditionality regarding quality of institutions?

What is the most important signal supporting territorial cohesion which should come from CP 2020+?

9) should the allocation of cohesion policy funds continue to be based on GDP per head, or rather on other indicators capturing social progress?

GDP as indicator is suitable to show general increase or decrease of the output of an economy but falls short to capture aspects such as environmental protection or quality of life. In accordance with the considerations on the growth signals, employment would become the key indicator next to a link between GDP and resource consumption.

Which are the most important (growth) signals to be supported by Cohesion Policy 2020+?

What are the most convincing arguments, narratives and rationales for the future of Cohesion Policy?

10) what form should take the contribution/integration of cohesion policy to the EU’s economic governance and structural reform agenda?

What are the most convincing arguments, narratives and rationales for the future of Cohesion Policy?

From the current perspective it seems that Cohesion Policy needs to support a shift of the political attention from a rather one-dimensional approach based on economic growth towards a model focussed on social cohesion and sustainable development. However, these elements must be part of an approach towards sustained growth.

From this perspective the corresponding overarching growth signals supported by CP would be:

• Resource-efficiency – an approach based on incentives which is complementary to the regulatory approaches in the field of environmental protection

• Job creation and employment – economic growth is decoupling from job growth and precarious jobs are on the rise