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 sittingsSpeaker 6
This fund must also address other issues that directly affect regions, namely energy and digital connectivity, which still remain uneven across Europe. For example, the Iberian Peninsula still faces challenges in interconnections, energy interconnections, and 5G deployments. Additionally, it is crucial to introduce a new reassurance scheme for agriculture and to promote investments related to water resilience, which are essential for rural and regional development, especially in the context of increasing natural disasters that are not properly addressed in EU policies. Moreover, governance must reflect the importance of the regions. I will therefore also propose the participation of representatives of the regions and autonomous regions on the strategic stakeholders board, ensuring real and effective representation of the regions.
And personally, coming from the Azores, a port in Portugal and an outermost region of the European Union, I believe special attention must be given to the outermost regions whose structural challenges are recognized under the treaties and whose strategic role in competitiveness is undeniable due to their, I will say, strategic position throughout the world. And as is well known, we have several times proposed a post-transport support to help the outermost regions face their structural challenges, ensure connectivity, and guarantee fair access to the single market, which, after 30 years of its foundation, is still incomplete, in order for these regions to also be more competitive. In short, and to conclude, I believe that by strengthening connectivity, simplifying access, supporting innovation and private investments, and giving regions a real voice, we can ensure a European Union that is both cohesive and competitive, and where no region is left behind. This requires transparency and synergies with structural and cohesion funds, ensuring they complement each other rather than overlap. We can only be competitive as a whole.
Speaker 4
Resilience and strategic autonomy come from our collective strength, our union, because this is the European Union and the Europe of the regions. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chair. And I would like to, first of all, thank the rapporteur for a very well-drafted text that contains many elements we can support. I would also like to start by saying that the ECF, of course, has other objectives besides the cohesion policy. That is why they are, and should be, separated. However, there are several important perspectives that we need to address.
The ECF must not be a fund only for the richest cities or the biggest companies. The regions need to be involved. This would strengthen territorial resilience and also improve the ECF. All competitiveness is created in real communities where people live, in real regions where people live and work. The ECF must not be used to support companies that do not take labor rights and social responsibility seriously.
At the same time, I think it's also important that we ensure the competitiveness of Europe remains the central objective of this fund. Our role as a committee is to put forward proposals that secure the social acceptance for the transition that we need to make in the EU going ahead. To achieve that, Europe must lead in the strategic fields and priorities set out in the fund. That leadership must translate into good, well-paid jobs that generate long-term prosperity. The Competitiveness Fund cannot be used for compensation.
It must be about building a strong and independent Europe today and in the future. This transition must lead to more jobs and higher wages in our regions, in sectors where Europe can be a global leader. I think it's important that, if we want to tackle digital blind spots, Europe must lead in innovation. Otherwise, we will deepen our dependencies. When the fund period ends, the technological landscape may have already changed.
If we want to fight energy poverty, the only sustainable solution is to accelerate the transition to fossil-free energy. That is what will bring structurally lower prices for households and companies. The EU budget is not large enough to permanently subsidize energy bills. If we want to reduce our dependencies on Russia, China, or the United States, we urgently need to scale up our own production in key sectors such as clean tech, semiconductors, batteries, and so on. So, ultimately, social acceptance depends on whether this transition delivers real opportunities and quality jobs for our constituencies.
To make sure of that, the regions need to be at the table for this fund. So, the money goes to the right things. Looking forward to working closely with the reporters and the other shadows on this one. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, I'd like to thank our colleague Bana for his work. Now, it will come as no surprise to you, but just like Donacimento, I'm also going to speak about the ultra-peripheral regions and overseas territories and countries, which are unique strategic regions benefiting the EU because of their exceptional conditions for space research and astrophysical research, their abundant potential with respect to renewable energy, the wealth of their biodiversity, and their broad maritime and marine zones, except for the Guyanese Space Central Center, which was the fruit of an intergovernmental and not union initiative. We must note that nothing has been done to fulfill these potentials. Powers like China have become interested in them in our region.
And for the future competitiveness fund, there are three essential points. Firstly, access to financing. The ultra-peripheral zones and domes must not be put at a disadvantage for aspects provided for long, large geopolitical systems. We need specific mechanisms for them. Then emphasizing specific assets to the benefit of Europe with respect to space research, biodiversity, climate resilience, renewable energy, circular economy, the metal knot, and rare earth elements.
For these aspects, these territories can be innovative, especially in the development and application of jewels in civilian and defense matters. With respect to nickel from New Caledonia, huge efforts have been made, whereas this dome contains 25% of the world's nickel resources, and Europe, paradoxically, is still 95% dependent on Chinese nickel. Now, I asked for an appointment with Commissioner Stefan Dronie twice to discuss this, but unfortunately, he has more urgent matters to deal with. And then, there's inconsistency with the cohesion policies. The tombstones are not areas to be exploited but to be promoted, which, of course, requires investment in research and development, consistency between the university and their local environments, connectivity infrastructures, digital transition, as well as the enhancement of the fabric of the SMEs.
Speaker 10
Of course, this all would require a great deal of political will so that the European Competitiveness Fund is strongly connected to these territories. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to speak in Italian. Now, firstly, I'd like to thank him for his work that he's done in this completely strategic dossier for the future of the Union, which is in all of our hearts. These European competitive funds are one of the central pillars of the next MFF.
Speaker 15
It's not just a financial instrument, but also an economic and political choice. Europe would like to build this over the next few years. Now, my group says that we are willing to work in a constructive way with you, with institutional responsibility, so that the work we do in this committee can really represent the views of Reggie. I'm deeply convinced, as I've said in this committee, that European competitiveness cannot and must not just be analyzed; we actually have to build instruments to turn it into something operational with tools that can enhance our productive fabric. I'd like to put forth five priorities, and I can even send them to you regarding what we need to do.
Speaker 13
This fund must not only support technically and technologically advanced sectors, but also traditional productive areas of manufacturers, industry, and SMEs, which form the economic structure of many of our territories. And we must guarantee a fair level of competitiveness on a world scale so that we can really be a sample of what Europe is doing and show our guiding principle. And we need to reinforce these principles and enhance our small and medium-sized enterprises. And then, we have to give them direct access to European programs because often there are Commission proposals, but many SMEs, especially, are excluded from this technical support. They don't have the experience in acquiring it.
Speaker 18
We must work to give essential support to first-time applicants and provide them with simplified accompaniment, being aware of and making them aware of all the legislation that we have. Thirdly, this fund must not undermine other territories. This fund must enhance the productive base throughout all the territories. We've got to promote synergies with strategies for AI and play a role in our daily work. And this will help us give concrete results.
Speaker 9
So this committee, of course, is at the center of the activities. Then government governance must be clear and smooth, involving all different territories, not just to multiply institutions, but we have to get alliances or cooperation between these institutions, which are functional. And then the fifth priority, and I will conclude: an ambitious budget. This budget must be larger and more ambitious, and we've got to have a well-balanced way of using it and get corrective measures so that it remains credible and coherent. So, I really hope that this committee's work will lead to broader discussions on this competitiveness fund, making it an instrument that can help promote this ambitious mechanism to create more inclusive, efficient, and balanced European industries.
So, you have all done a wonderful job. We need practical and technical discussions, using this commission's prerogatives. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 14
From Greece. Thank you, Chair. And I also want to thank the rapporteur here for the work that has been done so far and for the well-balanced text. From our side, we will focus on the four priorities. One of them is Eastern Borden priority.
Speaker 11
So last week, the commission announced a new strategy for EU Eastern border regions. And that's a good step. But it must come with the real tools. The dedicated calls and the funding, including through the competitiveness fund, are important. So these regions need support that reaches them directly and quickly.
Speaker 12
Second priority, and you will hear this priority very often because this is the call from the European cities. This is direct funding for cities and regions. So, cities and regions need a direct funding window, not only national distribution. When I was the mayor of Riga, we had strong ideas, but decisions were often taken nationally, and competitive calls were heard; they were hard to win without prior AU experience. So, direct support and capacity building would help local authorities bring good projects to life.
And this should be added to a new urban policy framework. Third priority, and I can hear it very often today, is about small and medium enterprises. So, earmarking for small and medium enterprises. SMEs often can't access large AU instruments. So, earmarking funding is an essential tool, not just advice.
So, we already see their value in the Baltic region. Some of the most advanced Colton drone solutions are being developed and produced by SMEs. So, the competitiveness fund should reserve resources so that these innovators can scale. And last but not least, it's about geographical balance in the projects. We stand by an excellent-based approach, and not every call should be decided by geography.
But without measures to widen access, the same high-capacity regions will keep winning, and funding won't reach where it's needed most. So the competitiveness fund should include practical support to help less-resourced regions to compete fairly. So we're looking forward to fruitful cooperation with you, Mr. Reporter, and also other shadows. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We're going directly to case the interventions, and we start with Mr. Andre Novakov from EVP.
Speaker 16
Thank you so much, sir. I would join the gratitude that was sent to the rapporteur, and I will add additional hope that the EPP rapporteur on this power on the Cemento Cabral can bring a valuable angle and perspective to the whole issue because this is way more than just yet another front of the union, at least from my point of view. Because we've seen such initiatives before, everything started with the Junkers plan, then we renamed the Junkers plan to Invest EU, then we renamed Invest EU to something else. And then we have initiatives like Horizon, which invest in startups and innovative businesses. But still, if we are number one in publishing scientific papers, there is no single company in the top 10 in the world when it comes to market capitalization, and that's a pity and sad.
Speaker 19
So I really hope that this competitiveness fund, with the help of the rapporteur, the shareholder, and the whole team, will create something that is not designed only for five countries in the EU, because Horizon 85% of the program goes to four or five member states. And this is not excellence. This is like you're leaving behind four-fifths of the union. So, my pledge to the team is to balance the regulation in a way that it can be felt in every constituency and that it can become a really successful brand of the EU, because we desperately need success stories—not publishing articles, not communication, not press releases, but good, successful stories of big and profitable companies that have started with the support of the Union and this new competitiveness fund. This is what I would like to say.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. I now give the floor to Miss Agnieszka Skosnyasna from the European Commission. Did you grow up?
Speaker 17
Thank you, Chair. And also, I would like to thank the Reggie Committee, their rapporteur, and the shadows for the draft opinion on the European Competitiveness Fund. We have examined it carefully, and, of course, we have taken due note of all the interventions today. Thank you for that. I would like to highlight a few points from the perspective of the commission regarding the proposal. First, the overarching objective is to boost, at the European level, European competitiveness, innovation, and value chains for key technologies across Europe, to support the type and scale of projects that member states cannot do alone, and to support the best quality projects, as was mentioned today, to ensure that Europe leads in innovation, addresses strategic dependencies, and is able to scale up companies in Europe so they don't look for capital abroad.
This is why we bring the programs together for a seamless investment journey from research to manufacturing, to support companies across the single market, member states, and regions, and also making sure that we use the entire financial toolbox of our budget to leverage private investment so that it can support projects everywhere in Europe. And on the aspect that was mentioned on accessibility, the first element is simplification, of course, bringing programs together with a single rule book to relieve the burden on our project promoters, but also a single gateway to make it easier for SMEs, and all the entities from all member states, to navigate and access European funding. But we also proposed actions and tools that we think will make this fund more accessible and help us realize the full potential of the union and all territories. The aspect related to value chain calls connects and integrates suppliers, manufacturers, and innovators from different member states across European value chains. Also activating ecosystems with our SMEs, with research centers, and ecosystems across all member states, helping SMEs and project promoters with advisory support to make sure they prepare their investment projects, but also generate project pipelines across the European Union.
And, of course, support on the ground. It was mentioned that it matters a lot for our Europe and for our SMEs. This is where the proposed European business, Europe for Business network, is helping SMEs by accounting also for the specificities of each region, including the less developed ones and also the outermost ones. And third call, finally, which was important, of course, synergies. ECF is proposed as part of the broader MFF package.
I've heard calls for synergies with national and regional partnership plans. Of course, ECF will be coherent with NRPPs through policy priorities, to be set in the string mechanism, but also through the competitiveness seal, recognizing the best projects in the EU that regions could further support for IPCI top-ups, as well as for possibilities to use the member states' compartment under InvestEU, and, of course, for other simplification measures such as performance regulation and other aspects that are part of the MFF proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleagues. It's quite a pleasure to notice that almost everybody actually talks about the regional perspective, the necessity of this competitiveness plan to address Europe at the regional level and not just to be settled in two or three very developed economies. Also, the clear support and focus for SMEs and those which are performing in the new context on the Eastern border on one side, but also in the periphery regions, because there are different points of potential in those regions. So, it's an important element to address.
And also, I'm more than satisfied that the European Commission put this aspect—that this program is addressing—all over Europe, in all the areas, cities, and regions. So we'll try to reflect these priorities and this interest in our report, and I'm sure we'll have very good cooperation and a great result in the end. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Report to the shadow reporters, other members, as well as the commission's representative. I would like to inform you that the deadline for tabling amendments is next Thursday, May 6th, at 5 PM, and the vote on the opinion will take place at our meeting on May 6th this year. Thank you so much. We're going forward to point number eight if we have Mr. Moon. So, demographic change will continue to shape Europe in the coming decades.
With life expectancy in the European Union at around 81, the implications for social and economic systems are substantial. Population aging and decline are affecting, in particular, rural and remote regions that are already facing economic stagnation. Our EDGE committee requested this study to further investigate the role played by equal policy in addressing the territorial and social disparities resulting from demographic change in the population. This afternoon, we have the pleasure of welcoming the author of the study, Mr. Arnd Muth, who will present to us an analysis of the role of cohesion policy in improving essential services in the European Union regions. I remind you that the study commissioned by the Policy Department for Cohesion, Agricultural, and Social Policies is now available online on the website of our committee.
Copies can also be found at the entrance of the room. Ant Munc is a senior researcher at the Austrian Institute for Regional Studies. He holds a master's degree in economics from Maastricht University and has been working since 2017 on European cohesion policy and integrated territorial development. Mister Munch, it's correct, Munch. We are going to listen to you very carefully, and I give you the floor for the next 50 minutes. And then we have an exchange with the members of the Reggie Committee.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much, members, for taking the time. I will be presenting today the results of the study "Improving Essential Services in the EU Region: The Role of Creation Policy." The presentation is structured in four sections.
At first, I will be discussing demographic change, territorial disparities, and implications for essential services. In the second part, I will present the main EU support instruments and tools to invest in essential services in remote and shrinking regions. In the third section of this presentation, I will be discussing barriers and approaches for the provision of essential services in vulnerable regions, with a particular focus on cohesion policy. In the fourth and final section of this presentation, I will go into a few key recommendations and conclusions in light of the new multi-annual financial framework. Demographic change, tutorial disparities, and implications for essential services.
Demographic dynamics vary in Europe, especially in rural Europe. Outmigration, low birth rates, and aging are very prevalent in peripheral and rural regions. However, we also see moderate growth in some parts of rural Europe, particularly closer to urban areas. This can be tied to migration or suburbanization. In the context of essential services, islands, outermost regions, and mountain areas share structural vulnerabilities.
These are linked to remoteness, low accessibility, and other associated factors which affect the cost of service delivery. In addition, what we've seen more recently are regions in development traps of middle-income regions, which also affect the framework conditions of service delivery, particularly in relation to the financial sustainability of the real services. Essential services that we assessed in relation to EU funds in this study were health services, childcare services, as well as services to individuals. In the context of demographic and territorial factors, remoteness and accessibility play significant roles as barriers or factors affecting the quality and quantity of the available services. Longer travel times, higher transport costs, and limited availability of facilities are key issues.
Low population density intensifies service delivery, particularly in peripheral interior regions. And this combines with demographic decline and a shrinking or changing tax base, which affects the ability of local actors to provide and finance these services. A few words on the main EU tools to support essential services in remote and shrinking regions. We found that there are three major instruments supporting essential services in remote and vulnerable areas: the Cohesion Policy, Recovery and Resilience Facility, and the Common Agricultural Policy. With three major funding instruments, regulatory complexity is high; there are differences in delivery approaches, overlaps in funding, and a high number of individual funding programs.
A few words now on each of the individual funds. The Recovery and Resilience Facility provides a rather significant amount of expenditure, though this is generally not territorially targeted. So, when we're looking at essential services, this does not always result in investments being targeted at more remote or rural areas. Some member states use a common agricultural policy, particularly investment support and LEADER, though uptake is relatively limited. Cohesion policy is the most commonly used EU tool to support essential services, particularly with the use of territorial ring-fencing, but also territorial tools such as those I will discuss later.
Among the analyzed investments in the study, we found that particularly political objectives four and five, Social Europe and bringing Europe closer to its citizens, were the most prominent political objectives for the support. In total, we estimated around €15,700,000,000 in EU funding will be dedicated to health care, child care, and long-term care. €15,200,000,000 of this will be from the ERDF and ESF Plus alone. Of this amount of money, €12,400,000,000 in EU funding will target less developed, but also outermost northern and sparsely populated regions. Integrated territorial investments, community-led local developments, or territorial tools in general account for around €1,000,000,000, or at least that's the foreseen amount dedicated to territorial tools in relation to essential services. They are mostly applied in rural areas but also in coastal and island regions.
We found, as part of the study, that these tools strengthen the coherence of the supported investments between the individual operation and also the wider regional frameworks. So, this can be quite beneficial in terms of promoting the sustainability of investments. A few words now, also on barriers and approaches for the provision of essential services, stemming from a review of cohesion policy and other initiatives that are targeting such investments. So, as part of the study, we took stock of around 13 investments, and these analyzed cohesion policy and national investments, showcasing how member states tend to apply place-based and specific approaches to counterbalance the effect of demographic decline on essential service provision. There are various initiatives supported by regions and member states, including welcoming programs, medical and care services, healthcare infrastructure, and mobility services.
Cohesion policy funding plays a major role in delivering these investments. We found that national and regional co-financing tends to be rather low for these investments, particularly in vulnerable regions. This reliance on the strong role of EU funding in delivering these investments is quite positive, but it can also affect the financial sustainability of the investments. Besides costs tied to infrastructure, the supported service also requires recurring costs often tied to staffing and other material costs long after the project conclusion. So, there is always a question of the financial sustainability of the supported investments.
Maybe a few words on the governance arrangements. Whereas most operations that we see are single-fund operations, generally prepared at a municipal level in relation or response to a call. We found that there are also a series of more integrated or holistic approaches anchored at a program level or strategic level, which try to embed the investments into the wider regional framework. These can be done either at the program level, by constructing certain measures and targeting specifically rural and depopulated areas, or with the use of integrated territorial strategies. We found some member states, particularly Spanish and Italian regions, but also some Romanian cases where these instruments have been applied and anchored relatively fundamentally.
However, when we looked at these projects, we also encountered several barriers that impede the delivery of investments for essential services. Key issues included overlapping policies and funding schemes, with multiple funds supporting relatively similar investments, lack of collaboration between national administrations and policy design, potentially between national and regional levels as well, as well as discontinuous policy efforts throughout the life cycle of the project or the strategy. Maybe a few words also on performance-based approaches, because this will take on a more pronounced shape in the upcoming multi-annual financial framework. Performance-based approaches are made, of course, on the achievement or applied by allowing payments to be made on the achievement of milestones and results, not necessarily for the incurred costs. These approaches, of course, have some advantages, such as faster implementation.
They can lead to encouragement of impact orientation and predictable cash flows. However, they tend to be quite complex, and there's, of course, a risk of nonpayment. We found in our review that there are indeed some initiatives, particularly one scheme which already applies performance-based approaches in the current programming period for essential services. What we have found in relation to, or foresee in relation to, the upcoming multi-annual financial framework is that we want to highlight the risk of using population-based output and result indicators. So, this could also be tied to the number of users covered, for example, by a certain investment in relation to supporting investments in rural or remote areas.
You have far fewer people living in these areas. So, of course, there's a higher cost per unit of, let's say, a person visiting these services. If this is not taken into account in the design of the schemes or by using different result indicators or output indicators, there is, of course, a risk that more rural or remote regions face certain disadvantages when accessing funding, particularly if the schemes are designed at the national level.
A few.
Speaker 20
Recommendations and policy options which we developed as part of the study. In the discussion on pre-allocations and territorial e-marking for rural and remote regions, we wanted to highlight that any ring-fencing for such regions should ideally also consider the broad spectrum of needs in rural or remote areas, not just those related to the farming sector. We also wanted to highlight, referring to the slides just before, that we want to strengthen, or we recommend strengthening, result-oriented monitoring for the services to people, health care, childcare, and essential services. So, this is quite important to perhaps also measure results such as patient satisfaction, quality of care, and not just the number of consultations. Investments in physical assets and essential services should ideally be complemented by adequate training and recruitment of qualified personnel.
This is a strong need, particularly in depopulated areas or areas facing a lot of out-migration. Physical structures are important, but you also need to staff them and implement the services. In relation to territorial tools, we recommend an increase in the more innovative use of CLD and ITIs for essential services. We found that there is around EUR 1,000,000,000 in EU funding committed to supporting services via territorial tools. So, this is currently still a small sliver of the overall funding, which is dedicated.
We also recommend strengthening the role of regions in the national regional partnership plans, particularly in relation to targeting structural needs beyond essential services for rural, remote, and vulnerable regions. And finally, tied to the point before, we do recommend maintaining Cohesion's policies place-based funding structure while exploring options for streamlining and removing duplication. There are a lot of different funds supporting investments in rural, remote, and outermost areas. But we would recommend increasing or making the responsibility clearer for certain funds and institutions in promoting rural development or development in remote and disadvantaged areas. With this, thank you very much for your attention, and I am very happy to respond to any comments.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Chair. A few things. First, congratulations on having the guts to mention that rural areas are not only farming areas. We have some representatives here coming from the rural areas. They don't grow cucumbers.
On the contrary, they're all investing. Their focus, work, and energy improve the quality of living there, not necessarily through farming. This is one thing. Another example is that, in the current programming period, we have specific regions like the northern one. Those are the northernmost regions in Scandinavia: Finland and Sweden, and these are missing in the current proposal.
Speaker 19
Do you have any guess or idea why that is? And do you know how we can reintroduce it? Because it's clear that every region has specific needs and characteristics that require a tailor-made approach to those regions. And finally, about the mountainous regions. That's completely different from the needs of any other.
Just like the islands have their own needs, mountainous regions that are mostly covered by snow most of the time have specific needs when it comes to infrastructure, health care, education, and so on. So how do you react to that? Thank you.
Speaker 1
You. Now we'll continue with Mr. Sergio Gonzalez from SND. Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Portuguese.
Just.
Speaker 22
To start, thank you for the presentation and the work you have conducted in this study. The document really spells out what we've been saying time and again in this committee. Cohesion policy is the best tool we currently have in the EU to ensure access to essential services, particularly in the furthest-flung regions or those in demographic decline. We have a multilevel approach involving regional authorities who really know what is happening on the ground. Looking at the commission proposal for the MFF, cohesion policy is swept aside as an autonomous policy.
A strong cohesion policy with its own identity, multilevel governance, and territorial-level planning is not encompassed in the proposal tabled. So, this architecture is watered down. This leads to very tangible risks, unsustainable financial operations, and no guarantees for the future. There's likely going to be an increase or a decrease in long-term funding and protection, therefore. And without the right to stay in place, this will just become an empty slogan.
So, I have two questions. Firstly, bear in mind that territorial tools will be contingent on the national regional partnership plans, and there will be no autonomous European-level guarantee. What will be the impact on access to essential services here? Secondly, bearing in mind the Commission proposal for the MFF, will there be a tangible improvement in the provision of essential services? Or do you expect greater territorial disparities, bearing in mind the national priorities of each member state?
Speaker 4
Thanks very much for setting out this study. Yesterday, a joint opinion was issued. There was a presentation from the Court of Auditors. There was a very critical study of the national and regional partnership plans. And we've heard what you had to say, and you've picked up on two essential aspects.
Firstly, you've shown how difficult it often is for a member state to grasp the tangible needs out there in the regions. We've looked at the commission's proposal. They're trying to centralize funds more in the member states. I'd like to understand what you think about the challenges in the upcoming MFF if this remains the status quo. Secondly, let's look at what's essential in cohesion policy when it comes to developing infrastructures, training, and educating Europeans.
When it comes to infrastructure, what we've heard from many regions is that, given demographic changes, immigration, and people leaving these territories. We've heard that an awful investment was made with European funds, but how will we guarantee that the modernization of these funds takes place? Often, the regions in member states are not able to keep hold of these funds. So, how will appropriate funds be made available? So, in the upcoming MFF, should it not be feasible for us to use these budget lines to tap into human resources and existing infrastructures in the regions, which are very difficult for local and regional authorities to handle.
Next point, I would pick up on what I deem to be the major difficulty in developing our regions. In other words, connectivity. There is the concept of transport poverty here. Do you not think that the far-flung and outermost regions should be able to access transport? Because this really hinders their development. That's why, in the committee, we heard about a very intriguing study advocating for the creation of a specific transport package for the outermost regions.
That would ensure connectivity, competitiveness, and allow people to remain where they are. This will create a critical mass to tap into the cohesion of funds and the RRF funds. Next, my final point. I will just emphasize that cohesion is necessary to avoid having a multi-track Europe. We acknowledge that the model needs honing, but this model is better than what came before.
And this is just my personal view. To your mind, what essential tweaks need to be made? Of course, cohesion funds need to be kept separate, but what other essential tweaks need to be made to ensure consistency, stressing the importance of cohesion in showing real, tangible development in our regions, mountainous regions, and outermost regions? And as Andrei Novakov said, what about the border regions and other more isolated and remote regions? How can they be helped?
What changes and tweaks should we make in order to streamline cohesion?
Speaker 24
I live in a rural area. And in the rural area, we need hospitals, a car, a job, a punctual bus, maybe a train, an ATM, and maybe a post office. If we don't have access to these things, we leave these rural areas, we leave our villages, and go to a city where we've got everything we need within a radius of 500 meters. 30% of the European population lives in these rural areas. If we follow the commission's definition, 30%, that's a hell of a lot of people out there reliant on these essential services.
If you attach political value to these 30% of the population, you will appreciate how susceptible these people are to extremely left or extremely right ideologies. The thing is, people lack essential services in rural areas. More often than not, politics is seen as the problem rather than the solution. Hence, this political fluctuation, left or right. So it's essential for us to bolster and maintain these rural services for the rural populace.
Many people might have an inkling that they've been left by the wayside, but the opposite is true. My question is a simple one. You've launched a loyal appeal, as it were, for rural areas not to be defined using an agricultural yardstick. I mean, yeah, you're completely right in what you claimed. Rural areas are not only defined by the presence of farmers.
You also contended that the role of regions needs to be boosted. The commission has come up with a proposed text that neglects that. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the role of the regions is important in defining which services ought to be present in situ. That's an important factor, and that ought to be spelled out in the text. So, if we were to refine this text, how would you define a rural area?
Speaker 26
Thank you very much for inviting us to this discussion and for bringing this very good study to our attention. In DG Regio, we pay attention to these investments, of course, and it was very interesting to read how it can be seen from an outside perspective. A few remarks. The scope of what is considered essential services, I think, is a matter of choice and discussion. You have taken certain services.
I think when we are looking at what is important for the right to stay and what is important for the livability of territories all over the EU, we could also consider education as part of essential services, especially for the basic levels. We could also look at digital connectivity, which is extremely important for survival pretty much anywhere, and transport connectivity, of course, in addition to all the basics of water, electricity, and all of those things. Why I mentioned them is because that's where the cohesion policy invests, and it invests more in the less developed regions in these basic infrastructures and basic services. So we could also take a wider scope, but this list of the services you've included is, of course, clearly essential. I would like to mention a project that we are about to conclude.
Speaker 27
So, we have the talent booster mechanism and its harnessing talent platform, where we have been working with quite a few regions that are in demographic decline or are very close to being in demographic decline. And they are dealing exactly with these issues of reducing the number of population, which then has a knock-on effect on your tax base, which has a knock-on effect on the ability to provide services. As services are less available, it has a knock-on effect that people might migrate to other places where services are more available, such as more urbanized areas. So this harnessing talent platform and the projects we have had there have worked hands-on with regions, trying to bring them out of this vicious circle and to find pathways, plans, and strategies to find new ways of attracting people either to come back, new people to come, or people who could make the choice to stay. And we're hoping that this work could feed into the next MFF and the national regional partnership plans as good examples for the specific objective of the right to stay.
Speaker 26
And finally, I would like to thank you for the study. It is now part of our thinking and evidence collection process for the upcoming Right to Stay strategy later in the year. So we will certainly feed into our thinking, analysis, and identification of what makes people stay and what makes people go. Also, thank you for all of the examples that are in your study. It's always difficult to find good examples, but you have achieved that.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much for the comments and questions. I will try to address all of them today. If possible, I will come back in writing to some of them. Some are more technical, I think, for at least a quick response. So, the role of northernmost regions and how this can be reintroduced in the regulation.
The question of how this can be reintroduced specifically is a difficult one, but I think it is important to certainly consider the role of the northernmost sparsely populated regions. They have very specific needs, be it in relation to essential services but also in other investment needs, also in the wider framework of basic services, such as mentioned by the commission representative. Here, what we would say and recommend is that these can be either anchored in the regulation or indirectly via program-level interventions. So, this is, of course, assuming that regions have a strong role in the development of the national and regional partnership plans. It is certainly still possible to address some of those needs by directing certain measures designed via these plans towards these regions.
However, and this also perhaps applies to points raised in relation to mountainous regions, it necessitates that these actors and these regional actors are also sufficiently consulted in the setup of the plans and also sufficiently consulted or involved in the implementation. We looked at territorial instruments quite a lot in the study because we think that they are a relatively good approach not just to support one particular project but also to deliver many projects in a territorially holistic manner aligned with regional needs. Ideally, the implementation of these tools should be as close to the ground as possible. If they're planned at national, regional, or even higher levels, this is, of course, one thing, but in the end, this is about implementing something very much on the ground. So, it's important that these actors are involved.
We found in this study, in the case study, and also in other studies in the field that the involvement of local actors is quite important when delivering these investments in relation to needs in rural and remote areas. They do know the situation on the ground, and they may help steer some of those investments and improve the relevance. There was one comment on the assessment of needs at the member state level. So, I think once we're moving up the governance chains to the national level, of course, there's always a loss of detail when we're discussing needs and the targeting of instruments. I will perhaps go to a different example.
I think that was, and I will mention the Common Agricultural Policy, which in the current programming period made the shift to national-level plans that, depending on how the member states arranged the process, still sometimes show very strong degrees of regional targeting. I believe that in the design of the Spanish and German CAP strategic plans, the role of regions was very strong, with very tailored measures also targeting individual regions. So this is, of course, something that national and regional actors can do to promote the territorial relevance of these plans and to reduce a loss, let's say, of specificity in the measure design. But it is important, of course, that these consultative steps are then taken. On the point of qualification and investment, promoting large investments in essential services in regions with demographic decline and the subsequent loss of staff and residents is important.
This is, of course, always a risk with public investments. But what we looked at in the study, and I will quite often come back to, is the use of territorial tools. I think when supporting essential services, it's very important to adopt a bit of a holistic view. It is not just about a whole local hospital which is supported or a post office. Ideally, you should support the general economic and social framework of the region.
As such, if these regional investments are aligned with other investments in the area, be it in the economic fabric, agricultural or non-agricultural, of course, but as long as there's alignment, hopefully the framework conditions for maintaining those investments are good. This is maybe not a fully satisfactory answer to this, but of course, it's very difficult also for local, regional, or national actors to avoid a loss of people, which then leads to basically a very difficult-to-maintain basic service investment. The feeling of people left behind and its implications for political discourse has, of course, been discussed a lot. As part of the study, we have certainly not looked at the political dimension of this; we note that this creates disharmony in the region and a general decline in quality of life. Regarding the question of to what extent a rule is a rule or when it is a rule, of course, there is a very high-level definition at the European Commission developed by Eurostat and other actors in the field.
But I think it's important to zoom into the region a bit more sometimes. Rural regions are very diverse in their characteristics. They can be more agricultural. They can also include manufacturing hubs, smaller economic specialized areas, and so on. So there's a large amount of diversity, which at times makes it very difficult, I think, to develop policies for rural areas.
For us, one of the things in the study, even though we did not look particularly at the very big question of how to properly define rural areas, is, of course, something linked to population density statistically, but also the factor of remoteness is a certain thing. You are further away from a larger settlement and from a smaller, mid-sized town, and this creates certain implications, of course, for how you operate day to day and what kind of investments you can support. There has been a lot of work in this field in defining and adopting more organic definitions of rural areas, which I can come back to, I think, in writing. There was one big question: how to improve coherence between member states in light of the new proposals. This is a very large question, to an extent sadly a bit outside of what we can deliver in this study.
But what we can say, of course, is that it's very important that local and regional actors, or regions which are facing certain demographic or territorial disadvantages, are still adequately supported by cohesion policy and not just larger, well-performing regions. With this, thank you very much.
Speaker 38
First of all, I'd like to thank the experts for this study. I apologize for coming too late. I had other obligations at different committees. However, I have studied all the materials that we have received very carefully, and I believe that the cohesion policy is crucial for securing certain services, especially in rural or less-developed areas. The data show that the entire European budget for rural areas gets less funding despite the population.
We know that 85% of the budget is given to these areas. So I believe that the key role is the role of the local government. I was a mayor for 12 years of a smaller city in Croatia, so I'm well acquainted with the challenges that these smaller areas face. So we need to have the community. It is very important to plan the European funds, and also, it is very important for you to implement these funds efficiently, particularly when it comes to infrastructure, social services, and territorial development, generally speaking.
Speaker 31
So, from our experience, we have a low level of funds. This shows that we need to have a better territorial approach that systematically includes the units of local government in the process of planning and implementation. I also have a question for you. Perhaps it has already been answered. Still, I would like to ask my question.
Speaker 33
Do you believe that these national plans in the new MFF should have the territorial chapters where the roles and priorities of the local self-governments would be defined precisely because of the reasons I have already mentioned? E, to efficiently use the funds to decrease the territorial gaps and to ensure that these funds are distributed and allocated justly. I have just said that I was a mayor. In Croatia, we designed a system for allocating funds in which we had a set of criteria, for example, for certain areas like mountainous regions and so on. And through this mechanism, we had the 20 largest cities, which are also the capitals of our regions, and this is how we allocated the funds.
Speaker 31
However, what was the issue? Forty percent of the local municipalities were not in the ITI mechanism, and they were not able to get European funds. This was very unjust because some got the money directly, and others had to apply to calls, tenders, and so on. So once you apply for a call, you never know how that is going to end up and whether you will get the funds or not. So I believe that we need to warn the member states to take more care about this being just.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much for the question. Indeed, it is important to involve regional or subnational actors more comprehensively in these investments. It was one of the strengths of cohesion policy to have regional actors and local actors involved in the implementation of funding. What we've seen from the experience of the Recovery and Resilience Facility is that national-level decision-making was often more important than regional-level decision-making in the planning of these funds. It was a different time, of course, and the instruments were set up much more quickly.
Regardless, I want to emphasize that it is very important to involve regional actors in both the implementation and the programming of the funding. So this can be done, of course, with the idea to have them strengthened at the level of the national regional partnership plans with dedicated chapters. This is one thing, or through very strong consultation mechanisms, which also ensure involvement. So, these would be my two options or suggestions. Thank you.
Thanks.
Speaker 34
Sir, and thanks likewise for presenting this report. I only heard it in dribs and drabs because I had to go out. You've touched on important points, such as the right to stay and the right to remain. It's more important than ever to have this point flagged. We often talk about rural areas, and there are also small urban centers that are under ever greater threat, and we can't neglect that fact.
Speaker 36
We are facing a demographic and population-related challenge. This is not just a matter of distributing funds. It's a disaster across the board in economic, social, and territorial terms. And the report flags, among many other facts, that inland territories such as my region suffer from transport poverty. And this really undermines progress and increases geographical isolation.
Speaker 34
And this has a serious trickle-down effect on the funds that actually reach these regions. These regions are less economically attractive. And, therefore, we see a whittling away of social services as a result. Is it really enough to have €218,000,000,000 for less developed regions? Is that a large enough allocation, given the extent of the challenge and this 10% figure?
Speaker 35
How can we face this demographic challenge? And I'm very sorry once again; I came in late due to duties elsewhere.
Thank you.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much for this comment. As part of the study, we did not estimate whether the foreseen budget was sufficient. So, I cannot provide a satisfactory answer on this. It is, however, important to see that, and I agree with you, that particular inner areas, remote areas, in indent regions face specific issues tied to accessibility. We've seen some member states that have tried to address these issues via national governance arrangements.
So, in Italy, for example, the inner area strategy was implemented to target European funding, particularly in those regions. So, what I'm trying to say here is that, especially in times when there is perhaps not enough money to target all needs, it is also about spending the money you have very efficiently. These integrated or very targeted instruments can help you spend the money more efficiently or focus it on certain impacts you want to generate. Of course, when we're looking at the general demographic challenge, also beyond these inner areas, the big question is: €218,000,000,000 enough? It's probably answered with a no, I would say.
Of course, the needs are prevalent, but this probably applies to many policy fields that the European Union addresses. However, I think what we try to position well, what we try to say here in this study is, in many ways, that there are policy instruments which help you improve efficiency by targeting funding at those areas. And this could also improve outcomes for those areas, as opposed to dispersing it more widely, for example. So this could be one example where less developed or more inner areas are, for example, also targeted more effectively with cohesion policy funding. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Nook, thank you for an interesting presentation and for the recommendations we provided today. Dear colleagues, we must take a little break, thirty minutes, half an hour, because Miss Antonella Sberna is in another meeting. So we see you at 4:30 PM. Dear colleagues, we continue our meeting this afternoon with the consideration of the legislative draft opinion on establishing the Connecting Europe Facility for the period 2028-2034 as a key Union instrument supporting investments in trans-European transport and energy networks.
The committees responsible for this file are the train committee and the ITREC committee under a joint committee proch procedure. So now I give the floor to the rapporteur, Miss Antonella Sberna from ECR, for the presentation of the draft opinion. Miss Sberna, you have the floor.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, colleagues, and greetings, Commission. Today, I'd like to introduce this draft opinion on the regulation instituting connecting your facility for 28,234, which is new and will have a more central role in the new financial framework for security, safety, and resilience. Now, there's an explanatory statement which is quite important and gives a summary of priorities where we can help you understand our position and hopefully welcome it. This is a preliminary phase, and we're hoping our technical partners will offer some useful contributions and give more impetus to some very basic proposals for adopting the approach. This is a strategic instrument having a direct impact on European capacity to be connected and united in a geopolitical situation, which is quite different from the previous program.
Now, the text we'd like to put forth came out from the preparatory meeting before we actually started drafting the relations, and the shadow reporters have made some very useful contributions to this text. And I was very pleased to keep these points and solidify the territorial and regional aspect of the program, which is what we're presenting in complementarity with the cohesion policies and their complementarity with national pause policies. So this SEF is an instrument for European competitiveness, but without cohesion, competitiveness is not sustainable. And this is why we specifically refer to Article 174 of the treaty, saying that the territorial aspect is an integral part of EU legislation. Now, the transport sector does not have a quota for cohesion, and it is based on two territories.
We, the CEF, must support inland Ireland, insular regions, and remote regions to maintain cohesion. If we don't have the appropriate infrastructures, there will be no possibility for citizens and businesses to build their future in their territories of origin. So, we need to be able to make a choice. I'm thinking of the southern and peripheral regions, which represent a strategic border. Enhancing their connectivity will help guarantee their resilience, their energy resilience, and provide them with more security with respect to outside borders. The CEF will add value to cross-border projects.
But we can't just limit ourselves to the institutional aspect of transborder projects. There are projects in the territories to guarantee the functional aspects of the Tenti Corridor and multimodal transport. And this, of course, will contribute to the development of the program, and we must evaluate the consequences. We want to enhance its strength and its role in urban areas, and it is very important for all the TNT networks because they have to be fully functional with their creation and operation. The urban sector will have to have the best connections and multimodal infrastructures, where we see a lot of congestion, inefficiency, and a lack of performance, which, of course, impoverishes our corridor.
Now, with respect to military mobility, our text acknowledges the importance of dual use, the principle of dual use. But infrastructural dual-use investment must also guarantee benefits for social mobility, commercial and trade logistics, and residential activities. We need to be able to enter, enhance resilience, and connection between the networks. We've seen how vulnerable certain systems are in the security of supply, and the elimination of energy waste is very important. I've also highlighted governance at all levels.
Local and regional governance will play a key role in the verification and checking of the infrastructural aspects, and it will help territorial resilience and facilitate the implementation of this fund. This opinion is constructive, and we are open to any contributions you may make. Hopefully, we can share the work together. I'd like to repeat how ready I am to work with all the shadow rapporteurs and take on their proposals in order to establish broad consensus on a well-balanced regional committee view. So I'd like to thank all of you, and I think we all share this objective, which is to create a more efficient committee, establish stronger cohesion, and make a great contribution to this.
Speaker 1
I will now invite the shadow rapporteur to express the points of view, and we start with Miss Nikolina Brignac from ABB.
Speaker 42
Thank you, Chair. Forgive me, the floor. And I would like to thank our reporter, my colleague Antonella from ECR, for her work on this legislative opinion. And the new European fund, connecting your facility with the proposed budget of 81,400,000,000, is not just another funding instrument. It is a strategic investment tool for Europe's competitiveness, security, and territorial cohesion.
Speaker 41
From my perspective, CEF must remain a strong instrument, dedicated to projects with clear European added value, particularly cross-border infrastructure that member states cannot effectively deliver alone. And I believe that for the Reggie committee, we can talk about CEF; one of the messages is essential. CEF and the cohesion policies are not competitors. They are complementary. Cohesion policy strengthens regions from the inside, and CEF connects them across borders.
Speaker 43
So, without strong cross-border links like rail, ports, and energy, many regions risk remaining structurally disconnected from other, more developed parts of the European Union. So, I therefore support prioritizing missing links and bottlenecks, especially in less-developed rural border regions and islands. No region should be bypassed by more European corridors. In transport, full alignment with the TNT network, deadlines for the core network by 2030, and the extended core by 2040 is crucial. In energy, cross-border interconnections and renewable cooperation projects are key to security of supply and price stability.
Speaker 41
So finally, military mobility is a strategic priority, not a supplementary measure, but dual-use infrastructure strengthens both our security and our regional connectivity. CEF must deliver tangible results, better connections, stronger regions, and a more resilient Europe. So, we look forward to constructive cooperation with the Rapporteur and with other political groups. Thank you.
Speaker 22
I wanted to start by thanking the rapporteur for the work that has been done on this report, and you have shown you are open to dialogue. I'd like to pick up on a number of points where I'm sure we see eye to eye. But I do think it's important to clarify these points in the document. We should not neglect the cohesion of the goals. It is vital to ensure we comply with Article 174 in terms of the economic, social, and territorial dimensions of cohesion so that investments made by Dint of SEF can contribute to reducing disparities and promoting convergence.
Against this backdrop, knowing that there are ways of getting around this, it is important to clarify the concept of dual use. We should not just indicate that investments will have a civil use. Projects to be funded by CEF should be socially viable, create local value, and redound to the tangible benefit of the local communities. Likewise, we must ensure fair and equal access to funds, seeing to it that all regions, regardless of their size or level of development, are able to fully take part, and European funds will not be allocated where there is already good capacity for investment from other sources. I would like to spell out support for outermost regions pursuant to Article 349 of the Treaty.
The current text is subject to misconstrual on this point, so we must explicitly include this point. Thank you to everybody who contributed, and I trust we can all continue to work together on this matter. There are differences in the development of transport infrastructure outside of cross-border connections and the TNT core network. The role of local and regional authorities in structural projects is duly acknowledged. The geopolitical situation will continue to be uncertain in the future, and many areas are suffering from a dwindling population.
Speaker 44
This, taken together with a lower population density, is a major challenge. Therefore, we need to regard things from this perspective when it comes to the MFF and recognize the importance of investment in energy, transport, and digital connectivity. In many areas to the east of the EU, there are major distances to be covered, and there is an urgent need to improve infrastructure. In future years, we need to fully tap into the CEF to ensure the necessary flexibility is in place. There was a Commission communication on the EU eastern areas.
Speaker 47
These are areas that are particularly vulnerable to a Russian attack. Transport links are urgently needed; therefore, I am very glad that the draft addresses the use of dual-use transport projects. It's already clear that the T network is highly compatible with military mobility. Improved highways and bridges are important for both connectivity and our security in military terms. And once again, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work.
Speaker 52
Thanks, Chair. Delay upon delay. I would like to start by saying this to explain to the rapporteur that I come from an area where there are delays upon delays in the Trans-European transport networks. Thank you, Rapporteur, because we do see eye to eye on many things. This will be a great E.P. report.
Speaker 46
The link from the Bigo de Porteur has accumulated delays. CEF is an essential fund for areas like my Galicia, financing the Atlantic corridor, but also the links with secondary transport links such as rail lines and roads connecting urban and rural areas. Therefore, our amendments will serve to hone infrastructure that is disused or abandoned, such as the rail link between Orense and Bigo. It's essential that we link up our transport networks. We have two commuter train networks that need to be restored in Galicia.
Speaker 53
We need a CEF that helps to set up crucial infrastructures for logistical hubs such as the US, Nevis, Salvatore, and other areas, which need to be included in the 10 cross-border networks, urban areas, cities, ports, and ocean highways that need to be improved. We must ensure that the RET network includes secondary highways. We need a CEF that links our urban and peri-urban areas, particularly across borders, so that we can make our hopes a reality. Trans cross-border energy products are important to improve public services and ensure access to places of work, as happens in my country, Galicia, says the speaker.
Speaker 48
Thank you very much, Chair. And firstly, like other colleagues, I want to thank you for this opinion and say that I think it adds a huge amount, particularly from a Reggie point of view, and I welcome a lot of that. So, just to put that on the record. Just some other points to make as well, though, in relation to particularly the military aspect. I do not accept that 17,000,000,000 of the Connecting Europe Facility needs to be spent on military projects. As a committee, we should be defending civic projects and very important transport projects that could be funded with this money.
Speaker 49
And my own political group queried the location of these 500 military hotspots that are to be funded, and we were told that this information cannot be shared. So, how can we have a situation where this committee and an elected parliament sign off on billions of funding for essentially secret projects? So, we have a lot of talk about transparency and accountability, and rightly so, in this committee and throughout the parliament. However, I would say this goes out the window when it comes to these military hotspots, as we don't know the locations. So I'd like to know how that decision was being made and how on earth any of us in this parliament could accept such an arrangement.
Speaker 48
So then, to focus on a few other points as well, I come from a country which will, it seems, contribute on a per capita basis the second most of any member state. Yes. It seems that we will lose a huge amount. Firstly, just as I was speaking about in relation to the militarization situation, but also, secondly, because as an island, Ireland does not get as much attention as other parts of the continent. And I think we need to see that this is rectified, and I'm proposing that we have a set amount of at least 5% that would be reserved for Ireland and member states.
Otherwise, they stand to lose out due to their peripheral nature. So the West of Ireland is just as much a part of Europe as a corridor running down the center of the continent and deserves to be connected. The island member states also need special consideration to set focus on rail and cross-border projects, which do not necessarily suit them, and flexibility must be given so that ports, sometimes more urban projects, and airports on these islands can benefit from the facility. Just to give an example, 5% of the budget in 2023 went towards ports, compared to 81% for rail. So, as an island member state, ports and airports play a different and far more crucial role in facilitating cross-border travel and the transport of goods.
Regional airports, in particular, I will give two examples. My own constituency of Ireland South, in Waterford and also in Kerry, needs to be prioritized alongside ports. Again, we have a port in Waterford and also Rosslare in Wexford that are Ireland's closest points to the EU. The difference in the importance of such infrastructure in Ireland should be recognized and addressed in the CEF to support better integration with the EU at large. So, we must focus on inland waterways, a mode of transport that is irrelevant in Ireland, where roads are a more practical alternative.
The CEF talks a good game about taking geographic specifications into account, but must follow through on them. As things stand, as a member of the regional development committee, it would be harder to design an instrument less likely to help develop islands and peripheral coastal regions. It has to change. So, I just wanted to touch on those points, as they'll be the areas that I'll be focusing on in my amendment. But, again, I want to thank the rapporteur for the work to date and look forward to continuing the work.
Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 51
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. I'll be very brief because we agree on many points of the opinion so far regarding the proposal. We are looking forward to working together on this project, especially regarding the completion of the 10V network and regional cohesion, particularly in rural areas. So, we are looking forward to the cooperation, and I think it will be very constructive. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We will now proceed with the QDI session. So, let's start with Mr. Pablo de Naximeto Cabral from EPP.
Speaker 4
First off, warm thanks to the rapporteur for her work, and likewise to the shadow rapporteurs. This ought to be a pivotal tool to ensure connectivity and energy connectivity throughout the EU. We make much of that single market, but CEF is an essential tool to ensure the free circulation of people and energy, and therefore to beef up Europe's competitiveness. That's precisely why I identify with the listed priorities. I do think we need to hone our existing capacities, which are essential for the European project, particularly when it comes to security and defense.
And we need to adjust our port, airport, and highway infrastructures to deal with the existing overburden due to military mobility as well. It is also essential that we ensure greater energy interconnectivity. However, the Iberian Peninsula is falling short of the 15% level identified by the Commission. We're currently at 3%, particularly between Spain and France. This needs to be cleared up quickly because it is a major hindrance to energy interconnectedness.
Now, let's look at connecting our transport networks. Our ports and railways need to be modernized and also adjusted to environmental and energy-related changes to ensure that they are competitive compared to ports, airports, and similar structures in countries outside the EU. We must not become less competitive and less attractive by dint of our lack of connectivity. To round off, let's home in on the furthest-flung, outermost regions. Taking the example of Mudeva and the Azores, where I come from, our railway lines, highways, and lanes are difficult to use.
We need to have acceptable infrastructure in place. This means extra costs need to be borne by these outermost regions. We're not talking about tourism, pure and simple. We're talking about questions of health and questions not related to tourism. Therefore, Seth ought to include a specific mention of these regions.
The Pauce transport program ought to be in place to ensure that people are able to access air transport on an ongoing and unbroken basis. There also needs to be seaborne links so that the goods can leave and enter these regions. To round off, our highways and railway lines are made up of planes and vessels, which need to be fully competitive to ensure integration into the internal market.
Thank you.
Speaker 34
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm on my way to speaking Spanish. Now, with respect to connectivity of transport and infrastructures, energy infrastructures are hugely relevant for regional development. We've got to continue to be the voice for regional development.
For example, there are regions like mine that need immediate support for connecting. In my region, we have projects that take years. We've been trying to develop our connection with Tenti to connect Madrid and Bilbao, but these projects have been repeatedly delayed. And we've got projects with respect to military mobility. And I think national plans can work along with European instruments to try to ensure this regional interconnectivity, which is so necessary.
And we've got to find a way to complement these instruments to complete them so that this geopolitical scenario does not undermine good connectivity. We cannot postpone our projects for decades again. These projects have been so important to us.
Speaker 1
The number. I will now invite the representative of the European Commission to intervene. And we start with Mr. Philippe Chantren from Digimove.
Speaker 54
Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you for the discussion and the draft opinion presented here today, and all the support expressed for the Connecting Europe Facility, which is, and I can only subscribe to what has been said, a very strategically important part of the MFF proposals for the years 2028 to 2034. The ambition of the Connecting Europe Facility is to intervene where national decisions are not being made. This is the cross-border part in particular. This is why we have proposed a CEF in full complementarity with the NRPPs. So, there's a clear division of tasks between what should be done under the NRPP and what should be complemented by the connecting group facility when we speak about the cross-border sections.
I think this is necessary to ensure indeed the cohesion and the accessibility of member states and regions to have these cross-border connections, which are important for the competitiveness of Europe as such. There are many ideas about the involvement at the local and regional levels. I would just like to flag that we are working very closely on all our transport projects with the regions and the local levels. They are often supporters of cross-border projects. They are the motors behind it because, again, in capitals, we see that there is a lack of interest in such connections, which are, however, crucial for the regional level.
So, this is something we are living day by day, and these are our close partners in the endeavor to build the complete NTE network. One word about the dual-use proposal. So here, I would like to underline that we are speaking about dual use, meaning civilian and military use. So, whatever we are financing under military mobility has to have civilian use. If it goes beyond civilian use, it is not eligible for us.
But the military does have, they don't have a separate network. They don't have railways reserved for the military. They're using the railways that exist today. But the railways have to be fit for purpose, and this is the type of intervention that we are looking for, which in the end will also help civilians because if there can be longer, heavier trains, this is good for the transport of goods on the railways, which we are advocating and working for in order to have more efficient transport operations. So, again, it is not defense infrastructure that we are financing.
It's dual-use infrastructure. And on the hotspots, just to comment on that, this is indeed a list of weaknesses in our transport network. Therefore, it is not without reason that we are unable to make public the information about the weaknesses in our network, certainly not at the current time. At the same time, I can reassure you that the dual-use hotspots are on the TNT network. They are on the civilian network, and we will only intervene in these civilian infrastructures.
One more word, and this is the commission's position across the programs. When we speak about the work program and the question of delegated versus implementing acts, I have to underline that what we are proposing with the work program is implementing the provisions of the regulation as such, and this is why the implementing act is the right legal tool to do this. But beyond this, we are, of course, happy to discuss with the rapporteur and other members to work further on this. And I pass the floor to my colleague Joachim from DG Energy.
Speaker 56
Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks also from our side for the discussion, for the work on the proposal, and for the support that has been voiced in the discussion on the Connecting Europe Facility. Just to add a few comments from an energy perspective. Yes. Thanks very much. Just to add a few words from an energy perspective.
Speaker 55
So indeed, as has also been evoked for transport, the instrument is quite strategic in order to complete the internal energy market and, perhaps more specifically, to achieve price stability, competitiveness, and price convergence on the energy markets, which, as we all know, is really a key element of our competitiveness in Europe. That links to the comment that has also been made in the discussion, which I want to echo on the complementarity of tools.
Speaker 55
Complementarity of the Connecting Europe Facility and regional policy, which, of course, is the main focus of this committee, where indeed it is the key role of the Connecting Europe Facility to ensure that regions are connected to each other, countries are connected to each other, and that is a key condition for ensuring that access to energy at competitive prices is available all over Europe. And the last point, perhaps in reply to comments from several participants in the discussion. This has always implied, in the field of energy, that there has always been and will continue to be, naturally, a specific focus in what the Connecting New facility does on better connecting peripheral regions in Europe to the center of Europe and to our internal energy market physically. And I will just mention two examples, which were also brought up in the discussion in this regard. One is indeed the example of Ireland, a member state, and in particular of Ireland, which was mentioned, where we are actively supporting the creation and completion of the first physical interconnection between Ireland and France, the Celtic Interconnector, which will actually land in the south of Ireland close to Cork.
So, this will be a project supported through the Connecting Europe Facility, which will tremendously help with the integration of Ireland into the internal energy market. And then, the second example I want to mention is indeed the example of connecting the Iberian Peninsula better to the rest of Europe. Here, we are working on the completion of the Biscay Bay project, which is supported by Connecting Europe Facility funds with a very significant amount, which will hopefully make this project be realized over the next two or three years. These are two examples to stress that interconnecting peripheral regions is one of the core objectives of the Connecting Europe Facility in the field of energy. And that's all from my side.
Thanks very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Speaker 18
Thank you to the commission. Thank you too to the shadow rapporteurs. Can we have the chairman's microphone, please? Messaging interrupted the chairman's microphone. I'd like to thank all of you for what you have said.
Practically speaking, I shared the main outline of the report, which I've put forth. I would note that this committee's contribution, its role, and indeed the knowledge in the committee mean that we have an important role to play. I would remind you that transport connections and everything involved in that are not something that can be hived off from the main powers and objectives of this committee. So, the contributions we've had were very interesting, and I think they will give us a clearer idea of how this work can continue in other committees to ensure that the cohesion committee, transport networks, and the various different public services are all linked and of fundamental importance. And as I said in my introduction, we find ourselves in a world that has undergone fundamental changes compared to the previous period.
So the various different ideas which have been raised and floated today will, of course, feed into our document. These contributions are very important, and I think they will be very useful for the citizens of Europe whom we represent. So I don't want to go back to the advantages of these proposals. I covered that in my work beforehand. But I do hope that we can continue to work on this in an atmosphere of cooperation so as to ensure that we can produce a report which will not be supported just by this committee, but also by other bodies in the Parliament.
Speaker 1
The deadline for amendments has already been announced to be in February, but I would like to record that Monday, March 2 at 7 PM is the deadline. The vote on the opinion will take place on 14 April 2026. Yeah. That's all for today. Thank you very much, all of us.
Have a nice evening. Yeah. 10 minutes. Yeah. Yeah.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.