It is in the most peripheral European countries that the transformative impact of EU cohesion policy funds can be seen most clearly. Skilling and re-skilling the workforce, reforming the education, health and social systems, vocational training for young people.

The opportunities offered by national programmes that put Brussels funding to work can be felt where European support is most needed.

"Cohesion policy is a key tool in countries like Bulgaria to attract investment and revitalise economic life especially in rural areas," explained Zornitsa Roussinova, President of the Economic and Social Council of Bulgaria since 2020, in an interview for OBCT.

After 15 years managing European Social Fund (ESF) programmes in Bulgaria, between 2016 and 2017 the former Minister of Labour and Social Policies was called to be part of the group of experts  set up by the European Commission to provide advice on possible reforms to be made to EU cohesion policy.

A personal and professional experience between Sofia and Brussels that gave Roussinova an overview of the potential of European funds on the ground.

What should be the priorities for the next cycle of EU cohesion policy?

Cohesion policy remains one of the most important tools for achieving fundamental reforms and promoting economic balance. The main objective is to strengthen national competitiveness, thus consolidating the European Union as a whole. The need for economic convergence cannot be underestimated.

In Bulgaria, cohesion policy has had a tangible impact in many areas, especially in the social sector. For years, it has been the main instrument for interventions in the labour market, supporting various reforms and providing training and re-qualification opportunities.

It has also played a crucial role in education, supporting reforms not only through the ‘soft’ measures of the European Social Fund, but with investments in infrastructure projects.

What is your view on the possible centralisation of cohesion policy?

I don’t fully understand the idea of ​​centralisation. The report we wrote is very balanced and provides sound recommendations based on academic research and on the field experience in the Member States.

Firstly, cohesion policy should have a broader objective, namely to improve regional development and interregional cooperation, supporting talents even in areas with limited economic development.

Secondly, more emphasis should be placed on coordination with other instruments and on creating stronger synergies with other policies. This would help promote a coordinated and shared management approach, while simplifying cohesion policy to make it more accessible to beneficiaries.

Finally, it would be useful to develop a new set of criteria that reflect the specific characteristics and progress of different regions. Regional development in Europe is uneven and this creates disparities even within individual countries. A balanced approach is therefore needed.

And what do you think about the proposal to reallocate cohesion policy funds to the defence and security sector of the EU’s eastern border regions?

In my opinion, this is very similar to the amendments introduced during the COVID-19 crisis. Cohesion policy has proven once again to be one of the most flexible instruments, which is why it should continue to be managed in this way.

Take the National Recovery and Resilience Facility for example, where such flexibility does not exist: it is much more difficult to reallocate funds.

I think the key point is not to lose sight of the objectives of the programmes, because a lot will depend on the amount of uncommitted funds available for different projects.

Furthermore, defence is a rather large sector, and clear guidelines are needed on the types of interventions that cohesion policy should prioritise. The main objective of cohesion policy must remain to support balanced regional development.

What success stories can you cite regarding cohesion policy funding in Bulgaria?

The whole denationalisation process is a good example, as it is one of the main reforms in the social sector. Previously, these social services followed a socialist model, with limited or no access to education for children and healthcare for the elderly and people with disabilities, particularly in small villages and remote areas.

The reform took many years, but it was a significant success, transforming schools and care facilities into modern centres for integrated social, medical and educational services. It also demonstrated strong coordination between funding instruments: the European Social Fund supported non-structural measures, while infrastructure investments were supported through cooperation between the European Regional Development Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

Another successful example was the large-scale qualification or re-qualification programme, accessible to both unemployed and employed people. The entire programme was managed directly by the national employment agency.

Several targeted and innovative programmes financed by the European Social Fund were also implemented, such as support for social enterprises. An effective tool to promote rural development and help people from minorities or with disabilities find employment.

Cohesion policy also supported young people through entrepreneurship programmes, training opportunities and internships in companies. These initiatives create a valuable bridge between education and the labour market, allowing young people to acquire practical skills.

What aspects of cohesion policy could still be improved?

Certainly coordination with other instruments, although with the new priority given to defence, this will become even more challenging, in particular as regards competences.

It is also necessary to reduce conditions when they are not directly linked to the achievement of the objectives of cohesion policy. Some issues requiring reforms related to the rule of law should not be addressed under cohesion policy. To this end, there are other mechanisms that can and should be further developed.

This article is published in the context of the project "Cohesion4Climate" co-funded by the European Union. The EU is in no way responsible for the information or views expressed within the framework of the project; the sole responsibility for the content lies with OBCT.