Samecki's "orientation paper" on the future of cohesion policy is intended to be a "reference document" for the incoming commissioner for regional policy, Austrian Johannes Hahn.
The outgoing Polish commissioner, in the last weeks of his brief mandate at the EU executive, outlined "new goals and structural changes to help achieve them," according to Commission officials.
However, the officials were quick to point out that Samecki's guidelines strategically refrained from going into policy – or, crucially, financial – specifics.
Broadly speaking, Samecki believes the "policy fundamentals" of the EU's cohesion policy are sound, and its overall goals of achieving "harmonious development" through "reduced disparities between the EU's regions" remain valid as the Commission sets about planning for the 2014-2020 era.
However, he acknowledges that the context in which these policies operate has changed, and the next regional "roadmap" must be more aware of the impact of globalisation, Europe's employment crisis, and the EU's goals of 'green' and sustainable development.
Link regional policy to 'big picture' blueprint
To achieve these goals, the sine qua non of future regional policy must be that cohesion strategies are linked closely to other overall EU priorities, such as Commission President José Manuel Barroso's much-debated 'EU 2020' strategy for growth and jobs (EurActiv 19/11/09).
The 2014-2020 regional policy must complement the 2020 vision, as well as work within it, Samecki believes.
A key element in this respect is the question of territorial cohesion and cooperation.
As noted in a Blogactiv post from May 2009, "the unification of the European market and the deployment of a common currency have involuntarily contributed to a veil of ignorance that shrouds the real economy of exchanges between territories".
Indeed, Commission officials acknowledged that territorial cohesion currently accounts for just 2.5% of the cohesion policy's overall budget.
As the Lisbon Treaty for the first time introduces a clause on territorial cohesion, they believe this percentage should be reinforced, not only financially but in terms of structural support.
Targets, sanctions and incentives: Focusing on performance
EU cohesion policy will only become truly efficient and eliminate its occasional lapses into unnecessary wastefulness when there is a stronger focus on "results and evidence-based policymaking," the paper argues.
For example, core indicators – i.e. benchmarks to measure the quality of cohesion policy results - should be made obligatory. These indicators, introduced in the 2007-2013 period, would allow comparability between member states and programmes.
The question of targets is a tricky one, however. The Commission recognises that it is not currently well-prepared enough to negotiate these targets. The risk, said officials, is that if targets are set too low, real progress in Europe's regions will not be made.
Therefore, the paper calls for a system to establish a "realistic and quantifiable" system of targets – for example, instead of measuring the number of kilometres of roadway built in a given region, its results would be measured according to the volume of time saved by road users in the area.
This future system may include incentives and sanctions, which would be linked to regions achieving specific targets.
However, critics of such measures have in the past argued that introducing targets runs the risk of creating a vicious circle where regions who do well and achieve targets faster, then receive incentives and remain ahead, thus effectively ensuring that strong regions get stronger while the weaker fall behind.
Samecki prescribes a system of redistributing resources based on needs which might make the future policy more efficient in this regard. In other words, when a "star pupil" region is doing particularly well in achieving its project targets, the Commission could reduce its involvement there, shifting its expertise to less successful "slow pupils".
Finally, the outgoing commissioner highlights the need for improved institution building in the weakest regions. “Without strong administration, this policy will not deliver meaningful results,” experts said.
