“It is a situation that is too recent and too serious to merit a comment on my part. We have to see what happens, we have to see, above all, if in the long term there is a solution to this brutal problem. In the short term In the long term, we have an attack on innocent people. It is dramatic what is unfolding before our eyes. So let’s let this dust settle and really try to make sure that the peace efforts that had been started a long time ago, when Europe was so involved, That’s not “It left us feeling weakened, because in the long term you have to find peace. I didn’t want to make too many comments on topics that everyone is watching a movie that hasn’t been finished yet.”
In any case, since Israel is a partner of European countries and, on the other hand, the European Union is the institution or organization that has helped the most in terms of humanitarian aid to the subsistence of Palestinians in the occupied territories, to what extent does the Continuation of this conflict could call into question other development aid and aid commitments from the European Union, i.e. Ukraine. Do you think there could be any diversion of funds from one conflict to another?
Ultimately, it is clear that having another ongoing conflict in our neighborhood is a dangerous and very complex situation. But in fact, I think that at the moment everything that is said about the future is a bit hasty. President Ursula Von Der Leyen has already made statements in this regard. At this moment the positions of the European Commission are clear and these are, and I believe that it is not justified to make any other type of comments than those that have already been made on this issue.
“There is a very high risk of fragmentation of structural funds”
Every year the mayors who come here for the Week of the Regions complain that they are not listened to much, that they should be more involved in the decision-making process regarding the PRR and the application of funds. How do the members of the Commission feel or consider these concerns and demands legitimate?
Regarding the cohesion policy and not the PRR (Recovery and Resilience Plans) because I do not have powers over the PRR, but with respect to the cohesion policy there is great concern about listening to the mayors. They are, let’s say, those who have the budget and the unquestionable and evident political legitimacy to manage the structural funds beyond the central level. In fact, there is an evolution at the level of the presidents of the CCDR (Regional Development Coordination Committees), but in reality the powers they have still do not allow them, let’s say, to develop structured policies and they do not have the budget to carry out compensation. There is a bit of a hybrid situation when it comes to mayors. In fact, there is a very big risk of a certain fragmentation of the use of structural funds. These protagonists, inherently, out of responsibility, in short, have done an exceptional job in everything related to proximity policies, and some of them have effectively launched themselves, including development dynamics, leaving their limited space and managing to do so in At the city level, particularly inter-municipal communities, they are preparing larger-scale projects. I was here recently in Portugal, in the Intermunicipal Community of Douro (CIM) and the president of the CIM of Douro said a very interesting phrase that is very illustrative. He, in his public speech, said: “We have 200,000 inhabitants, which is less than most cities or municipalities in Europe. We have to think about the future as if we were a city with 19 parishes and therefore have a vision of long range”. And I thought it was very important, it was a very interesting way of asking the question, and they themselves came to the conclusion that they had to raise the level and prepare projects with a little more visibility and scope, otherwise use the funds for projects that are interesting but that do not mark a great advance in relation to the issue of development, that do not add value.
In other words, are more mayors aware of this need?
We have already begun to find mayors with an enormous capacity to go beyond their own sphere and essentially design a development strategy. And that is what we want, because otherwise we cannot simply create basic infrastructure and proximity policies. The funds are too important and the circumstances too dangerous for this not to happen. Along with this, there is then a whole set of projects and actions where, once again, scale is important, because in this process of introducing new technologies, of adapting the business fabric, of adapting companies to a completely new world , which is the world of the environment. compliance and innovation, almost no economic activity can remain indifferent, but this requires high technology, it requires a great appetite for change and it requires that the use of structural funds be channeled exactly towards this objective. Increase added value to have greater productivity and pay higher salaries that allow people to resolve their lives.
Why do you talk about very dangerous circumstances?
Precisely because we are in the midst of brutal climate instability and, therefore, we have to think that the future is…
Much faster than applying or implementing funds? Were we surprised by the speed with which the impact of climate change occurred, especially this summer, in several European countries?
Climate change is already here and a third of structural funds, 37% of the PRR, must be allocated to projects that give a positive boost to climate and environmental issues. Perhaps, let’s say, this is not known, but the structural funds are the largest investors in climate and environmental projects at the European level. What are you doing with that? It is important that, let’s say, this perception is shared by everyone and that, for example, whoever builds, starting from the most basic infrastructures, takes into account the impact of climate change. Forest management is obvious, but also the management of water and water reserves and the way in which water is used and the way in which treated water is reused. For example, wastewater, after being treated, must begin to be used for reforestation or cleaning, or depending on the level of treatment it receives. But, let’s say, from the management of cities, the management of companies, the climate emergency is also one of these factors. But, in addition to the climate emergency, we started the conversation with the environment in Europe, the war in Ukraine, everything that is happening in the European Union, also makes us think about the political need to prepare for enlargement.
And what should the country do?
This unique opportunity to combine a recovery and resilience program with abundant structural funds must change the country and solve the structural problems that affect it. We have to get out of this situation where, in fact, the funds become a kind of routine, a habit and where the ambition associated with the funds is lost and they are not needed later. I think it’s time to think in these terms. There are areas of the EU with population losses and a certain inability to break that glass ceiling that, in fact, prevents these regions and countries from taking the leap and structuring development that is also spatially more balanced and with much more added value. We end up having situations of impoverishment in certain regions. Other regions suffer from claustrophobia due to the excessive concentration of people and the resulting increase in housing, rental and home purchase prices. This disparity in circumstances also contributes to some difficulty for the country to focus on what matters, which is creating value, creating companies with value, making existing companies use the funds to have more value to be more competitive and achieve, in done, pay more. salaries that retain the most qualified people and prevent them from having this permanent temptation to leave the country.
Source: TSF
