Committee on Regional Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
REGI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsDragoş Benea
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention ? Rejected. Compromise number seven, who's in favor?
Against. Abstention is adopted. Compromise number eight, who's in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
Compromise number 9. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. Comment amendment 167.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 170. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 172. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention? Rejected. 173. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention ? Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
174. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention. Rejected.
175. Who is in favor? 8. 8. 8.
8. 78. Sorry. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. Rejected. 176 were in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
177. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Check.
The vote is open. Vote disclosed. Rejected. 180. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention is adopted. 01/1981. Who is in favor? No.
Sorry. Sorry. 01/1983. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. 01/1985. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention, rejected.
01/1986 was in favor. Against. Abstention. Adopted. 01/1987 was in favor.
Against. Abstention rejected. 01/1988. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. 01/1989. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
191, who is in favor? Against. Abstention was adopted. Compromise, amendment No. 10. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention has been adopted. Amendment 197. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention is adopted. Compromise amendment No. 11. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
Compromise number 12. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. Compromise 13.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. We're going to abandon 02/1984. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention. Check. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Rejected.
Dragoş Benea
EPP has one more member. One card needs to be removed. It's one EP. So this is my best compromise for you.
Dragoş Benea
It's necessary to repeat the vote for Amendment 284. The vote is open. We repeat the vote here. 202,884. So, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. Also, it is rejected. Compromise number 40. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention has been adopted. Compromise 50. 15. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention is adopted. 16. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
Compromise number 70. Who is in favor? Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
Compromise 18. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. We're going to amend the number 305.
Those in favor? Against? Abstention? Check. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Adopted. Compromise, Amendment 19. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention is adopted. Compromise 20. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
Compromise 21, who's in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. Compromise 22, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention is adopted. Going to amendment 23. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention has been adopted.
Compromise Amendment 23. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. We're going to amendment 275.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. Amendment, compromise 24. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention is adopted. We're going to amendment 310. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. Three 11. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. 30919. 319. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Rejected. 321. Who is in favor?
321. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. 03/1928.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 03/1942. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention. Rejected.
Dragoş Benea
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted. 03/1945.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention. Adopted. 346.
Who is in favor? 03/1947. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Rejected. 350. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
Compromise 25. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. We're going to amendment 366.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 367. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 03/1977. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. I think it's been adopted. Adopted. March 03, 1978. 8.
03/1978. Who's in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 03/1979.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 03/1981. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 382. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. Adopted. 383. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. 385. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
Check 385. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected. Compromise Amendment 26.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. Amendment 393. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention. Adopted. 394. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention. Rejected. 03/1995. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. 03/1996. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention is adopted. Compromise Amendment 27. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
We're going to amendment 425. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 403.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 404. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. Check 404. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Adopted. 407. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention is adopted. 411, who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. 417, who is in favor?
Against. Abstention. Rejected. Check. The vote is open.
The vote is closed. Rejected. 40,418 were in favor. Against. Abstention ?
Rejected. 420. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention ?
Adopted. 422. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention was rejected.
423. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention. Check.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. 424. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention. Adopted. 04/1927. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention is adopted. 04/1928. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention is adopted. 04/1929. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention has been adopted.
04/1930, who's in favor? Against. Abstention was rejected. 04/1937, who's in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. The vote is open. Adopted. 449. No?
449. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention. Rejected.
441. 44,440. Who is in favor? 40. 440.
Yes. 440. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Rejected. 441. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Rejected. 04/1942. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention has been adopted.
04/1943. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 04/1945.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. 04/1946. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 04/1947. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. Rejected. 448. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. Rejected. 449. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention. Rejected. 450. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. Compromise 28. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted.
We're going to amendment 459. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 4,461.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 462. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 463. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. 464. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
469. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 471.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is rejected. 472. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 473. 472. Yeah.
The vote is open. The vote is open; it's closed. Adopted. 473. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention. Rejected. 474. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention rejected. 477, who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected.
478, who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. Compromise, 29. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention adopted. We're going to amend amendment 479. Who is in favor? Against.
Abstention rejected. 480. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention adopted.
481. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention. Rejected.
Compromise. 30. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. Compromise number one. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention.
Adopted. We're going to amendment 34. Those in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise for 40. One forty.
Yeah. Who is in favor? Against. Abstention rejected. 43.
Who is in favor? Against. Abstention is adopted. Compromise, amendment number 2. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstention is adopted. So, we're going to the final vote. Roll call vote. The vote is open.
Speaker 6
The vote is closed. It's adopted. Thank you so much. Dear colleagues, we now have the plea. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 7
Dear colleagues, we now have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Makis Keravnos. Mister Makis Keravnos, the Cypriot Minister of Finance, had an exchange of views on the priorities of the presidency of Cyprus, which started in January. The debate on the Commission's proposals, in the context of the new EMFF and their impact on coalition policy, will no doubt constitute one of the biggest points on the agenda. I will invite Mr. Makis Keravenos to start with an introductory speech for about 50 minutes, then I will give the floor to the members. Mister Minister, you have the floor.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Dear President, honorable members of Parliament, it is both an honor and a responsibility to present to you today the priorities of the Cyprus Presidency on cohesion policy. For more than four decades, cohesion policy has been the Union's primary investment policy and the cornerstone of the...
Single.
Speaker 5
Market. It has modernized infrastructure, supported SMEs, strengthened research ecosystems, promoted digitalization and energy efficiency, improved connectivity, and enhanced skills across Europe. But more than that, it has been a stabilizing force in times of crisis and a driver of long-term convergence. Cohesion funding has been one of the most tangible expressions of EU solidarity and shared investment. It is not simply about financial transfers.
It is about opportunities created for citizens in every region, on every island, and in every corner of our union. For Cyprus, the impact has been transformative. During the 2014 to 2020 programming period alone, which has recently concluded, Cohesion policy interventions contributed to a 6% increase in its GDP and supported the creation of more than 25,000 new jobs. Similar statistics are projected for the current cohesion policy program, Thalia 2021 to 2027. As a small island member state at the periphery of the European Union, Cyprus does not automatically enjoy all the advantages of the single market.
Obviously, the same is happening to other member states or regions on the periphery of the European Union. Cohesion policy ensures that geography does not determine opportunity. It provides the necessary support to address structural challenges, strengthen competitiveness, and promote sustainable growth on an equal footing. Our presidency's motto is an autonomous union open to the world. Cohesion policy is a practical expression of this vision.
By strengthening our regions, supporting innovation, creating jobs, and promoting sustainable growth, cohesion investments build Europe's internal resilience and strategic autonomy. At the same time, by enhancing competitiveness, connectivity, and openness, they ensure that Europe remains globally engaged and outward-looking. As we look towards the next programming period, cohesion policy has been further adapted to a rapidly changing geopolitical and economic environment. The union's priorities increasingly focus on competitiveness, resilience, defense, and security. In this context, cohesion policy becomes not less relevant, but more relevant.
Strategic autonomy cannot be achieved if parts of Europe remain structurally weaker. Competitiveness cannot be strengthened if regional innovation ecosystems are uneven, and resilience cannot be built if territorial disparities deepen. At the same time, the policies' defining features—shared management, multilevel governance, the partnership principle, long-term strategy, and predictability—must remain fully safeguarded. We are entering a demanding negotiation phase. Expectations are high.
Positions differ. The Cyprus presidency is fully aware of the responsibility it carries. We are committed to acting as Sony's broker, facilitating constructive dialogue among member states and EU institutions with the objective of addressing the negotiations in a timely and balanced manner. Coming from a smaller and geographically peripheral member state, we are particularly conscious of the importance of ensuring that every voice is heard in European negotiations. For countries whose influence does not derive from size alone, effectiveness depends on credibility, trust-building, and the ability to understand different sensitivities across the union.
On the National Regional Partnership Plan Regulation, following the methodology introduced by the Danish presidency, the regulation has been divided into semantic blocks and allows structure examination. Discussions are progressing block by block, built with clarity, and gradually consolidating support. Our aim is clear: to present a compromised text capable of securing broad support, paving the way for a smooth start of the inter-institutional negotiations when the time comes. We will continue to engage constructively and transparently with the Council and this European Parliament to ensure that the NRP regulation becomes a stable and future-proof foundation. In parallel, we are also advancing the examination of the sector-specific legislative proposals, the European Regional Development Fund, including Interreg, and the European Social Fund.
Progress across these files is interlinked. Our aim is to present compromised text to reach a partial general agreement by the end of our presidency. Cohesion policy has been placed high on our political agenda. Tomorrow, a dedicated General Affairs Council on cohesion will take place in Brussels. Ministers will adopt council conclusions on the EU agenda for cities, providing strategic guidance to strengthen urban policy coordination and ensure that the urban dimension is effectively reflected in future policymaking.
In addition, ministers will hold an exchange of views on lessons learned from the midterm review of cohesion policy 2021 to 2027 programs. These reflections are essential as we shape a modern and responsive framework for the future. On 22 May 2026, Cyprus will host an informal ministerial meeting dedicated to cohesion policy in Nicosia, focusing on the right to stay on island challenges in light of the forthcoming EU strategy for islands. Cohesion policy is intrinsically linked to the principle of the right to stay. By creating local opportunities in employment, housing, connectivity, and services, we ensure that mobility remains a choice, not an obligation.
We will invite the European Parliament as co-legislator to participate actively in this discussion. Finally, in June, the presidency will host a high-level event to present the new European Union strategy on islands and coastal areas. This will offer an important platform for dialogue on the specific challenges and adaptation potential of islands in coastal regions, areas that are often on the frontline of climate change, connectivity gaps, and demographic pressures. Honorable members, cohesion policy is not a legacy instrument of the past. It is a strategic instrument for Europe's future.
It embodies solidarity, strengthens unity, and delivers concrete results. The Cyprus presidency stands ready to work closely with you to ensure that this policy remains strong, modern, and capable of responding to the ambitions of our Union. Thank you. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Now, I would like to give the floor to the members of our committee, and we will start with VPP, Mr. Daniel Buddha. Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much, Chairman. Minister, thank you very much for presenting your vision of what collision policy means. Please allow me to share some of our concerns and fears concerning the new proposal from the European Commission. I think everyone knows that we are not happy with this proposal because, unfortunately, it means a merger of collision policy with other policies like agriculture and others. And this means that this new policy will become predictable.
Yesterday, we had a very intense and substantial discussion with other committees, like the Agriculture Committee, Budgets Committee, and the European Court of Accounts. Well, the European Court of Auditors predicts that there will be major challenges with respect to this new policy of the Commission. There is no predictability and no mechanism to control how the policy will be implemented. So this is what the Court of Auditors says. What will the beneficiaries from member states say?
So, I believe you should start with these points, rightfully made by the ECA, which align with what the Parliament has been saying. And let's see what we can do about it because, unfortunately, the two letters sent by the commission to the parliament, proposing to move certain items from one side to the other, do not appear very clear. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's a legally sound proposal. Now, farmers and beneficiaries of the collision policy need to know how these projects have to be prepared because the projects that are to be implemented cannot simply be done overnight. You need time.
You need to go through several stages because they don't want to violate or breach the legislation, let alone commit fraud. We see here today that the beneficiaries of various programs have to reimburse the money because the legislation was not predictable. So, in light of all this, I'd like to ask you the following. What do you believe are the steps to be taken in order to clarify these aspects? We have a vision here in the Reggie Committee.
We want a strong policy with adequate funding. I happen to be a rapporteur in the agri committee on the same file, and I've always said that we need two separate pillars. The agricultural pillar is indispensable, and we also need the rural development pillar. We want to preserve our rural areas and guarantee food security. So, I would like to know, what is your vision?
What is your perspective on the clarity of these policies? Actually, the financial envelope is not that important. Of course, money is important, but clarity on how to use the financial resources is even more important because we need to be ready to face all the challenges, including rearming. So, we need to be very careful when communicating with the public. In my country, I'm often warned not to speak about this new challenge facing the EU, but I do say that the EU needs to invest in rearming itself today, not to conquer territory, but to defend itself.
This is the reality. At the same time, we need clarity if we want to ensure the development of rural areas and beyond. I'm going to conclude by saying that I've spoken with the authorities from many countries: Italy, Romania, of course, Spain, and they all tell me that they trust Brussels more, paradoxically. And they want these policies to be managed by Brussels and not by national governments because national governments come and go, and ministers come and go. In six months' time, the ministry's vision might change because when a new minister comes, they bring a different policy, which is why we need clarity from the EU.
Thank you.
Speaker 10
You, chair. Thank you, Mr. Kratnov, for coming here this morning and setting out your priorities. I'd like to thank you for standing up for cohesion policy at the beginning of your presentation. Cohesion policy has allowed us to modernize European Union territories and balance growth between regions, and we've been able to finance education, social, health care, and infrastructure policy. But that isn't in line with the proposal that we have before our eyes here, and that's coming from the European Commission.
Marcos Ros Sempere
And the idea is to dilute cohesion policy and other policies—tourism, fisheries, etc.—and to give each member state an envelope, a blank check, to administer its priorities. And with that, we'll lose cohesion in the European project. We need clear rules. The Cyprus presidency must help this Parliament because we are working to try to revoke the proposal we have on the national and regional plans. They're not regional.
Speaker 13
They are only national. Furthermore, this does not simplify its cohesion policy. It makes it more complicated because it mixes it with other elements, and that means that we'll have to compete with other re policies, which are also key for the European projects. We need the Cyprus presidency. And I thought it was quite interesting that you spoke about cohesion policy on the basis of these values.
Speaker 10
We must not lose sight of our discussions about regulations, figures, etc. We're using indicators and criteria. No. We have to go to the heart of the issue, and that is that we want to maintain the cohesion policy. We have to maintain it with clear internal rules.
Marcos Ros Sempere
We have to know that those who do not comply with the rule of law cannot benefit from European funds. We want a bottom-up model. We want effective multilevel governance with more participation and more dialogue with regions and cities, not only when it comes to expenditure but also in the design and implementation of the projects from the outset. Now, we've been calling for this for years in this parliament, and simplification, of course, is important, but that doesn't mean that we should destroy something which has been so key to the European project and which is enshrined in Article 134. And only with a robust cohesion policy can we live up to the challenges set by many aspects of today's world, including defense.
Speaker 12
We must put cohesion back inside the European project and not outside of it, which is what this commission proposal is seeking to do.
André Rougé
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Minister and colleagues. I'd like to take the opportunity of this discussion with the Cyprus presidency just to tell you how much the Patriots disagree with the new structure being proposed by the European Commission here for the CAP, as well as for cohesion and for fisheries, for the next financial framework. The proposal from the Commission will bring together cohesion, CAP, regional rural policy, and fisheries, and this is incredibly concerning. We all know here that putting the CAP and cohesion policy in one big pot is crazy.
We need to have a structured policy that is actually capable of taking into account the details of each of those policies. You know, Mister Minister, as a representative of an island nation, this kind of specific measure is vital. Miss Von der Leyen is once again presenting us with a situation, as she did with Ukraine. And here she is, eating away at the foundation of the EU, CAP, and cohesion. We're going from €3,600,000,000 to €2.4 billion in the next MFF.
And the fisheries are going to be divided by three, so from €6,000,000,000 to €2,000,000,000. What we're seeing here is a real disaster, which will make our rural areas and our farmers even more vulnerable. And they are already the ones who have lost faith in our leaders to work in our interest. The cohesion and CAP policies need to be looked at as individual policies, and their individual budgets need to be preserved. They also need to ensure that they've got budgets which are up to the strategic role that these policies play for our continent.
Now, when it comes to political priorities, this is an absolutely unacceptable step being taken by apparently democratically elected governments. We are counting on you, Minister, and on the Cyprus presidency to defend very strongly our farming and the cohesion of all our regions, including the outermost regions. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. You continue with Miss Raquel Garcia Hermida Vander Valle from Renew.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Presidency for your presence here today, your presentation, and your defense of cohesion policy. I would like to echo a lot of what my colleagues from the EPP and from the S&D have said already, so I won't repeat that. But that defense of the basic principles and the basic contributions of cohesion policy to the success of our Union is something that I think is important that we keep mentioning in this Commission and our exchanges with the Council. I would like to refer to the meeting that we had yesterday, as has been said before, and particularly to the last report of the European Court of Auditors on their assessment of the national and regional plans proposal. I'm a first-time MEP, but I have been told that something like what we saw yesterday has not been seen before in this house, where you have the three leading committees, all the shadows. I mean, I was there for about 2 hours.
There was not a single positive feedback on the commission's proposal. Now I won't say that the goal is not good because I subscribe to the goal of making cohesion policy more effective, more efficient, and even more targeted, I should say, to the new challenges that we are facing as Europe. But the criticism from both the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors on the chosen architecture, the choices that have been made with regards to governance, particularly the choice to centralize this crucial policy at a national level, which means a renationalization of European funds, was subject to a lot of very well-grounded criticism. And I think that for the council, it's really important to take this on board because otherwise, we are going to come, I am afraid, into a scenario of heavy inter-institutional conflict, which, to be very frank, I don't think we can afford at the current moment, also given the geopolitical situation that we are in. So my message to the council is to defend the partnership principle, to defend the role of the region's local entities and final beneficiaries in the design and execution of this policy from the get-go, to defend guarantees in the regulation that this will be the case and not just promises from member states that they will abide by some voluntary code of conduct, but that this will actually be the case, and this has to be reflected in the text.
And I will also defend that simplification, which is one of the cornerstones of this proposal, is not something that should only be applicable to the Commission or the Member States, which is what the European Court of Auditors says. There are a lot of simplification measures, but it actually seems like they only simplify for the commission and, to a large extent, for the member states, but not for the final beneficiaries. And I think that simplification and renewal of fields, a simplification for final beneficiaries, should be the cornerstone of any simplification measures. And to close, just let us remember that there is something very real, which is the geography of discontent. And, as my colleague from the EPP said very wisely, there are many people and many entities in our countries who have started to trust the European Union more than national governments.
And I'm afraid that if we go down this path with this proposal, we will lose that trust. And again, going back to my previous point, I do not think that losing trust in the European Union is something that we can afford to be, being very pragmatic at this moment in history. So, I would encourage you to take this on board in your negotiations, also within the council. Thank you so much.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. And now I give the floor to the former president of the Reggie Committee, now the vice president of the European Parliament, Mr. Omarje, from the left.
Thank you.
Younous Omarjee
Thank you very much, Chair. It's a real pleasure, Mr. Minister, to welcome you here to the Reggie Committee. If you'll allow me, I'd like to share a few comments with you. I think that we all agree on the fact that we're living in a geopolitical time, a time that is obliging the EU to respond to new challenges, challenges of defense and security. And for those of us who have been in this European Parliament for a very long time, I think we've never seen international policy take such a major role.
But it is because the challenges have made us do that. And I think that Miss Wunderlying here has made a mistake, and a serious one. I think turning away from internal policies and internal cohesion within our continent is an error. I think putting your faith in external policy and gaining other people's trust, here the trust of the citizens, means that we have to respond to the immediate needs and demands of the European citizens as well. And you know, I'm sure that the cohesion policy contributes to that quite significantly.
Now, my second comment, adding to what Mr. Buddha has already said, would be that the crises now are all around. In the last mandate, we saw this because after we'd negotiated all of the cohesion funds, we found ourselves faced with the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. That is ignoring the other crises that we were facing at the same time, of course. And it meant that the cohesion policy had to prove itself, and I think it did prove that it was capable of responding to these challenges because we brought in React EU. We used the rules to take in Ukrainian refugees and various other rules and regulations, the names of which I've long forgotten, for the COVID pandemic.
And so, there were a whole series of things that the cohesion policy managed to do. But it also showed us, I think, that the cohesion policy really was capable of combating a lot of the economic impacts that otherwise this crisis would have had on our economies. If we think about February, the cohesion policy was powerful, strong, and it kicked in. And I think this is what we have to bear in mind when we're talking about how our policies perform. Now, my third comment is that the cohesion policy, quite obviously, is not a budgetary instrument.
Not only, but at least. That's not what the Cajun policy is. Instead, it is the very heart, the very meaning of the European project. And more than ever, because we're nonstop talking about unity, we need this solidarity policy. We need this policy, which tells us that the European project is really focused on the treaty.
And this idea that all of our European citizens, from north to south, east to west, at the outermost and in the center, should all have the same living conditions, and that we should live as equals and in fairness. We are the only ones in the world who demand this, and this is something we should retain. Now, I don't want to go on for too long, but obviously, islands need to be a focal point for us as well in our priorities. It's true for the islands in the Atlantic, and it's also true for the islands in the Mediterranean. And I think now is the time for Europe to look at our islands differently, because here again, we're facing a lot of challenges.
I had the responsibility and indeed the honor of being the rapporteur for islands here in this committee, and I am very pleased that the European Commission is going to present a strategy for our islands. I very much hope that the meeting in Cyprus in June is going to be a real founding moment for us. I think there is certainly a lot of hope among the islands that it will be, because I think islands thus far have been a little forgotten in our policies. And then just one final comment. I think it is clear that the council is going to have an incredibly important role to play when it comes to defending our outermost regions.
Regions, of course, and this is something our colleagues have said, should not end up losing out in our negotiations, particularly when it comes to POSE and the CAP. Okay. So, I can leave it there. I would just say that all negotiations are difficult. Of course, votes can be even more difficult.
We will try, and I'll tell my colleagues that it's incredibly important that we maintain a framework for the cohesion policy, which resembles what we've had in the past. Today, we're not reluctant to have reform, but we need to ensure that certain fundamental principles remain. Particularly, if we're looking at hard renationalization, I think this is something quite dangerous for the EU. And I think we need to take into account that the measure trying to reduce distortion between countries needs to remain modern and be supported by all of the institutions. That certainly is what the European Parliament will do with the amendments that it will table in the budget committee, as well as in the other committees that will deal with the NRPP.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sabrina Repp
Thank you very much, and thank you so much for being here with us today and for talking to us. Cyprus has done a lot and has profited a lot from this in the past. So, I think it shows just how important it is for us to ensure that cohesion has the budget it needs. Now, a lot has already been said, but I do have a couple of points to add. We're looking, of course, at the negotiations now for the next MFF, and we had the meeting of Agri, Budget, and Reggie.
And there, we heard from the Court of Auditors about just how much criticism there has been surrounding these proposals and about how important it is for us to ensure balance. We have heard people talking about taking the CAP out of the NRPPs and giving the CAP its own direction. Well, I think we also have to be very careful when we're talking about the cohesion budget. If we are to pack all of these budgets together, then I think we need to ensure that there's balance. If we're removing the CAP from this, then we need to ensure that we still have separate funds available for cohesion policy.
And so here, I would be interested to hear how the presidency is going to look at these kinds of individual funds: ESF, Interreg, how we'll ensure that they have a very clear budget and that they can keep their purpose as well, bearing in mind the movement that we've seen in the CAP. Now the commission has also proposed 10% for rural areas, so the so-called rural target. But in the proposal from the commission, we have not seen any change. And so I was wondering, this 10% rural target, is this something which the council or the parliament is coming up with, and what will the commission do? I would like to hear your opinion on that, please.
Because if we do have 10% for the rural target, it means we're not even ending up with half of what we had before in the rural policy. And so, I think we need to be very careful because we want to be more ambitious for rural areas and do more for rural areas. Especially when we're talking about wanting greater focus on these rural areas, we need to ensure that they've got the budget that they need. We don't want to see this budget reduced. And then, if a leader as well, here, I think Ursula von der Leyen has spoken about the leader program again. But if we look at what the commission is doing, it seems that we don't have a clear budget for it, just like we don't for the other cohesion funds.
But we also don't seem to have a minimum limit. There's been talk about 5%, and there was, of course, this obligation for the member states, but we seem now to have lost that. And so, I think this is something that should absolutely be maintained, and I'd like to hear your opinion on it, please, particularly in relation to rural areas. And then there are a couple of very specific points. Firstly, performance-based payment.
We want to ensure performance, and we want to make sure that everything works. Within the cohesion policy, I think this kind of performance-based approach is incredibly important. We want to ensure that we are actually achieving what we want. If we're looking at social programs, if we're looking at tolerance, we want to look at how the funds are being spent, and we want to look at what effect they're actually having. I think the report from the Court of Auditors has shown us that the evaluation criteria weren't working as well as they should have in the cohesion policy.
And so, I think I'd like to hear your opinion on that, please. And then also on strengthening the requirements. I think it's important, when we're looking at these budgets, that we have very strict requirements. And so, I'd like to hear from you. It seems that the commission wants to leave this a bit more nebulous, but I think we need to talk about specific figures.
Otherwise, we don't know what we are actually negotiating about at the end of the day. We don't know how much money is going to go into which budget or which fund, and we won't know where we stand. If we keep everything flexible with a complete lack of clarity, then, as my colleague from Renew said, the recipients of these funds are not going to be able to plan. They're not going to know what is going to happen in the next financial period. And I'm sure you in Cyprus know just how important that is.
We need to ensure the money can actually get to the people who need it, of course. Otherwise, thank you so much for being here today.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. I wish to prolong the meeting. Just two questions arise from what the minister said. Thank you for your contribution. The meeting, predictably the informal council meeting in Nicosia in May, has discussed this new policy and the broader policy for the islands.
And I'm curious about what is going to be new, to be frank about it. You know, it is often referred to as the right to stay, which is key to this. It's a great phrase, Chair, but, you know, in this Parliament, it's just a phrase most of the time. In my constituency, there are islands off the Irish coast: Clear Island and Inchbotham, and they all want to stay. But at the moment, the infrastructure, such as the pier at Runa, is falling into the Atlantic Ocean, and there is no investment.
So, they will not have any voluntary right to stay. They will have to move to the mainland if this type of activity continues. So I'd like to know from the minister what he sees and what he's heard so far about the new policy with regard to the islands that we look forward to. Because I would look forward to working with them and accepting his invitation to work with them on this policy if it is more meaningful in that regard. And then secondly, regarding last night and the auditor, there is one simple question: does he agree with the auditors, the Court of Auditors, that the way it is structured at the moment, it will be practically impossible to estimate the budget going forward because the auditors are saying the starting point will be the new NRPPs?
We must evaluate them and estimate their cost. That's the starting point. So member states will start this work, and we will not know anything else about funding for any of the member states until that process is finished. And that is why the court of auditors is saying, how can we possibly evaluate or monitor it in the way it is structured at the moment? So I'd like to know your view, if you share the view of the court of orders.
Thank you very much.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. We finish with Mr. Pablo Donacimento Cabral from EVP. Thank you, Chair.
I'll speak in.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Portuguese. Thanks very much for presenting the proposal, the proposed work program from the Cypriot Presidency. It's great to have an island member state as the presidency. Portugal and Cyprus have shared values and characteristics. We are on the outermost fringes of the EU, and cohesion policy is therefore important to us.
Speaker 26
Cohesion policy has really worked well over the years, so we do not see eye to eye with you, Commission, on this proposal. Now, this picks the cohesion policy apart, and cohesion policy is the most important investment policy in the EU. Directly and indirectly, it trickles down to all member states. I would also underscore the need to bolster cohesion policy and the attached budget, and the need to ring-fence this budget and protect it autonomously. Cohesion policy, as stated in the current proposal, lays out three levels of regions based on their development.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
And I would add that there is a need to slot in a fourth level of regions: far-flung outermost regions, as set out in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This would be vital for us to tick the boxes on the treaty. The proposal fails to mention whatsoever the responsibility of the EU, particularly the Commission, to stand up for outermost regions. I thought we would have a fresh strategy for the outermost regions in the near future. What I gleaned from what you said is that there was a strategy for islands, but let's not mix up islands with outermost regions.
These are two different levels, two different kettles of fish, so we need to have a specific strategy for these outermost regions. Unfortunately, there was a kind of tidal wave of specific programs. We've got to pause agriculture. We also need something for transport to improve connectivity for these regions, which are very far from the epicenter of the EU. And we also need protection for fissures.
Therefore, I would really stress the following points. In your presidency, do stick up for what's laid out in the treaties in terms of Article 349 protecting the outermost regions. Cyprus and Portugal have shared values, shared features, and a lot in common. And we need a lot from the cohesion policy. Please do not sweep the cohesion policy aside.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. Thank you so much. Mister Minister Makis Kiraavnos, you have the floor for the answers and for the concluding remarks as well.
Aristogiri, brethren.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Chair. I admit I feel privileged to be in this meeting and to take part in this discussion. I've heard very interesting opinions, many concerns, and fears. I also heard proposals and recommendations. I must say that cohesion policy has proved itself an important element of wider EU policy, which aims and should aim at the well-being of peoples, of citizens, European citizens.
Everything changes. We have geopolitical and geoeconomic developments. We have wars. At a moment when this is not at all justified because we have put in place institutions, especially in Europe, to avoid such developments. However, they do happen.
And the question is, these developments, whom do they affect the most? Despite these negative developments, I haven't seen any great upheaval in the stock market or in the international financial market. What is affected are the daily lives of people. And that's why the concerns and fears expressed concerning the new proposal are well understood by me, and make my role, and the role of the Cyprus presidency, to shoulder even more responsibilities to alleviate these fears and to produce some restructuring that will bring positive effects. I've heard worries about the Court of Auditors and what it has said.
Well, the court made some criticisms, and it made some points. But this is the role of any Court of Auditors. What we need to do is listen to them, try to understand them, and try to translate them into positive effects. I have to express my thanks because many colleagues in the room expressed confidence in our presidency. And this makes me happy because it gives us the strength to try harder and be more decisive.
Sometimes, a small country is more flexible, can convince with arguments, and can create convergence. For sure, cohesion policy must continue its existence because we have in front of us a snapshot that shows what this policy has offered to date. And I don't need to develop arguments to convince you of this. We have all experienced this during times of crisis. And as someone said, crises have become a permanent phenomenon.
And whom do these crises affect? The daily lives of European citizens and the level of well-being of ordinary people living in Europe. So, we need to have a cohesion policy. We need to review this and the other aspects, which are necessary and which will emerge through dialogue. But we need to have rules.
We need to have transparency. We need to have controls. We do not anticipate horizontal arrangements among leaders. However, the council shares the feeling that the EU must have the means to act. We are, of course, the end product of our own efforts, and we are committed to economic, social, and territorial cohesion.
Cohesion is a keyword. And our motto, the motto of our presidency, is an autonomous Europe open to the world. This autonomy can arise from improving competitiveness and the resilience of the European economy. And this fully echoes the existence of a well-articulated cohesion policy. It goes hand in hand with it.
So, we have an architecture. We have a role to play. The European Council, of course, will set the strategic guidance in accordance with the treaties. The negotiating framework is a working document of the Cyprus Presidency. It is a developing document, and it helps facilitate discussions between member states, between leaders, and between heads of government.
There are differences, of course. Each country has its own context. We should not even think about it. Cohesion policy is closely related to agricultural policy, fishing, and animal husbandry. And I absolutely agree that what we need to do is engage in constructive dialogue on all levels.
We need to be in constant communication with the European Parliament. In the end, the two deciding institutions are the Parliament and the Council. So, these two institutions need to work together, and they need to be in constant contact. And no doubt, cohesion policy has mitigated the crisis. We don't know what the next crisis will be, but cohesion policy has contributed decisively to protecting underprivileged regions and underprivileged people.
As I said, agriculture and animal husbandry must remain a central point of cohesion policy because the wider agricultural sector is determining for a number of things. Because of this sector, the agricultural sector, we have products associated with the food chain, health, the protection of individuals and the environment, as well as industrial production, exports, and well-being and prosperity more broadly. In the last couple of days, there was a tragic incident in Cyprus. Foot and mouth disease occurred in cattle, sheep, and goats. And at this moment, we need to kill thousands of animals.
It is not just a question of a disease arriving, but animals must be killed. We need to think of the people behind these animals, whose assets, employment, and income have been destroyed, and who have no means to support their families now. And then there is an important problem with transformation because there will be no raw material for cheesemakers or experts. For Cyprus, cheese, halloumi, is a serious export product with important impacts on a number of sectors: milk, yogurt, etc. Therefore, cohesion policy is indispensable, and it must be focused on people.
When do we need to look at it in a balanced way? And this also includes regions, remote areas, and insular policy. And we will have a lot of time to talk about the latter in the coming days and months. I think, Chair, that I have provided a general answer to what was said. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
I would like to thank Minister Kiraavnos for this open exchange with the members of our committee, and I would like to thank you all for sharing your views and contributing to the debate. So, we have many months of discussions and negotiations ahead of us before we conclude on these very important dossiers. Thank you again, Mr. Lisa.
Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Dear colleagues, we will now continue with the exchange of views with the Vice President of the European Investment Bank, Mr. Marik Mora. Dear Marek Mora, dear Vice President, it's a great pleasure to welcome you today to the REGI Committee, which values the role of the EIB Group as a long-standing and strategic partner of cohesion policy. In a context where the future architecture of European Union funding is being actively discussed, including through the NLP proposal, today's exchange offers an available opportunity to reflect together on how EAB instruments can continue to complement EU funds, reinforce place-based investments, and support balanced territorial development across the Union. Vice President Mora, we look forward to your presentation and to an open and constructive discussion with the members. You have the floor for approximately 12 minutes.
Speaker 28
Thank you. Dear Chair, honorable members, dear colleagues, thank you very much for having me. Indeed, it's a privilege and an honor for me, especially to continue our EIB group's close and constructive dialogue and cooperation with this important committee for regional development. Our discussion today is very timely, I think, for two reasons. First, because we recently released our EIB group results for 2025 and our operational plan for the next three years. So, this gives me the chance to discuss with you the key role of cohesion in our work, in the EIB Group's work.
And second, you are starting to discuss in this committee the proposal for the national and regional partnership plans, and the EIB is ready to support you in this work. So, let me start by presenting the EIB. Last year was a historic year for the EIB Group. We have reached, for the first time, the milestone of 100 billion new financing, and we hit record figures in many key areas such as energy grids and energy efficiency. Nearly 60% of our total financing went to green projects.
We sometimes call ourselves a climate bank. We also had a record financing for agriculture and bioeconomy, with a clear focus on young farmers. Water is another area with record financing last year. €5,000,000,000 invested in improving water management and sanitation. Our projects are estimated to contribute to safer drinking water for 32 million people worldwide.
In 2025, we launched new programs for water, agriculture, and affordable housing, and we are already seeing the results. We recorded nearly a 50% increase in financing compared to the previous year and double the number of newly built homes compared to 2024. Finally, to complete the records, last year we launched the TechEO program to mobilize EUR 250,000,000,000 in investments in new technologies and industrial competitiveness. Last year, we signed $22,000,000,000 for innovation in key areas such as clean tech, biotech, space tech, and even housing tech. These achievements show the EIB Group's unique role in Europe's investment engine.
For every euro of EU budget guarantee, we mobilize €15 of investments. We de-risk the growth in private capital. We catalyze impact. But the EIB is more than a US bank. It is a true success story for European unity.
Pan-European by design, owned by the 27 member states and no one else, DIB is fully aligned with EU values and priorities. Active in every corner of Europe, we bring opportunities to people and places across the Union so that citizens have the right to stay and prosper in their regions. And the impact is real. Improved health care access for 18,400,000 people, which is more than the population of the Netherlands. We have also helped build enough new and renovated homes to house an entire European city like Pisa or Heidelberg, 54,600.
And let me say, there we turn more, let's say, to the topic which is more relevant to this committee: that cohesion is at the core of the EIB group's mission. It is in our DNA. Last year, we reached a new record. We financed 42,800,000,000 in cohesion regions. This is nearly half of our financing within the EU.
Since the start of this programming period, we have provided 184,000,000,000 in financing to cohesion regions, close to half of the EU cohesion budget for the 2021-2027 financing period. From better connecting Poland's less developed regions to modernizing hundreds of schools in Marseille, to cutting energy costs for small and medium-sized enterprises in Croatia, and building thousands of new homes from Lisbon to Prague, every region matters. Investing in cohesion is not just the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do. It generates 40% higher job creation than elsewhere. And through spillovers and improved market access, all regions benefit.
Cohesion works, and it can work even better. We can be more agile in addressing the current disparities between EU regions, and let me now mention three priorities on how we can do it. First, cohesion is evolving in line with the new priorities. And this already started with the midterm review last year. At the EIB, we see an increasing demand for financing to strengthen the resilience of regions, be it economic, security, or climate resilience.
For example, we have supported with 1,700,000,000 last year the preparedness and recovery in Central Italy after the earthquakes in Naples. Also, water resilience is increasingly important. For example, we supported with $250,000,000 in water supply for 4,000,000 residents in Athens and the Attica region. And resilience is linked to security, as we all know. We need to support critical infrastructure and fundamentally strengthen our energy security.
Energy remains the largest sector of our investment in cohesion, followed by transport. So, energy and transport are the two main sectors where we invest in cohesion regions. Second, we need to boost private sector activity in cohesion regions. Innovation activity is strong in Central and Eastern Europe, in line with the EU average. A highlight in 2025 was an increase in the EIB's corporate financing in cohesion regions.
This helped crowd in the private sector for large energy and transport projects and supported a wave of industrial modernization in Central and Eastern Europe. On this basis, we are supporting the unlocking of opportunities in new areas, such as critical raw materials in Bulgaria. Our subsidiary, the European Investment Fund, is supporting SMEs to innovate and grow in Europe. For example, through the Three Seas Innovation Fund across Central and Eastern Europe. Third, social cohesion matters, and the right to stay is more relevant than ever.
The housing crisis affects people and places across the EU. That is why we doubled our financing for affordable housing last year, and we expanded our housing support across the EU. Last month, we announced a 1,700,000,000 loan facility to boost social housing in Flanders, Belgium. And last year, we also supported large-scale investments in affordable housing, for instance, in Czechia, Portugal, Ireland, and Austria. Looking ahead, the EIB is committed to supporting a modern cohesion policy.
This is one of our EIB Group's priorities. A more cohesive policy is vital to completing the single market and strengthening European competitiveness. Our support for cohesion goes beyond one programming period. It is written into our status. We will continue to bridge investment gaps to help accelerate implementation on the ground with our support to the public and private sectors and through our advisory services to strengthen administrative capacity.
For the remainder of 2021-2027, the current programming period, we will maintain our ambitious targets for less developed and cohesion regions. We will focus on creating more impact. We'll support managing authorities with integrated financial and advisory support, including under the Commission EIB program called Jaspers, to implement the amended programs following the midterm review. Now, let me turn to the next NFF. We are ready to be the strategic partner for the NRP plans, and we think we can add value in three ways. We can add value by complementing EU grants with EIB Group financing.
As we know, investment gaps in regions have already been far larger than the EU funds available, and we are ready to continue and enhance our strategic complementarity to help close these funding gaps for national and regional investments under the NRP plans and beyond. Second, we can add value by leveraging EU funds under NRP plans to mobilize private investment. Collaboration between public and private sectors is more important than ever to create the right conditions for innovation, business, industry, etc., to grow. There is a lot of potential in blending and using financial instruments, but the rules need to be simpler and based on a common rulebook between ECF, the European Competitiveness Fund, and NRP plans. And third, we think that we can add value by strengthening administrative capacity and project pipelines in member states through our EIB advisory services.
Impactful investment requires well-designed programs and projects, which in turn need institutional capacity. Through EIB advisory, we are offering integrated financing and advisory support to help implement the new cohesion policy priorities from the mid-term review. We are ready to continue this work and support member states in designing the new NRP plans and performance framework. Let me conclude my introductory statement by saying that the EIB Group is ready to work with the Reggie Committee to maximize the impact of cohesion policy and to help deliver the strongest possible outcome for the national and regional partnership plans. Together, we can ensure that every region and every citizen prospers in a safe and united Europe.
Thank you. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much, Mister Mora. Now, I would like to give the floor to the members of the Regi Committee, and we will start with the EPP. Mister Andre Novakov.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Chair. So far, the EIB has been playing a crucial role in cohesion policy. In the current CPR, EIB is a part of the cohesion policy, funding all the bankable projects that could not be funded by grants. And this is a complementary layer which ensures that more of the funds of the European Union are reaching every constituency and every region. And I believe that this thing could continue in a new form today with a new proposal of NRPP.
I believe that the EIB is the bank of the people. EIB is the bank of the regions. EIB is the bank of the member states that would like to see their more rapid development in different spheres. So, my question to the vice president is the following. Because before asking to continue something, we have to evaluate what the contribution of the EIB was in different member states.
So, do you have any figures that can prove that the EIB is valuable to cohesion policy and regional policy in Europe, which could serve as an argument to ask for the continuation of this partnership? Thank you.
Gracias.
Marcos Ros Sempere
Thank you very much, Vice President Maragoras, for coming to our committee today. Allow me to start by acknowledging the commitment of the EIB, its president, and yourself to the development of our regions, our cities, and our territories. We are in an increasingly complex international context. It's been 4 years since the invasion of Ukraine. We talked about this just yesterday.
And so, the role of the IB is more strategic than ever. And we have to show, with facts, what we represent. And one way to do that is through public investment to reduce inequality, strengthen our autonomy, and create opportunities. I think that the role of the EIB as a public European bank is vital here to support cohesion policy, not just to support it but also to increase its impact. Now, the new proposed MFF includes this open debate on the new architecture of national and regional plans.
It really does call into question the future of the cohesion policy. The ERDF: I will be one of the shadow rapporteurs on that committee, the Territorial Cohesion Fund. And I think that the complementarity between budget instruments and the EIB's financing capacity has to be decisive to guarantee investments. And I think when it comes to that complementarity, we can also build this upon clear principles: strengthening social cohesion to fight against inequalities, moving forward by doing something that you're already doing, which is ensuring accessible housing that is vital in this European crisis that we're experiencing, and ensuring that there is balanced regional development. I think that with EIB resources, regions and cities can implement urban development strategies and growth strategies, not just in the strongest areas but also in those that need it most.
And finally, ensuring that financing is available without weakening multilevel governance, because that's one of the issues that we have. It seems that, in order to simplify things, we are not going to have multilevel governance. Regions and cities need to have their say. And they work very well with the EIBA, thus strengthening their power. And that should be a goal.
And finally, strengthening territorial and cross-border cooperation, I think the Interact program has to play a vital role there as well. And the EIB must help to strengthen it. So, let me end as I began. The credibility of the European Union depends on our ability to invest where it is most needed by citizens, with tangible, real results, and the cohesion policy in the EIB. If we still have any cohesion policy after this year-long debate that we've been having alongside the EIB, we will be able to show that Europe protects, invests in its citizens and its territories, and addresses the needs of our nationals.
And so, we are counting on you because we're going to continue to battle to protect the cohesion policy and the participation and involvement of the AIB as a multiplier of the good impact of our cohesion policy. So, thank you very much for your involvement.
Thank you.
André Rougé
You, chair. Mister Vice President, colleagues, let me draw your attention to the role that the IB can and must play in the development and stabilization of our outermost regions. And I've seen that they were absent from the maps we were shown. These outermost regions of France represent no less than 4,000,000 citizens. They are far away, and they have specific difficulties linked to insularity, but they also have structural delays that are unacceptable in the twenty-first century, particularly regarding access to water, and more specifically, drinking water when it comes to Mayotte and the two Caribbean departments, Martinique and Guadeloupe. A long time ago, in a meeting that I asked for with your colleague, Omrias Faiyal, we had a few things come to the forefront.
First of all, the IB is already a major stakeholder in regional development and in the outermost regions. And we are very grateful for this. Your institution-financed infrastructure has supported the economic fabric of these areas through partner banks. It offered guarantees to avoid losses and to ensure easier access to credit. These efficient instruments must be mobilized even further, particularly for SMEs and micro-enterprises.
They represent 90% of the business landscape there, including the farming sector and fisheries. In fact, could you say a few words to us on the pre-frame project for the outermost regions for 2025? The IB must strengthen its commitment in key sectors, clean energy, and strategic methods to ensure industrial sovereignty for Europeans, as long as this institutional stability and the presence of public guarantees are protected. Outermost regions, and in particular places like New Caledonia, have a great deal to offer to our European Union. The explicit guarantee from member states can ensure that they access significant financing from the EIB, and this would help to restore trust, relaunch investment, and support economic and social reconstruction in places like this.
Our committee must call for greater ambition from the EIP for the outermost regions. It is a matter of territorial cohesion for all of Europe. Investing in outermost regions is not optional. It is a responsibility that the entire European Union must uphold.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
You, Chair, and thank you, Vice President Mora, for being here today and presenting the cohesion report of the European Investment Bank. I can only support what other colleagues have said: this bank is a bank for Europeans, for our regions, for our medium and small businesses, and it plays a crucial role in ensuring that we reach the collective goals that we have set for ourselves. I have a very specific question about financial instruments. And you're going back to your comment about leveraging EU funds to support private investment, which we know is extremely important. We read some weeks ago in a report of the European Court of Auditors that financial instruments in cohesion policy are not being used, if I may say so, to the maximum extent of their potential.
And I think that's a missed opportunity because financial instruments are not suitable for all cohesion policy goals, but they are definitely suitable for some of them. I was particularly concerned about the fact that, even though there is a principal obligation to reuse the funds from the returns on financial instruments to reinvest, many national management authorities are not doing that and are using those funds, for example, to fill gaps in the accounting of national budgets. It's one of the conclusions of the ECA. So that might be a bit too technical, but the point of my question is: are there any recommendations from the European Investment Bank on how we could improve this and make these obligations a bit harder to ensure that we can achieve amazing results, such as what the European Investment Bank is achieving with your own leverage instruments? And if you have any concrete suggestions on how to do this and in which legislative proposal we should do it, I would really appreciate hearing them.
It doesn't have to be in this meeting, but maybe at a later stage. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to continue in the same line as our new colleague when it comes to the financing of private investment. You see, Mister Vice President, we talk a lot about the efficiency of using cohesion funds and about making this policy visible. But we must understand that, for that, we need the economic component in every region that we aim to develop. People stay where they live if they have predictability and opportunities when it comes to waybill jobs.
I come from a country that unfortunately has a large immigration rate. People have left their country because they were simply looking for a better future. They wanted a better life for themselves, and we can't criticize that. What are the instruments that we can make available to SMEs in rural and urban areas? Because, at the end of the day, we face another problem.
This housing crisis can only be solved in close partnership with rural areas and large urban areas by developing transportation systems, and so on. And at the same time, we can help develop companies close to urban areas because this solves several problems at the same time. Do you have any instruments that you could make available to SMEs to co-finance or subsidize part of the interest rate they are supposed to pay? I am in the agri committee. I talk a lot to farmers involved in processing.
And when I say agriculture, it doesn't only mean farmers. So, those who live in rural areas need the whole ecosystem, from somebody who mends their shoes to car repair services, factories, and so on. So, I would like to know what kind of financial products you have to support these SMEs so that they can develop their capacities. And moreover, Vice President, these investments should be looked at in their dynamic evolution because, unfortunately, more often than not, we see investments going on for two, three, or four years, and then they simply disappear. They go bust.
We need financial instruments that can allow SMEs to exist for 20 years from now on because, otherwise, we're not efficient in spending public money.
Yeah. Thanks.
Sabrina Repp
For that presentation. The most important tool of the EIB has been depicted. You've proven your worth. It's great that you're out there conducting the right investments, but I'd really like to know how this will all pan out with the new EU budget. Does your work complement that?
SMEs, we see, are facing major challenges, and they have difficulties accessing funding. And there is a clear need for these funds to be accessed. There's an increasing need. The EIB is filling in the cracks left by others. And you all know that we will be conducting negotiations for the upcoming budget.
Are you confident that you'll be able to fully party in these cracks, given that they may be getting larger? What can we do as a parliament in order to fill in the cracks you aren't able to cover? How can we assist you in doing this? We want to avoid a catastrophic situation emerging where investments cannot be pursued. What useful overlaps could there be between what the EP is doing and what you are doing?
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to welcome Vice President Mora and thank him for joining us for this exchange of views this morning. The headlines of his presentation are impressive: 100,000,000,000. I also note that you provided a record €42,800,000,000 in financing to EU cohesion regions, almost half of your total EU lending. So we're impressed.
And I'm impressed by your priorities, as set out in your presentation this morning: your focus on energy and transport. I'm impressed with what you're doing in the key regions in Poland on the motorways and in Romania on the urban transport system. But I want to ask you to put more emphasis, if you can, on working with our member states in Ireland in the area of rural transport, specifically in the West and Border region. A region, unfortunately, that due to strange circumstances finds itself changed in status from transition, as it has been for a number of years, to apparently now more developed according to the EU. This puzzles my constituents because, although we have successful cities on the Western Seaboard in Ireland, particularly in Galway, where investment is growing, many parts of the rural area are still suffering badly.
They do not have the investment, yet all of a sudden, they are told that they are going to be a more developed region in Europe. And, presumably, that will affect granted measures down the line. So, we're not happy about the two-speed process. Perhaps something that can be addressed in the NRPP. People in the rural areas of Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan, and the border regions of Ireland, are certainly not seeing a more developed infrastructure around them.
They don't have rural transport, for starters. They don't have a rail link. And this is one of the key issues. I'm pleased to see the European Investment Bank has got involved in recent times. The Western Rail Corridor project is restoring a line which has been derelict since the 1960s in Ireland.
We've already seen the difference with the reopened section of the line from Ennis to Athlone and County Galway. It has made a huge difference to the community. And I'm very pleased to read that the Irish government is indeed borrowing from the European Investment Bank for the next phase of this project, which would bring Granahan Rye to Claremore. The problem for me is that, at the moment, it seems to just stop there. Our planning going forward suggests there's no funding, no application, or no Irish initiative to bring it onwards, Mathenri, to Sligo, to Kuluni, and to link up with the other lines.
So, I'm hoping the European Investment Bank will indeed be interested in supporting a project like this, and I will be telling the Irish member state that they need to come to the table because reinstating this line is a major milestone for my region. It would bring together our major towns and cities, creating jobs and opportunities. We just cannot stop there. We must continue the joined-up approach to this area. One final question.
When I raise it, why do we not borrow more from the European Investment Bank? Some Irish member state officials say you are not competitive enough in your interest rates. Your response. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. And finally, we give the floor to Mr. Marco Vesligay from S&D.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mister Mora, for being with us today. I will speak in Croatian. It.
It is clear that the cohesion policy in this new proposal for the MFF is being diluted, and these national plans are going to have to deal with a large number of key programs, including cohesion. And I think this is dangerous for countries like Croatia because very often, we use cohesion for infrastructure projects like sewage systems, social services, etc. It's legitimate. It is needed. But I think that within the new MFF, there is a risk of moving the focus away from long-term projects.
We have a limited amount of resources, and the priorities are going to be set within the national plans. So, I have a question. What is the plan for Abe? How are you going to help countries like Croatia balance large infrastructure projects with the green transition, for example? And, in particular, where projects are not mature enough for certain financing but have great potential.
I saw that you invested in 5G network in Finland. In Croatia, in the national plan, we had certain funds allocated for broad spectrum Internet. But for large parts of Croatia, the funds haven't been used up because of certain deficiencies in public procurement. And now, we don't have sufficient funds. So, my question is: could regions now apply for certain funds and then, through Abe, build this kind of infrastructure, broad-spectrum interest Internet?
Speaker 32
This is really needed for rural areas in the 21st century if we want the people to stay.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. Now I give the floor to Mr. Jonathan Dennis from the European Commission, DG Regio.
Speaker 33
For five minutes. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd like to say that we have, in DG Regio and in the Commission, a very productive relationship with the EIB. We work very closely together. We very much welcome the 50% of lending going into cohesion regions.
We think this is really important, a really important complement for our funding. An example of our good cooperation is the multiregional financial instruments that you worked on with us in Romania, which have enabled several Romanian regions to introduce financial instruments for the first time, but with lower administrative costs by combining their efforts in this multiregional approach. And we think this is very innovative, and we are very grateful for your help with that. We have worked together on several model financial instruments, enabling managing authorities to set up financial instruments more quickly, in particular on innovation, on housing, and on the new European Bauhaus. Our joint work on that has been taken up by several member states. We also work with you on advisory through Jaspers and FI Compass, and we hope that will continue in the future because there is still a need for advisory capacity across Europe.
There are still weaknesses in administrative capacity in some member states and in some regions. Turning to your aspirations for the future, I think we are very much aligned on this. You asked for simpler rules on financial instruments. We've given you simpler rules on financial instruments. We have not regulated what we did not think needed to be regulated in our proposal.
It's now in the hands of the co-legislators. But our proposal was to minimize the number of rules to maximize the flexibility for the implementation of financial instruments. On blending and working with you, and having you do more financial instruments in terms of the management of financial instruments, yes, we very much want to do more with you in the future. And we are reflecting on how to make blending work better in the future under the national and regional plans. And finally, as I said, we want to continue to work with you on advisory services to raise the administrative capacity across Europe to enable successful implementation of the plans, and in particular, an increased use of financial instruments and repayable systems, because the new budget will have to do a lot more than the current budget.
And, therefore, repayable assistance is a good way to go. Thank you very much indeed, Che.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. Now, I give the floor to Mr. Vice President Mora for the answers and the concluding remarks.
Speaker 28
Thank you, chair, and thank you all for very interesting and valuable comments, remarks, and questions. I will try to answer as many as possible. I hope I will not forget anyone or anything. Let me speak because, you know, one of the keywords I heard was complementarity, more use of financial instruments, etc., something I raised in my initial presentation. Let me repeat that this is something really key for us.
We would really like to continue as the EIB group to be the strategic partner for the preparation and implementation of the next expenditure programs under the new financial perspective. We really think that the complementarity with EU grants is crucial. We think that there may be a bit of a different view from our colleagues from the commission, that further work could be done in terms of how these things are done. I think that if there was better recognition of our role in RP regulation, building on the current legal framework would be helpful. On leveraging the EU grants more effectively, also in order to crowd in private investment, we also think that further improvement could be done.
We think, and I mentioned that the rules for blending, and there, you know, let's see how far or how much we can agree. But we still think that the rules for blending and financial instruments, as well as contributions to NRP funds for future investment instruments, must be simple, coherent, and based on a common rule book across your funds. And third, we really would think that in order, which was also one of the topics across the board, you know, on administrative capacity and preparation of investment pipelines, etc. Our advisory is key, and I think that really building on the track record of the past three programming periods, we can show our experience. We think that the EIB should be mandated with a special advisory status to advise member states on the national and regional plans. Now, to be more specific, I will try really to address as many of you as possible.
If I forget some of you, please forgive me. It's also our first encounter, so we don't know each other very well personally. So let's hope I will not make any big mistake on this. So, Mister Novakov, complementarity of I already spoke about it. You asked if we have any evidence.
I think we have, and our economics department evaluates our activities and actions. And I said that our estimate is that for every single euro of guarantee, we are able to leverage up to €15 of investment, be it our director or the leverage in private investment. And by the way, our estimate also is that for this €1 of guarantee, the European Commission needs to provision only 40¢. So basically, 40¢ is put aside for a €1 guarantee, which is, in the end, maybe a €15 investment. We think it's a good thing.
And we try, you know, I'm an economist by education, so I also asked our own economics department because, you know, it's an impressive figure if you imagine that you make one from €1.15. And, you know, I am Czech, and the Czechs are famous for being skeptical. So, I was skeptical about this figure, but they really showed me some evidence when they said it was true. So I now repeat it as well. But even if it's not $4.15, maybe it's $13 or $14 or something, it's still a very good instrument.
For Mr. Ozempe, once again, on complementarity and multiplier, I already mentioned it. I think an important thing that you raised, and this is a bit linked also to our colleague from the Commission who mentioned the very good example of the multiregional financial instrument in Romania, was the multiregional instrument and even international instrument. This is something that we promote very much. Frankly, it's not always very easy because you work with authorities, or sometimes you also work with companies that are a bit different, which are in a member state. So it's not always obvious, but we try very much to put this dimension into our operations as well, and maybe we should do even more on that.
On Mr. Roger, outermost regions, and that you didn't see them on the map. I am very sorry. You know, it was a map of the European Union. And obviously, we would need to show the map of the whole world to include all of them. It was not the intention at all to ignore them or to forget them.
They are there. Maybe next time we could have the EU map a bit better when you have these regions in the corners. You asked some specific questions on what we do there, and I can give you some figures on, let's say, our support to outermost regions. We have, for instance, the EIF, the European Investment Fund, which has partnered with the Commission and, since 2020, launched something called the Blue Invest Fund Initiative, which strategically targets and supports the innovative blue economy. This Blue Invest Fund was structured under the European Fund for Strategic Investment equity product, and they have agreed, both the DIF and the Commission, to further scale up this fund under Invest EU. This is exactly something that targets this region.
And if I make one very concrete example in Île de la Réunion, the IF managed financial instrument. We have just provided support to over 600 SMEs, including innovative companies across all areas and sectors of the island. And 99% of SMEs supported have fewer than 10 employees, so it was really targeted to the small ones. And 93% of them have less than 5 years of activity, so it was also targeted to really new ones. And 88% of them have less than 50,000 in turnover.
So, this means that it was really aimed also at small enterprises. So, by no means do we think that these regions should be ignored or forgotten. And, again, forgive me that they were not explicitly shown on the map. To Madam Garcia, Vander Valle, thank you very much also for your support, for the very positive words and feedback. Now, a very good question about how, once the money is put into these financial instruments and the process is over, the money returns, because I know it from the Czech Republic.
I was previously the Deputy Minister of Finance. I was, by the way, also chairman of the supervisory board of the Czech National Development Bank, and we had exactly these issues. Of course, the Ministry of Finance was interested in having this. Well, sometimes they are interested in, you know, making this money a kind of general part of the thing. You know, it's probably not for us, the EIB, to define the rules on how exactly the processes with this money, which originally had a purpose and, after a process that can last many years, get repaid, should be exactly used. Well, they are different interests, but I understand that the purpose, I mean, the original purpose, should stay with this envelope, you say, basically forever.
Right? Once the money is gifted to us for a purpose, you should always reuse it for that. But this is probably something which is for the regulator, which is not the EIB, but the commission, be it the council or the parliament, to be more specific. Mister Buddha, thank you also for your questions, and I understand the issue in your country. We already, I mean, our commission colleagues mentioned this very, I think, successful program on the multi-regional support.
Now, if you also ask if there was an instrument that would subsidize the interest rate for the SMEs. Well, there we get back to the question of blending the grants and the financial instruments. This is the only way. By the way, I will preempt a bit the answer to your question, was it? Yeah. I think it was well done, sorry.
Who asked, ah no. It was Mr. Rolli. If you are competitive, sorry. It was you. If you are competitive with us, sorry.
It was you. With our interest rates, you know, the question is the cost of financing. We are a triple-A institution, so our financing resources are relatively cheap. Obviously, we have difficulties being competitive, let's say, with the central governments of Germany, Denmark, or the Netherlands because they have their own triple A rating and can issue debt at very good conditions as well. So with them, we are not really competitive because, you know, we add to our interest rate.
You know, we need to be financed, and we refinance ourselves. We also make reserves for further development, etc. But for the subnational or subcentral government levels, even in these countries, like in Germany for lenders, etc., we are competitive. Now, for SMEs, I think we should definitely be competitive already with our interest rates. There, we mostly worked with the SMEs indirectly via financial intermediaries, where we closely monitored if they passed on the advantage they received from us. And we also use the guarantee provided by the European Investment Fund, which gives the guarantee to the commercial banks in the respective countries.
And I'm sure that this is the case in Romania as well, which should make the loans cheaper. If it's cheap enough, it's always a good deal. And then we get back to the discussion of blending, where the grant part could be linked to the normal long part, but this is certainly something we should look at. And now, sorry, Madam Rep. So your question was on this gap.
And I think I addressed the issue already in my original statement. We think there is a gap, and everyone understands that there is a gap, let's say, between the needs and the sources of financing that we see. And our general answer, if I may put it, if you allow me to put it in these very general terms, is that the bigger use of financial instruments could be part of the answer to this. But there we get back to the question of Madam Garcia and then the Van de Valle, you know, if it's really the continuous use of this original purpose. But this is basically how I would answer: to strengthen complementarity, to crowd in private capital to prepare the right and good projects, and to have strengthened advisory.
So, all these things, I think, would be elements of my answer. Sorry. I think I jumped. Oh, no. No. I didn't jump over it.
I, Mister Malouli, well, you had a very specific question about a very specific region. I must apologize that, unfortunately, I don't have enough specific knowledge on this. But I can tell you that I was informed that we have quite a strong advisory for transport in Ireland. And I don't know exactly how it goes within Ireland, but the advisory in Ireland plays an important role in our activities. This, I can say.
Yeah. And then, yeah. And your question on whether you are competitive or not, triple A, I hope I was able to answer. Yeah. To the last question, how to balance the development and climate, and how to make sure that in countries like Croatia, these big investments take place.
I would again refer to, let's say, our general framework. And I think in a country like Croatia, we would definitely be competitive with what we can offer. But maybe it is more needed, and there we should work more on this because I know it from the Czech Republic, and I would guess there is a similar problem in Croatia, which is really the good preparation of the project. And then, again, we turn to the question of our advisory. If we could then together prepare projects in such a way that would address these competing objectives, but which would also technically improve the quality of the project so that it is something that could be financed by the EIB.
So I don't know how well I was able to address some of these things and answer your questions. Well, I hope I was. And if I weren't, I don't know. What would you do with me? So, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
In any case. Thank you, Mister Vice President Mara, for this open exchange with the members of our committee. We look forward to continuing our cooperation in the discussion on the future MFF. Thank you so much. We finish here our Reggie Committee, and we see you again at 2:30 PM.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.