# C_2023257EN.01000101.xml

| 21.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/1

---

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on ‘Do no harm to cohesion – A cross-cutting principle contributing towards cohesion as an overall objective and value of the EU’

(2023/C 257/01)

| Rapporteur: | Michiel RIJSBERMAN (NL/Renew) Regional Minister of the Province of Flevoland |
| --- | --- |
| Reference documents: | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the 8th Cohesion Report: Cohesion in Europe towards 2050
  COM(2022) 34 final
  Commission Staff Working Document Cohesion in Europe towards 2050 accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the 8th Cohesion Report: Cohesion in Europe towards 2050
  SWD(2022) 24 final |

Rapporteur:

Michiel RIJSBERMAN (NL/Renew) Regional Minister of the Province of Flevoland

Reference documents:

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the 8th Cohesion Report: Cohesion in Europe towards 2050

COM(2022) 34 final

Commission Staff Working Document Cohesion in Europe towards 2050 accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the 8th Cohesion Report: Cohesion in Europe towards 2050

SWD(2022) 24 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

| 1. | welcomes the introduction of the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle (hereafter ‘DNHC’) in the 8th Cohesion Report, where it is defined as ‘no action should hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities’ (1), but regrets that the report provides no in-depth insight for getting a clear picture about the problems (harm to cohesion) and possible solutions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | underlines the importance of cohesion as a fundamental value of the European Union and a cross-cutting objective that the European Committee of the Regions fully supports. Points out that recent crises have stagnated convergence and particularly affected the most vulnerable citizens; insists on the need to avoid creating fertile soil for populism and extremism in the context of the upcoming European elections; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | thanks the European Parliament (2) for calling on the European Committee of the Regions to be involved in the implementation and design of the DNHC principle and calls on the European Commission to take the proposals from this opinion on board when further developing the principle; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | underlines the Council conclusions on the 8th Cohesion report call for a general awareness of doing no harm to cohesion in all Union policies and initiatives, and in the implementation of the internal market, including State Aid rules; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | reminds that, according to Article 175 of the Treaty on the Functioning on the European Union (TFEU), European policies and actions as well as the economic policies of Member States should contribute to the Union’s overall harmonious development and social, economic and territorial cohesion. Insists that, while EU Cohesion Policy has a key role in promoting cohesion, other EU policies are bound by this objective. Notices that there are currently no mechanisms in place for ensuring this; |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | demands from the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council and the Member States that DNHC be turned from a concept into reality; |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | warns the Commission that the principle is far from ready to be used as a tool to deliver cohesion, and risks compromising the purpose of cohesion policy in its own right. Cohesion policy is and should remain the main tool for a harmonious development of the Union for all regions; |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | proposes a wide interpretation of the DNHC principle, covering all European policies with spatial impact as well as relevant national policies, and encompassing a requirement to respect the cohesion principles of partnership and multi-level governance; |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | proposes that the Commission applies a mandatory ‘comply or explain’ rule linked to the DNHC principle in the explanatory memorandum for any proposed initiative; |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | calls on the Commission to develop the analysis of cohesion aspects as part of the European Semester, in particular through the annex on economic and social performance at regional level of country reports; it would be even more useful if it provided a state-of-play of cohesion at NUTS 2 level in Member States and included an analysis of existing policies that could explain the situation and possible measures for solving regional disparities; |
| --- | --- |

10.

How Cohesion may be harmed

| 11. | recognises that the existence of many types of disparities combined with the lack of data on effects of policies in our regions and cities, either positive or negative, makes it challenging to obtain deeper insight into harm being done to cohesion and to propose manageable solutions; |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | points out that, apart from Cohesion Policy, the design and implementation of some EU policies contribute to the convergence process while others may go against it; outlines that not only funding policies but also regulatory initiatives or trade agreements may have a significant impact and create obstacles for the development of less developed regions, even if they seem ‘spatially blind’; |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | notes for instance that any relaxing of State aid rules often benefits more developed Member States to a greater extent; |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | considers that the potential synergies between EU funds that have a territorial dimension could be better exploited; |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | underlines that, despite many simplifications introduced by the Commission, the complexity of EU funds and rules for using them still make it difficult for local and regional authorities to benefit from EU programmes; |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | points out that the limited capacity of local and regional actors to access funding opportunities and to run projects also stems from an unavailability of technical skills or ability to provide the expected co-financing; calls therefore on the European Commission to support in particular Member States with low absorption rates via capacity building measures; |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | shares the view in the European Parliament’s resolution on the 8th Cohesion Report that the deployment of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) has been highly centralised at Member State level and has lacked consultation with regions and municipalities (3); |
| --- | --- |

17.

| 18. | regrets that under the RRF there is no obligation for Member States to report on the distribution of funds in the various regions; argues for better information and transparency on where the money lands and calls on future investment programmes to be implemented at local or regional level; |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | underlines that the different EU programmes and funds running in parallel, such as RRF, REACT-EU, JTF (Just Transition Fund), ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and ESF+ (European Social Fund Plus) oblige managing authorities to work with different rules and implementation duties, which creates uncertainties and leads to a slower start in some of the programmes; |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | regrets that there is no clear overview on the combined effect of a large number of EU regulations both on the whole and on each other. Underlines that this limits the possibility of integral spatial choices and makes it difficult to implement individual regulations, and that choices need to be made when facilitating the energy transition (through investments in e.g. heating networks/solar panels), applying greenery (e.g. in the form of trees) in the environment, providing sustainable mobility and building sufficient and sustainable housing; |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | draws attention to the fact that, even as part of Cohesion policy, unintended harm may be done diminishing its impact; national authorities may not allocate maximum levels of funding to less developed and transition regions, hampering the convergence process. Requests that the Commission and Member States optimise the use of cohesion policy funding in less developed and transition regions, including as part of the upcoming mid-term review of the 2021-2027 programmes; |
| --- | --- |

21.

| 22. | notices that Cohesion may also be endangered by the fact that Cohesion policy funding has been used to systematically respond to recent crises; highlights that although this may have contributed to preventing a further widening of disparities, the cohesion-principles of strategic, evidence-based programming, partnership and multi-level governance should still be respected in any crisis-response instrument; |
| --- | --- |

22.

| 23. | underlines that the CoR refuses any attempts for centralisation of EU programmes and will not accept a further disregarding of the local and regional level in future EU programmes. Stresses that shared management has proven successful and should not be undermined by centrally-managed programmes; |
| --- | --- |

23.

Implementing the principle through reinforced ex ante assessment, mid-term, ongoing and ex post evaluation of territorial impacts of all relevant EU policies

| 24. | emphasises that the 8th Cohesion Report calls for strengthening territorial impact assessments and rural proofing ‘so that the needs and specificities of different EU territories are better taken into account’; welcomes that, in its conclusions on the 8th Cohesion Report, the Council encouraged the European Commission to consider including territorial impact assessments (regional proofing) in relevant EU policies at both their conception and evaluation stages; |
| --- | --- |

24.

| 25. | stresses the need for a systematic ex ante assessment of potential differentiated territorial impacts on all types of regions of all new EU policies with a territorial dimension in their design phase as the most effective tool to put the DNHC principle into practice; |
| --- | --- |

25.

| 26. | points out that the interinstitutional agreement on better law-making of 2016 commits the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council to carry out impact assessments, whenever possible, with particular regards to territorial impacts; considers that the 2021 EC Better regulation package (4) provides a framework for assessing territorial impacts; however, regrets that the stipulation that impact assessments should be proportionate as regards their scope and focus leads in practice to often very limited assessment or under-estimation of territorial impacts. Recalls the European Commission’s repeated commitments in recent years (5) to strengthen territorial impact assessments (TIA); |
| --- | --- |

26.

| 27. | therefore, recommends reinforcing the assessment of potential differentiated territorial impacts and negative effects on cohesion in the EC Better Regulation toolbox in several ways:






  — | by adding a question in the list of questions in BR Tool # 18 along the lines of: ‘Does the initiative hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities?’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

27.

—

by adding a question in the list of questions in BR Tool # 18 along the lines of: ‘Does the initiative hamper the convergence process or contribute to regional disparities?’

| — | in BR Tool # 34, by making the use of the TIA Necessity Check mandatory to determine the need for a Territorial Impact Assessment and by giving a strong preference to the use of ESPON (The European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion) TIA Quick Check tool over public consultations for assessing potential territorial impacts, as it is based on a combination of experts’ judgment and quantitative territorial data available for all EU regions. |
| --- | --- |

—

in BR Tool # 34, by making the use of the TIA Necessity Check mandatory to determine the need for a Territorial Impact Assessment and by giving a strong preference to the use of ESPON (The European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion) TIA Quick Check tool over public consultations for assessing potential territorial impacts, as it is based on a combination of experts’ judgment and quantitative territorial data available for all EU regions.

| — | by introducing a recommendation that stakeholder consultations should explicitly cover territorial cohesion aspects, either with a reference in the ‘call for evidence’ and/or a set of questions in the public consultation or with targeted consultations reaching regional and local authorities, reminding that target groups in remote and rural areas with more difficult access to the internet may need to be addressed by specific channels. |
| --- | --- |

—

by introducing a recommendation that stakeholder consultations should explicitly cover territorial cohesion aspects, either with a reference in the ‘call for evidence’ and/or a set of questions in the public consultation or with targeted consultations reaching regional and local authorities, reminding that target groups in remote and rural areas with more difficult access to the internet may need to be addressed by specific channels.

| — | by introducing an obligation to report in the Impact Assessment report on the assessment of potential differentiated territorial impacts and potential harm to cohesion, in a similar way as for the ‘do no significant harm’ principle concerning environmental impacts; impact assessments should be clear as to whether there will be impacts on EU cohesion, and what the trade-offs may be between cohesion and other objectives. |
| --- | --- |

—

by introducing an obligation to report in the Impact Assessment report on the assessment of potential differentiated territorial impacts and potential harm to cohesion, in a similar way as for the ‘do no significant harm’ principle concerning environmental impacts; impact assessments should be clear as to whether there will be impacts on EU cohesion, and what the trade-offs may be between cohesion and other objectives.

| — | by including a specific mandatory section in the explanatory memorandum explaining how the initiative upholds the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle based on a ‘comply or explain’ rule: the Commission should either demonstrate that the implementation of the initiative does not hinder the Union’s cohesion (complies with the DNHC principle), or explain why the potential harm (remaining after mitigating measures) is justified, with regards to other objectives; |
| --- | --- |

—

by including a specific mandatory section in the explanatory memorandum explaining how the initiative upholds the ‘do no harm to cohesion’ principle based on a ‘comply or explain’ rule: the Commission should either demonstrate that the implementation of the initiative does not hinder the Union’s cohesion (complies with the DNHC principle), or explain why the potential harm (remaining after mitigating measures) is justified, with regards to other objectives;

| 28. | calls upon the Commission to further develop TIA models and methods with support from JRC and ESPON; |
| --- | --- |

28.

| 29. | calls upon the Commission to give capacity for a dedicated service to support directorates-general in the TIA process and deliver mandatory training on TIA to all Commission officials dealing with impact assessments; |
| --- | --- |

29.

| 30. | reiterates its call for the Regulatory Scrutiny Board to include a permanent member designated by the CoR in order to ensure that EU policies are not territorially blind; |
| --- | --- |

30.

| 31. | is eager to assist the Commission in conducting its Territorial Impact Assessments; offers in particular to help identify relevant questions for local and regional authorities in Commission consultations and help identify experts at local and regional levels to take part in Commission TIA workshops; |
| --- | --- |

31.

| 32. | points out that the European Committee of the Regions can play a stronger role in the EU Better Regulation agenda e.g. by conducting TIA itself on EU policies which could potentially harm cohesion, if it is granted additional means; |
| --- | --- |

32.

| 33. | insists on the need to implement the DNHC principle also in the evaluation phase (ex post, mid-term and ongoing), so it is not a one-time box-ticking exercise during the ex ante assessment, by monitoring and evaluating the impact of sectoral EU policies on cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

33.

| 34. | suggests, in this respect, introducing in the EC Better Regulation package a recommendation that evaluated legislation or programmes should look at possible direct impacts on cohesion or (in)consistencies with Cohesion Policy; reports (equivalent to the Cohesion Report) produced in the context of sectoral policies should have a part dedicated to cohesion effects; |
| --- | --- |

34.

| 35. | recalls the added value RegHub provides, by means of stakeholder consultations, to the evaluation of implemented EU legislation; reiterates the call to make full use of the Fit for Future platform, RegHub and the CoR itself, to ensure that the Commission has detailed evidence of impact on the ground; |
| --- | --- |

35.

| 36. | stresses the general need for data and statistical tools at local and regional level to support the ex ante assessment and ex post evaluation of the impact of EU policies/instruments on cohesion; underlines the need for indicators and comprehensive indices (other than GDP per capita) such as the EU Social Progress Index or Regional Competitiveness Index to reflect all aspects of harmonious development as new sources of disparities may emerge. Calls for more resources to be dedicated to Eurostat and JRC for the urban and rural observatories development. Calls on Member States to implement systems for gathering data and information at local level to evaluate the impact of legislation and policies; |
| --- | --- |

36.

Implementing the principle through a better coordination of EU policies/funds and their implementation at national and subnational level

| 37. | calls upon the European Commission to streamline investment policies and funds to ensure synergies and complementarities in order to achieve selected objectives. Calls for the Just Transition Fund as well as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to be governed with other funds under the same Common Provisions Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

37.

| 38. | stresses the need to increase synergies between cohesion policy and Horizon Europe in order to strengthen research and innovation capacities in all EU regions, which allows the EU to compete on a global scale by investing in regional excellence and can be a solution to the development trap of middle-income regions; |
| --- | --- |

38.

| 39. | calls on the European Commission, when managing EU funding, to take into account the level of development of regions and potential for reducing regional disparities going beyond GDP; |
| --- | --- |

39.

| 40. | encourages national governments to conduct systematic ex ante territorial impact assessment so that no national policy is ‘spatially blind’, making use of lessons learnt from the Territorial Agenda 2030 Pilot Action ‘Understanding how sector policies shape spatial (im)balances’; |
| --- | --- |

40.

| 41. | underlines the need for Member States to ensure communication and coordination between the different ministries, agencies and managing authorities to make the best of potential synergies and complementarities between different policies and funding streams and ensure there is no overlap or harm to cohesion; |
| --- | --- |

41.

| 42. | reiterates its call on Member States and the Commission to ensure that the RRF and any successor directly incorporates the cohesion policy approach based on strategic evidence-based programming, multilevel governance and partnership; |
| --- | --- |

42.

| 43. | emphasises that different levels of government need to work together in partnership to deliver cohesion on the ground, including by coordinating the implementation of different EU policies/instruments; |
| --- | --- |

43.

| 44. | urges the Member States to support any of their regions whose development is lagging behind in building administrative capacity and in boosting skills development to fully benefit from EU programmes. |
| --- | --- |

44.

Brussels, 24 May 2023.

The President of the European Committee of the Regions

Vasco ALVES CORDEIRO

---

(1)  See: page 30 of Cohesion in Europe towards 2050, Eighth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/cohesion-report/).

1

Eighth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion

(2)  Report A9-0210/2022 on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report (2022/2032(INI)).

2

Report A9-0210/2022 on economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 8th Cohesion Report

(3)  Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions on the Review Report on the Implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (OJ C 157, 3.5.2023, p. 12).

3

(4)  Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox.

4

(5)  See EC communications A Long-Term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas (2021) and Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions (2022).

5

A Long-Term Vision for the EU’s Rural Areas

Putting people first, securing sustainable and inclusive growth, unlocking the potential of the EU’s outermost regions

---