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 2
Now, I would like to give the floor to the shadow rapporteur, and we will start with Mr. Christoph Hetman from the EPP.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I would like to thank you cordially for the opinion presented by Deputy Stutza. I agree to a great extent with the conclusions he's drawn, and looking through the perspective of the history of Horizon Europe and the conclusions we have to implement, we must make sure the program has a territorial dimension because, so far, unfortunately, it is not there. But I want to draw your attention to one important thing. Competitive competitiveness has been expressed in all forms for at least two years in the EU Parliament.
We keep discussing that we're losing competitiveness towards the US and Asia. And in a situation where we have a genuine instrument, a great instrument to improve competitiveness, because we're talking about hundreds of billions, which could be granted to our universities and our entrepreneurs to solve problems and have innovative projects. We see clearly that the money, in particular in recent years, ends up with 70% of it going to just six member states. Unfortunately, this is how we will not use the potential we have in the EU for research and development, for looking for support for excellent ideas of our entrepreneurs, supported by science, knowledge, know-how, and whatever universities in the EU have. And we will lose again unless we change the situation, unless we see those centers.
I can frequently read in various documents that Horizon money does not end up with weaker academic centers. This is not true. There are no better or worse academic centers. There are more and less visible units. And you can see it clearly with Horizon.
I believe that excellent work and excellent projects can be done in places such as, for example, Lublin in Poland, but also other towns like Olomouc, Siena, Innsbruck, Maastricht, and I could go on for a long time. Unfortunately, those academic centers are not well perceived. They are not noticed at all, and we waste their potential because, for years, we have invested from the cohesion policy into entrepreneurs who are in that area to use the potential, which is in various places in the EU, in every single member state, in various regions. And we waste these investments we've made previously from the cohesion money, and we must change it as far as the pro program after 2027 is concerned. That's why we should develop a system that will also notice the most innovative projects.
I know it may sound obvious, but they are implemented somewhere, you know, in a garage. So, we must find them in those hidden places in Salamanca and Olomouc, and we must help those entrepreneurs develop a prototype to scale up the idea for mass production. But we don't do it at all. I see no path for SMEs because, in fact, they are the ones who developed the greatest number of innovations. I see no idea, but we invest huge amounts of money, both European and from national budgets, for defense.
I have no idea how to develop complementarity because most advantages we have in civil life actually come from inventions first designed for the army. We have a similar situation. We invest huge amounts of money into defense, and we should be able to use the solutions also for the civil market, the classical dual-use products. Now, why don't we notice those smaller entrepreneurs' centers? Why do they lose competitiveness against just a number of centers?
As I said, six countries get 70% of the projects and money. It's a matter of access criteria, eligibility, and how the competitions are actually designed. And here, again, another issue related to Horizon, and this is what I fear after '27. I can see centralization rather than decentralization because, unfortunately, this proposal by the European Commission goes towards the solution that the European Commission and executive agencies decide what the eligible costs are and what the tenders look like. Now, I don't question the qualifications of European Commission officials.
Anyone of them is unable to see an innovative project in a small town somewhere in the EU. That's why this should be decentralized. The decisions should be taken by regional authorities, maybe member states, but they are excluded from the process of preparing the competitions, defining criteria, and rules. That's how we will never rebuild the competitiveness of the EU. That's how we will lose a huge number of excellent projects designed by European entrepreneurs, for whom these academic centers could be a great support.
Let me repeat it. We invested a huge amount of money into academic centers from the cohesion policy. And now, because of such decisions and proposals that we have in front of us, we will waste the potential. We do not notice how much we've invested to get somewhere far from Brussels, a couple of thousand kilometers away, in the most interesting project, which does not determine the strength of a region or one member state, but could determine the strength of the entire European Union. That's why I will certainly make amendments to the dossier, and I will do it with my colleagues from EPP.
And we must reformulate it. We must take into consideration the entire economic geopolitics because, otherwise, our economy will worsen. There will be a number of, so to say, fat cows who will get huge money from Horizon Europe, but they will not give us any counterweight for what is happening in the US and in Asia, and we will have no arguments to develop our competitiveness in the context of what is happening worldwide. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I think the colleagues touched upon some very important points already. I will try to be brief. But, first of all, I'd like to acknowledge that in the draft opinion, there is a clear recognition of the territorial dimension of the Horizon Europe program, which, of course, is essential from our perspective here.
So, I would like to stress the level playing field for the research institutions and research, and highlight a few elements that we consider significantly important in the context of Horizon Europe. So, first of all, Horizon Europe is primarily aimed at strengthening competitiveness and addressing social challenges at the same time. However, of course, its impact depends on the effective, fair, and equal regional uptake, which we should be stimulating, and I'm glad to hear that this is a priority for most of the political groups here. Research and innovation priorities should be aligned with place-based development strategies, including smart specialization and broad economic, social, and territorial cohesion objectives. The strengthening of cooperation at the EU national, regional, and local levels is key in order to ensure that excellence can be deployed across all the regions, of course, with the involvement of the local authorities who know their priorities best in every part of our Union.
In that context, the synergies between Horizon Europe and regional development funding should be reinforced from our perspective. We need to focus more. Of course, when I'm saying we need to, I'm listing some of the priorities on which S and D is going to put a strong emphasis on the amendments. We need to focus on better alignment of priorities and possibilities of combined or community financing that can significantly enhance the territorial impact of the EU investments. SMEs, smaller and bigger universities, and locker innovation actors should be active participants and beneficiaries, of course.
So, in short, we support a strong and excellence-based Horizon Europe program, but one that ensures equal territorial development, fair access to participation from all parts of the Union, and tangible benefits for the regions and local communities. Those are going to be our main priorities and amendments we are going to be presenting, and I'm looking forward to the shadow meetings to follow. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair, and thanks to the rapporteur. We think we already welcome the draft report. We would like Horizon Europe to remain an autonomous program and to contribute to strengthening our main goal, our shared goal of increasing Europe's competitiveness. And I think also that in the current asset and geopolitical context, to bet on research and to bet on Europe as the most attractive place in the world to carry out research also helps us in the relation with other parts of the world. From our group's perspective, we have to avoid duplication, reduce territorial disparities, take into account outermost regions, and promote cross-border cooperation.
Speaker 8
And our amendment will go toward this direction. On the point concerning the need to avoid duplication, certainly, we must avoid overlap between the new Horizon Europe and the European Competitiveness Fund. We want Horizon Europe to remain focused on research and innovation excellence. We'd like to see better coordination to increase efficiency and legal clarity. The issue of decentralization has already been raised by our colleague from the EPP.
Speaker 9
Certainly, to this end, we have to ensure stronger synergies with the national and regional chapters under the National Regional Partnership Plans regulation, in particular, the link between Horizon Europe and the European Regional Development Fund. On the second point of territorial disparities and outermost regions, certainly Horizon must help us to reduce disparities, economic disparity, which is also linked to insufficient research. And we also think that the distance, the scale, the additional cost, and all the problems with which the outermost regions are confronted should also be taken into account in the structure of the new program, because outermost regions can play a strategic role when it comes to biodiversity, maritime research, and the blue economy. So, I think we should better emphasize the importance of this part of the European Union. The last point, Chair, before my conclusion concerns cross-border cooperation.
Speaker 7
It is essential to overcome the persistent fragmentation of research across borders and to strengthen the European research and innovation landscape. So I think we should unblock the potential of the synergies between Horizon Europe and instruments such as the European territorial cooperation and programs like Interreg. And we should also use the Bridge for You instrument to remove the obstacle that sometimes hinders research across the border. We would also like to see a stronger link between recent higher education initiatives, such as the European Universities Alliance and the new Erasmus program. Last point, we welcome the recent UK association with Horizon.
Speaker 17
And we think that the fact that the UK has come back in Horizon is going to strengthen the global dimension of our program and make Europe the most attractive place in the world to carry out research. Thank you very much, sir.
Speaker 10
Thanks, Chair. Thank you, especially to the rapporteur. And as co-rapporteur, I'd like to raise a number of ideas. Horizon Europe is a major fund for R&D and innovation. It's a fund which I'm very proud to stand up for as a shadow because it serves to finance advances and research into people's health, including research into rare diseases.
And the people are clamoring for this back home. We must also make headway towards climate neutrality, irrigation systems, agriculture, and fire prevention, which affect my country, Galicia, particularly the province of Ourense. Mobility, sustainability, and AI ought to be well applied. Our three universities in Galicia and various research centers are mindful of the importance of having an accessible Horizon fund to improve our lives, villages, towns, and cities in the countries. It's a fund that looks towards the future.
Speaker 11
That's in the very name. The proposed architecture for the new Horizon of funds is under the aegis of competitiveness, where the commission is suggesting doubling the budget up to €750 billion, with a strong link to financing defense and space. Horizon Europe gives a great degree of priority to dual-use goods and supports emerging industries in the defense sector, speeding up research and innovation as they relate to security. When we talk about research and innovation, we are aware of what this means: less investment in social issues and cohesion, and greater investment in security. That's not what our people need.
Speaker 13
They need cohesion, health, and education. They need to have access, for example, to public transport. And that's why we need to carry out research, particularly in health. This fund has an important trickle-down effect on research programs dealing with cancer and Alzheimer's. It goes without saying, we cannot lose these funds.
Speaker 10
These funds should be centralized so that nations like mine, Galicia, and others are in a position to manage these monies. Mister Gottsi, my dear friend, he's very keen on bridge for Europe. He, that's a very important report for the Parliament. He's saying there needs to be cross-border cooperation. Also, when it comes to research, the Galician universities and those in Portugal are cooperating.
Speaker 15
That's a prime example of this. The same happens in France, and this is a very important thing to bear in mind. And the leader, the program is also important because it changes the lives of our people back at home.
Speaker 2
Continue with KJI interventions, and we start with Mr. Andre Novakov from ABB.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Chair. I think the aperture, all the shadow apertures, our accomplished, very well-known colleagues such as Christoff Hetman, Sudrino Pankova, and the rest of the colleagues are very diplomatic and gentle when describing the current situation with Horizon. So, 80% of Horizon goes to five countries. If 80% of Cohesion Funds go to five countries, I bet the room will be full of people looking at where the problem is and how we can avoid that. I have no shadow of a doubt about it.
So, on one side, it means that five countries are very well prepared. They're the best scientists, startups, and innovative companies that understand how the system functions. But from another side, this means that the European Commission created an environment in which four-fifths of European Union member states could not get anything from that funding. That creates disparities, disadvantages, and situations in which most countries in Europe feel hopeless and senseless about trying to get anything. And in 5 years, the gap will be even bigger.
So, if you are a good teacher and you see that 80% of your class is underperforming, you should focus on getting those students on track and not focus on the five kids who are performing well in the class. Because, after all, you will be judged on the average performance of the whole class. So I think it's time that Horizon should adapt to the realities of Europe and should be, yes, on competitive ground, but still keeping in mind that this fund is created for the member states and not vice versa. If most of the member states and managing authorities do not understand how these rules function, then we should adapt the rules and not wait for the member states to adapt themselves to the new realities while allowing a few countries in Europe to lag behind vastly. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Chair. It is clear that Horizon Europe has proven to be one of the most valuable European programs. It's not without its difficulties, as we've heard at this sitting, but it has proven incredibly effective in supporting research and innovation across the EU. And it's very true in my own member state of Ireland, where we perform well in accessing this vital funding. I've seen it myself.
Speaker 19
I've been on the campus of Atlantic Technological University in Letterkenny, County Donegal. I've seen the work they are doing there. I've seen the work they do at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone. So, Ireland has surpassed the 1,000,000,000 mark in funding secured from Horizon Europe as of September 2025. We're well on track to meet, and likely exceed, our national target.
Speaker 16
I welcome the fact that in the post-2027 MFF, Horizon Europe funding has been doubled. However, accessing the funding is not as straightforward as my colleagues have said. In Ireland, despite our broad success, some technological universities have reported encountering challenges with accessing funding due to a lack of appointment of professor grades. This is an extraordinary situation, mainly the responsibility of the member states. It's a bit like telling any institute or university, you can apply for funding, but we will not appoint professor grades to your management staff.
It's like tying the hands of the professors and the management of these universities. It's unfair. This points to an administrative burden that means even third-level institutes are unable to provide the resources needed to deliver this vital funding. So, I'm glad to see the rapporteur has dealt with this in amendment 9 to ensure that all actors have the capacity to access Horizon funding. Moreover, we must ensure synergies between the EU funds to maximize their effectiveness, in particular with the cohesion policy instruments, as my colleagues have said.
I'm glad to see this has been dealt with through the opinion. And finally, it's clear that participation remains uneven across member states, with funding concentrated in a limited number of areas. So, we must ensure a geographically balanced distribution of the funds to ensure that all regions can benefit and that no region is left behind. I look forward to working constructively with the renewed shadow rapporteur, my colleague, and colleagues here in the Parliament to secure a good outcome on this file. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Now, intervention from the European Commission. First, Mr. Massimiliano Esposito, and after Mr. Tobias Lundbeck.
Speaker 18
Yes. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, rapporteur, shadow rapporteur, and honorable members. Thank you very much for this draft opinion, and thank you also for this exchange this morning. I would like to underline a few points.
First of all, Horizon Europe, as some of the USA, is the largest program in the world promoting research and innovation, indeed promoting the excellence of researchers in our research and innovation in Europe. A big portion of the budget is allocated to collaborative research. Collaborative research means promoting cross-border cooperation between entities that can be SMEs, industry, universities, research organizations, and promoting excellent research because the program is based indeed on the criteria of excellence. Now, one of the objectives, as some of you also highlighted, is to promote competitiveness in Europe. We have all this narrative over the competitiveness, reinforcing the competitiveness in Europe after the wake-up calls from the latest report.
If Europe indeed wants to become competitive with other countries like the US and China, we really need to invest more in competitiveness. For this reason, the Commission proposal has included in its own architecture, over the next multi-annual financial framework, a strong link between Horizon Europe and the European competitiveness span. At the same time, I also listen to your comments regarding the need to ensure fairer access from all parts of Europe, taking into account all nations, member states, as well as all regions and local authorities. So let me say that it is a competitive program based on excellence. So it has been promoting this since the start, when 40 years ago, Europe started to fund this framework program.
It has always promoted excellence and cooperation in Europe. Without leaving anyone behind, I can also mention a few examples of many member states. The MEP from Ireland was mentioning, at the beginning, the difficulty of the country to have access to the program. But then, over the years, Ireland has also greatly improved its own performance. I can also mention what happened in Spain.
I joined a commission twenty years ago, and I was working on the framework program. And Spain was one of the few countries that had great difficulty accessing the funding of the program. Today is one of the best performing countries. So, the message I would like to say is that we need to continue to have a program based on excellence, but there are still instruments that promote geographical balance and fairness. One of these instruments is, for example, the widening component, and the Commission is also proposing a widening part in its proposal that has already started since two framework programs. It is really aiming to promote the participation of all research organizations, SMEs, and local authorities from all member states, in particular the member states that are lagging behind.
So the commissioner has also recognized that after two framework programs, some of these member states that have used, in particular, funding from these widening components have improved their performance in the program. So, for this reason, we have this proposal of two categories of countries: the widening countries and also the transition countries. Transition countries are those countries that improved their performance in participation in the program and therefore need to continue to have support, particularly in networking actions. The last point before leaving: the floor to my colleague, Tobias, is a simplification. Another important point, indeed, that some of you have stressed is simplification not for the commission, but for the beneficiaries.
This is the main objective of this proposal. And you can also see from the text itself or the legal text commissions put forward that it is much more streamlined. It's simpler. We really want to give the possibility to all universities and all research organizations to have access to the fund and not participate with very complex rules. So, for this reason, simplification is high on the political agenda of the Commission.
Speaker 21
Yes. Thank you very much. Good morning also from my side, and thank you very much for this opinion. I would like to concentrate on one point that you highlight, also in your opinion, which is actually the synergy between Horizon Europe and the cohesion policy instruments, and this is an aim that we very much share. And I would just like to highlight that in the Horizon Europe proposal, in particular in Article 8, we strengthened the possibilities for synergies between Horizon Europe and cohesion policy instruments.
We removed some practical instruments in order to allow the combination of funding in one program, in one project, from Horizon Europe and the cohesion policy instrument. And indeed, because you mentioned it specifically, the Seal of Excellence is an instrument that we award to projects that we evaluate but cannot fund due to the lack of budget in Horizon Europe. We indeed very much welcome and encourage member states and regions to finance these projects that we positively evaluate and consider excellent, but we cannot finance them due to the lack of budget from the instruments under cohesion policy available in member states and regions. And this is explicitly mentioned in the proposal, and I understand that you even strengthened this in your opinion. That is very much welcome.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
I also wish to thank you very much for contributing to today's exchange. Thank you for expressing your opinions. I believe this was a very productive dialogue, and I just wish to point out that Reggie plays an essential role in this file. We need to come up with a joint contribution that is ambitious, pragmatic, and takes into account the real needs of regions. The Future Horizon program must truly serve all of the EU.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
I would like to inform you that the deadline for doubling amendments is Wednesday, March at noon, and the vote on the opinion will take place at our meeting on 14 April 2026. Thank you. We are going forward to point number 12 with the exchange of views with Mr. Ariane Gerritsen from the Council of European Municipalities and Regions. So dear Mister Gelitsen, it is a great pleasure to welcome you today on the Reggie Committee and to thank you for accepting our invitation to exchange views with us on the future of the European Union budget. The contribution of the European National Association is indispensable to ensuring that the voice of local and regional authorities is fully reflected in the design, governance, and implementation of European Union policies, in particular, cohesion policy.
As discussions advance on the future MFF and on the proposed NRPP, it is essential that the fundamental principles of cohesion policy remain at the core of the future European Union budget architecture. Today's exchange offers a timely opportunity to reflect together on how these principles can be safeguarded and strengthened. It also allows us to consider how the future NRPP framework can build on the experience, expertise, and proximity to citizens that local and regional authorities bring to European policymaking. Mister Gerritsen, you have the floor for 15 minutes.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee as the CEMR spokesman on the EU budget. As you may well know, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions is the first and broadest association of local and regional governments in Europe. CEMR was created in 1951, just after World War II, to encourage and promote municipal cooperation across Europe as a postwar effort towards reconciliation, and we are still driven today by the values of peace and cooperation.
Speaker 22
This year will mark the 75th anniversary of CEMR. We're happy to celebrate that feat. CEMR's strength, as Chair, lies in the membership: about 60 national associations from 40 European countries, giving us geographical coverage comparable to that of the Council of Europe. Through these associations, CEMR represents the full diversity of subnational governments: cities, large and small regions, provinces, counties, and departments. I am the king's commissioner in the province of Flevoland, a Dutch province, member of the Dutch Association of Provinces, and located in the center of the Netherlands.
A very remarkable province, actually, because the area of my province consists entirely of new man-made land reclaimed from the sea in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s of the past century. Flavolon is providing space for investments in defense, high-tech industry, renewable energy, and, of course, housing—lots of housing. The CEMR chair has been very active in the debate on the next multi-annual financial framework. Last December, we adopted our position paper, and more recently, we published our concrete suggestions for amendments to the regulation introducing national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs). And, as you may well know, cohesion policy is in the DNA at the heart of the European Union.
It is the necessary counterpart of the single market, correcting the economic, social, and territorial imbalances that the single market inevitably creates. But cohesion policy is not only about solidarity. It's also about long-term structural investments that allow all cities, regions, and provinces to contribute to and benefit from European competitiveness. It is also the most visible EU policy for citizens. At a local level, it is often cohesion policy that shows what Europe actually does in our daily lives.
And in that sense, it is a powerful driver of trust and Euro optimism. We do not oppose cohesion policy to competitiveness, defense, or any other EU priority. On the contrary, cohesion policy supports these initiatives and these goals. It strengthens the economic attractiveness of European territories. It helps businesses settle in both urban and rural areas by financing mobility, digital, and energy infrastructure necessary for businesses to thrive, and securing a good quality of life.
And it supports local and regional administrations in becoming more efficient, resilient, and capable of delivering high-quality public services even in crisis contexts. Reducing the cohesion budget would, therefore, be counterproductive for other EU objectives. That is why CEMR calls for maintaining, at a minimum, the current level of funding for cohesion policy in the next MFF. But cohesion policy is also very important, and I like to stress that. It's too important to become a bargaining chip in EU or national political negotiations.
Recent developments already point in that direction. We saw it in the context of the Mercosur negotiations when the Commission suggested early access to additional funds for agriculture and rural development. This logic turns non-allocated funds within the NRPPs into a permanent negotiation margin between the commission and member states, as well as within member states between competing sectoral interests. We must protect. We must safeguard long-term and place-based investments at the local and regional level by introducing another ring-fence of the NRPP amounts available for cohesion policy investments.
To ensure that EU investments are fit for purpose and respond to real territorial needs, CEMR calls for mandatory regional and territorial chapters within the national and regional partnership plans. We must never look away from the fact that regional governments in Europe are often responsible for key competencies relevant to the NRPPs. There is no competence at the national level that is not also being executed at the regional level. For instance, regional and urban planning, economic development, social affairs, tourism, health, and mobility infrastructures. Having mandatory regional chapters in member states with regional governments would ensure that regions are directly involved in drafting their relevant chapter and could act as managing authorities, intermediate bodies, or, at minimum, participate in the relevant monitoring committee.
In member states that have no administrative regions, NUTS 2 or NUTS 3 chapters would allow investments to be targeted as close as possible to citizens' real needs and involve all relevant national and subnational governments, such as provinces, metropolitan areas, or cities. CEMR also insists that the partnership principle and multilevel governance must come with strong safeguards. CEMR has conducted several surveys in recent years among associations representing local and regional governments at the national level. And the result is very clear. Because there were no strong provisions on multilevel governance, very few were meaningfully involved in the drafting of the national recovery and resilience plans.
And we cannot stress enough: this cannot be repeated. We have also observed that while the partnership principle has usually been more respected in the context of cohesion funds, its implementation is not ideal everywhere, and it does not always come with full respect for multilevel governance in decision-making. Now that we have the opportunity to enshrine these principles in the regulation, they must be made binding and enforceable. CEMR, therefore, proposes that multilevel governance be placed on an equal footing with respect for the rule of law. Heavy words, but we think they are necessary.
It's not an abstract concept. Multilevel governance is about respecting constitutional arrangements. It's about respecting legal competencies within the member states. And if these principles, Mister President, are not respected in the context of the elaboration, implementation, or monitoring of the NRPPs, there should be consequences. At the same time, safeguards are needed for the final beneficiaries.
Where a breach originates at a national level, regional and territorial chapters should not be penalized, and committed investments at the local level should be protected and respected. Another key element for local ownership is the use of integrated territorial approaches, notably integrated territorial investments (ITIs) and community-led local development (CLLD). In the current period, at least 8% of ERDF allocations are earmarked for sustainable urban development. In practice, member states allocate on average around 12% of their national allocations. And as per ERDF regulation, this urban earmark must be delivered through integrated territorial development, and these have been clear successes everywhere in Europe.
These approaches bring together local governments and civil society to design integrated, place-based development strategies. However, in the commission proposal that we read, these earmarkings disappear. Experience shows that without earmarks, as for instance we saw with policy objective number 5, some member states could simply disregard the territorial approaches altogether. Local stakeholders value ITIs and CLDD because they target real local needs. They embody partnership and multi-level governance.
They build trust between the levels of government. And ultimately, they lead to better territorial development strategies because of their involvement. Acknowledging this success, CEMR makes a deliberately ambitious proposal to the European Parliament that 30% of the funds not ring-fenced for the Common Agricultural Policy or home funds be implemented through integrated territorial approaches in both urban and non-urban areas. The Committee of the Regions will follow a similar approach as we have learned, recommending 20% of NRPP national envelopes. The exact percentage can be discussed.
But what matters most is ensuring that member states are required to use ITI, CLDD, or equivalent tools approved by the Commission to bring EU investments as close as possible to local communities. Finally, Mister President, we are concerned by the centralization trends in the Commission's proposal. Decision-making is increasingly concentrated at the national level, with very limited room for subnational governments to shape investments and reform priorities. At the same time, the growing role of the European Semester in the annual budget cycles and in guiding the NRPP risks reinforcing this centralization. It works both ways.
Country-specific recommendations have so far been drafted with little or no consideration for the competencies, resources, and responsibilities of local and regional governments. And that is why CEMR also calls for a reform of the EU semester, giving a formal role to associations representing local and regional governments to ensure more realistic and more effective recommendations. Your parliament, Mr. President, has a crucial role to play. Together, you have the power to protect cohesion policy and, more broadly, to defend the role of local governments across the MFF by ensuring that multilevel governance remains a guiding principle and that the EU budget is truly fit for Europe's territorial diversity. CEMR, as we have done for the last 75 years, stands for the regional interests of the regions in the member states of the European Union.
CEMR stands for cohesion policy that remains at the heart of the budget, a treaty-based objective that leaves no one and no place in Europe behind, and that supports Europe's just, inclusive, and resilient transition. Thank you for your attention, Mr. President.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe I made a mistake because I started this debate ten minutes earlier. But now I give the floor to Mr. Andre Novakov.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Chair. I'm concerned about what I heard because that's not the first time an NRPP has been criticized in such a manner. And my question is in that direction. Since we are at the beginning of the legislative process, and this is just a proposal, don't forget about it. The Parliament and the Council are the ones to shape the final form of this piece of legislation.
Could you provide us with some inputs—study-based, scientific-based, practice-based—that we can use as proof or a foundation for further work on the NRPP? We have an extremely complex architecture in the parliament to work with: three committees simultaneously on the same text, with 10 opinion-giving committees. So, we need an anchor. You said 75 years. That's a lot of time dealing with regions and municipalities, so you know how they function in every member state and in the different regions. Could you provide us with an idea, a line that could keep us close to the municipalities so we can finally deliver something they will understand and benefit from, without being isolated by the national governments and ministers?
Thank you.
Speaker 26
Good morning. Thanks very much for your attendance this morning. I'm very sorry. I couldn't be here to hear everything you said, but I heard what you said at the end. And we embrace many of your concerns there.
Speaker 25
There is a lot of uncertainty about this new proposal on NRPPs in terms of what was tabled by the commission. And I'll be forthright. We're
Speaker 25
It is a bad place right now because of this. Things that work in politics should not be tinkered with. And if you do tinker with them, make them better. The Europe of the regions, which came into being in Maastricht in '92, and the cohesion policy, which came into being there as well. Multilevel governance: these are all working.
Many less developed regions have ratcheted up their performance. I come from a country where in 1992, I'm not sure about the figures here, but back then, about half of our regions were underdeveloped and we were under cohesion funds. And most of our country was under the 90% threshold. Now, practically all regions are well developed; only two are underdeveloped. That means we've made good use of the funds.
We've tapped into them very thoroughly. And the key thing is that the funds trickle down to our citizens. The current proposal sweeps aside multilevel governance, so it is left up to each member state. There are some member states where decentralization is mandated by law and even by the constitution, such as Spain. And that's plain sailing there, but it's the opposite in other countries, and that will engender more inequality and less attachment to the European project among the citizens.
We are working hard on this despite the lack of MEPs in the room. Some of us here in the room are rapporteurs or shadows on the NRPP regulation and on the leader. So maybe you could give us a few pointers, if you will, so that we can take them on board because we're trying to see how we, how leadership can get back to where it was. Yesterday, in the committee, we voted in favor of an opinion on the MFF, which lays down baseline financial resources for transition reasons, underdevelopment reasons in terms of the European Social Fund, and so forth. So, we are trying to get out of this pickle that the commission has put us in.
So, I was wondering if maybe you could give us some tips, some pointers, suggestions, telling us what your view is on these territorial administrators representing municipalities, regions, towns, cities, and so on. So, what are your proposals for us? Thank you. Miss Garcia Helmida Vanderwale.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you, Chair. And now I have to switch to English because, yet again, I didn't ask for a Dutch translation. So I am sorry for that. Thank you for being here today and for sharing your views on the future of our cohesion policy. I would also like to apologize for having come a couple of minutes late, but we were running early.
But I fully subscribe to what my colleague, Markus Ross, just said about the end of your intervention and the concerns that you have, which we share. Now, I happen to have been born in the same member state as Markus, and I have seen the transformation of Spain. But now, as a proud Dutch parliamentarian, I also see the impact of European funds in our regions and in Flevoland, where you are Commissaris van de Koning. And my biggest concern is that in the current architecture, it is very welcome that we have some form of ring-fencing for the least developed regions. But of course, there are many regions in Europe which are transition regions, like Flevolent, Up Until Now, Recently, and others.
And I am very concerned, like the colleague said, that in the fight between different priorities and even different regions, we won't be able to let money end up with the citizens everywhere. And that's a concern of this Parliament, which we have expressed repeatedly. So, my question to you is also: how does the council look at this proposal to only ring-fence resources for the least developed regions and not for other categories of regions? And if you have any, as a colleague from the EPP asked, any very specific points which we can take along in our negotiations, I think that we would really appreciate that. The second question is also about the efforts to simplify.
That's something that, for Renew Europe, is a very important part of the new multi-annual budget. But we see now that the proposals on the table mean a lot of simplification, basically for the European Commission and, in some cases, for member states. And for the final beneficiaries, it's totally unclear whether this will be a simplification or if it will make things even more complex. I would also like to hear your views on that. Hartelijk bedankt.
Speaker 29
Mister. The criticism you leveled was at your parliament. You raised 3 points. The lack of ring-fencing: you said there was just one large coffer. Secondly, multilevel governance has not been incorporated into legal terms by the Commission.
Thirdly, if we disperse the money, I'm co-rapporteur on ERDF with Ross Semper. When the money is allocated, there are no clear parameters for how it is allocated. This means we lack legal certainty for long-term investments. The European Court of Auditors clearly expressed criticism about that in its report. If you don't have legal certainty, it's hard to keep track of how the funds are actually dispersed.
There is no transparency for checks and audits. At the end of the day, there is no European added value here because each country can do as it wants. But we want to strike a balance and have fairness in Europe, but that's gone down the swanny. Last point, and that's precisely why you are here. This means that those who implement this at the end of the chain—the regions, municipalities, cities—it's like we're saying to them, we don't trust you anymore because we don't talk to them, and they aren't able to chip in.
There's no co-determination, and that's a serious error. I come from a small subregion that had access to these funds. And once this trust is removed, you have your back to the wall. Municipalities and cities know what needs to be solved at the local level. And this local added value has been swept aside in the commission's text, and that's a major mistake.
So, just a question. As a proponent of the ideas you expressed, you have come from a capital and have contacts with capitals. How, as co-legislators, do you deal with people in the capitals in terms of shaping regional policy? What are you hearing from the capitals on the critical points I mentioned? Is it feasible for us to send out feelers and find allies there?
And what arguments would you initially brandish to convince capitals to play ball with us? The commission came up with this proposal to react as flexibly as possible to emerging situations in Europe. Flexibility is present to the tune of 25%. 25% of a lot of money is a hell of a lot of dough. How would you ensure that we use a smart degree of flexibility in our text, ring-fencing, multilevel governance, and the semantic parameters?
How would you slot these three points back into the text in a more flexible manner?
Speaker 2
Thank you. Now I give the floor to Miss Anna Wagner from the European Commission, DG Radio.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Chair, and good morning to all. Perhaps a couple of points. First, on the underlying rationale for the commission proposal, and then perhaps quickly a couple of specific points that are relevant for the discussion here. In terms of the overarching concept, the idea is to have a much more simplified budgetary architecture. And that also means having the possibility of a common set of rules across basically the 14 instruments and funds that have been regrouped under the NRP proposal.
And I think, in the discussions, it is often forgotten what kind of experience the beneficiaries had with the diverging rules, which have been overcome with the single set of rules in the proposal this time. Of course, when it comes to having a single set of rules, the underlying aim is simplification for the beneficiaries and the authorities, but also flexibility. And this is the reason for not slicing up the available resources depending on the different funds and different earmarkings, which constitute some rigidity in the system, especially if there are many of them. There is also a very clear move towards enhancing policy coherence, and this is something that we have all seen: the synergies across the different policy areas and also across the cohesion policy programs were possible to strongly improve. And this proposal provides a framework for that objective as well.
Specifically, on a couple of things about the obligatory territorial chapters, I just wanted to draw the attention of all present that currently, in cohesion policy, just about 55% of the number of programs are territorially based, so are regional. And this is to move 55. And in terms of having a requirement, this is something that, of course, may create difficulties for member states that are single-knot regions or basically very small. That doesn't mean that these member states currently do not have territorial interventions. Of course, they do.
The only thing I'm saying is that this is not necessarily reflected in the programming architecture itself. In terms of the territorial obligations, I wanted to draw attention to the very specific requirements set forth in Article 22, which are instrumentalized in a specific annex on territorial methodologies. This is a new annex and has never been included in the framework before. Also, because I think that it is useful to bring the very specific elements into this discussion. In the semester, I wanted to inform you that on past occasions, the semester had regional analytics, and this is an angle that the commission intends to reinforce in the upcoming cycles, precisely because of the variant concern mentioned, in order to provide sufficient guidance and a policy framework for regional and territorial interventions. I also wanted to emphasize once again, in relation to the different allocations for the different categories of regions, that indeed in the initial proposal, there is only earmarking for the less developed regions.
But through the proposal of the president of the commission, shared with the college leaders on November 9, a 25% stability clause was introduced. And that de facto basically serves as a guarantee, as a general rule, not to allow the resource level to drop below more than 25% of the current allocation levels, so 2,127. And I think that on this, I will finish, and I just want to clarify as a very last point that the partnership arrangements under the NRP proposal are based on the cohesion policy framework and, basically, the arrangements, instrumentalization, and operationalization of how it is with the monitoring committee meetings, how they are involved in the programming, etc., including via the regional check that has been proposed by President Vanderlijn, to follow on and improve the arrangements that we currently have under cohesion policy. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Thank you very much. I'm so sorry I was late, but I was in another meeting. I wanted to be there in order to meet you and thank you very much for sharing your position. I will continue speaking in Italian.
Thanks very much indeed, and thanks to our colleagues for flagging our shared concerns. There are a number of issues I'd like to pick up on, particularly the concerns of the Green Group I represent. Point one: we cannot go along with the architecture of this new budget in its present form. Personally speaking, I was in the regional council. I worked with local municipalities back in the day.
They are very much concerned with the situation of competition. Municipalities are being pitted against one another under this single fund. There's competition not only between municipalities, workers, SMEs, and farmers, but also unnecessary competition between regions. And we find it hard to swallow the fact that there are no clear parameters for less developed regions, whereas transition regions and developed regions lack clear earmarking of budget lines. So, there's a risk here of a great deal of friction ensuing when it comes to the allocation of funds being tapped into for political ends and bandwagon hearing.
This could be somewhat streamlined and simplified with less red tape. We've been reaching out to the Court of Auditors, and these talks were quite fraught because the ECA pointed out that there was a clear risk of greater red tape at the municipal and local levels, and this would harm beneficiaries. The ECA says there is no guarantee of regional development. There need to be guarantees so that the principle of partnership and multilevel governance is respected. So, the administrative burden could well go up, I paraphrase.
So we've got a single tool with many goals and a great number of requisites and boxes to be ticked. That's what we are looking into, and we want light to be shed on this because light really needs to be shed on this. Just a direct question for you. One more comment, really, with regard to the exchange of letters with the Commission and the Parliament. Particularly, the second letter there, the commission has spelled out that 10% will be ring-fenced for rural areas.
And that had been, or would be, pinpointed with the support of leader projects. That does not mean supporting projects in rural areas. That means the support for reasons and areas linked to the CAP. How can we ensure that a clear percentage is assigned? We would rather have more than 10% for cohesion.
I'm a farmer myself. I live in a rural area, and I can't rely on the CAP to provide me with the services I urgently need as a worker, a mother, and a woman where I live. The same applies to others in my community. People have different care needs in my community. The second question has to do with the lay of the land. The commission has already engaged in a dialogue with member states to define the upcoming NRPPs.
Talks are ongoing to determine what the main features and recommendations will be. I'd like to understand where you are. Are you included in this discussion? As far as I know, and this I've heard from various member states, they have been completely excluded from this dialogue. And since we're still talking about the architecture of this proposal, what will the upcoming NRPPs actually be based on?
What recommendations will underpin these NRPPs? And will local communities and local institutions be included in this project? Do you think that there will be inclusion of municipalities or not?
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the comments on our contribution to your proceedings. Let me start by remarking that, of course, I'm happy to hear these comments. Europe, and, of course, for CMR, it's our normal standpoint.
Europe is more than a union of member states. The heart of Europe is in the regions. The heart of Europe is in the cities. And we feel very vehemently that this character of Europe is under pressure in the new MFF. The concerns that some members have expressed are our concerns.
And I'd like to answer Mr. Novakov. He asked, "Can you provide input?" Can you provide further work on NRPP? Well, CEMR has conducted research on the RRF, the Recovery and Resilience Fund, and that looks like a model for NRPP and demonstrates shortcomings in the RRF in terms of multilevel governance, on the other hand. And on the other hand, years of experience with cohesion policy implemented in partnership with local and regional governments have shown the positive examples of working with the regions and the city.
So, we can provide the members with these case studies. We can follow up on that and share our publications, including our opinions on the use of ITI and CLDD, which I think, next to the leader projects that Boarda mentioned, are a very outstanding example of working with regions, working with cities, and involving them in European cohesion funds. Miss Garda also said that the European Court of Auditors warned about the new framework. Just recently. I read it in multiple media.
The safeguards on multilevel governance, which are necessary for the way we do business now and the way we involve cities and regions, are under pressure in this new framework. And I'm very happy to hear that several members have expressed those same concerns. Mister Ross was asked to give some pointers to go back to. I think Mr. Ross was very clear in expressing the importance of regional development funding and the influence of regions and cities, especially coming from a country where, just recently, these fundings and activities have proven very fruitful for the development of regions in Spain. But CEMR stresses that, and that is also in reaction to Garcia Hermida.
We do not propose it. We do not propagate differences across regions. Of course, you can select depressed regions or regions that are falling behind on certain developments, but it is not the goal of CEMR to put that distinction in the proposals for the commission. The main idea for CEMR is that we believe, and Mr. Arimond was very clear on that, that the influence on the daily life of people and the influence on regional economic development should be put at a regional level. That is what CEMR is all about, and that is what the current way of cohesion policy is all about.
And I think it was Mr. Ross who said, "If it's not broke, don't fix it." And that is actually at the core of the remarks that I'm trying to make today. Mister Arimond also said we lack a legal arrangement for long-term investments. I agree with that. Regions deliver on EU goals, but they need proper long-term investments.
So we cannot be dependent on short-term policies or short-term investment plans on a regular basis; you need maybe 10 to 15 years for policies to be effective. So it is very important to note that. Local and regional governments' finance is under constraint across Europe. So, EU investments are critical in fostering needed long-term investments at the local level. And the main course of concern for the CEMR is that when we are dependent on national politics, make ourselves dependent on national politics in the N and our PEPs, we think that, like I said in my earlier statement, regional development policies will be a bargaining chip.
Not only on a European level, but also on a national level. In reaction to the comments made by the representatives of the commission, the problem is not, I think, Mister President, that there will be a single set of rules for the implementation of development policies, but it's the lack of regional and local influence. It's the lack of influence on programs. It's a lack of putting forward local and regional knowledge, know-how, and interest in the region when assigning the budgets and the budget details of the cohesion policy. And there's also no guarantee for long-term investments anymore, as I said in reaction to Mr. Arimal.
The EU semester may include territorial analysis, but a CEMR study, which we will be happy to provide, demonstrated that local and regional governments are not even consulted on country-specific recommendations that engage their legal competences. So, there is a gap in what we try to achieve on a central level, which, of course, will be the bona fide goal of the European Commission, but there is a gap with the reality in the member states. And I think it's very important that the European Parliament recognizes that gap. And, again, if we have a working order that's not broken, that works for the regions, that works for Europe actually, because Europe is not a conglomerate of 27 states. It's a conglomerate of several, maybe numerous, regions and cities where people live and work in Europe, and where their European thought is lived.
And there should be a place where influence on cohesion funds should be directed. And, again, the concern that we have is that all these regional and local interests will be subdued by national politics, maybe European politics. And I think that's a very grave consequence of the new MFF. I think, Mister President, that I have addressed the comments and the questions that were put forward by your members. And if not, I may be corrected.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Gerritsen. The Regi Committee highly values maintaining a structured dialogue with the Council of European Municipalities and Regions. We look forward to continuing our cooperation and discussions on the future MFF. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Dear colleagues, we will continue our meeting with the last item on our agenda, namely the consideration of the legislative draft opinion on the European Union school scheme seeking to support the supply of fruit and vegetables and of milk and milk products in educational establishments. The committee responsible for this file is the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Agreed. I will immediately give the floor to our rapporteur, Miss Valentina Palmisano.
Speaker 37
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present my opinion at this time because, beforehand, I was in another committee. Today, I'm going to be presenting this draft opinion by the Reggie Committee on the proposal for amending Regulation 1308 on the CMO for agricultural products. This is more directly something that involves the agri committee because it talks about agricultural products, but it also affects some of the issues we deal with here in terms of rural development and climate policy. So that's why I wanted us to draft this opinion, so that we would then rise to this challenge.
I've had a look at this. And while addressing some of the technical points that the commission has raised, I wanted us to have a regulation that would allow our regions to develop, starting from the focus point of this intervention, which is the EU school scheme. But it also deals with other important points. The EU school scheme is based on the fact that we are aware that we need to do more rather than purely giving out these foods in schools. We want to see how this fits together with dietary policy and also with regional challenges.
That's why it's something we wanted to deal with here. In the recent report by the World Health Organization, we've seen that we're facing an unprecedented difficulty that we don't know how we're going to deal with. Here, child obesity is connected with less developed regions. Overweight children are 25% of children between seven and nine years old. And reading between the lines, these numbers tell us that these percentages aren't a coincidence. They actually affect more less developed areas in the outskirts of cities and in rural areas, and this isn't actually a mistake that's happening across the board.
It's something due to existing socioeconomic inequalities. There's poor information for teachers and parents, who are then not aware of how children, especially the smaller ones, can eat better. There does seem to be an inextricable link between a family's income and what their children are eating, as well as that link with education. That's why we thought we could take advantage of this change in the regulation. I'll just briefly go through this.
The amendments, which I'm sure you've had a chance to look at, are designed to focus on the Mediterranean diet with short supply chains, biodiversity, local products, and the use of seasonal products so that we can make the most of that seasonal aspect. Also, we've tried to put in place an education program for children, parents, and teachers to explain why some products are good and why they're sustainable. And this will mean that we don't just improve our health, but the health of the planet, as well as the health of children who, in the future, will be the adults responsible for the planet. We've also addressed other issues, such as hemp and protein crops. These are new sectors in the economy, especially hemp, which could be seen as an industrial and environmental tool for regenerating polluted areas and using those products in a way that they haven't been used before.
This would then allow people to use fields, which, so far, have been abandoned. We've also put in a safeguard clause stating that there needs to be investment, and that it needs to be concentrated on Ireland's outermost regions and small-scale farmers. We didn't want the food supply to be just a logistic issue. We also wanted to have social solidarity here, where when we have an oversupply of food, it could be used to fight food waste. All of those products that are about to expire could then be given to charities and food banks.
Now I'm coming to a close here, but we wanted to look at multilevel financing, not just on paper, but also in actual fact. We said that member states should be involved in managing all of these different measures, and they should then involve regions and local authorities. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. We continue now with the shadow rapporteur, and we start with Mr. Bula from the EPP.
Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much, dear colleagues. This is a very important topic. This is about the most important beneficiaries of our work, our legislation. E. Children.
Children should be the center of our attention and of all our efforts. Let's dispel any doubts and explain why there are issues when it comes to performing the scheme in some regions of the European Union. We must talk about why there are issues and explain what causes these issues. We should be transparent about it, and we should say that when it comes to this multilevel management, there are some mistakes and some negligence. And the second element mentioned by the rapporteur is the quality of the products themselves.
This should be top quality, aimed at our children, for European school pupils. So, these are two important elements. We are working on standards, and we should base everything on the right health criteria and the right health recommendations. And we must involve everyone who is really trying to make all these schemes successful. And the third element is the promotion of education.
We must also convince parents and children, and make them participate willingly in the schemes. I would also like to draw your attention to the last aspect mentioned by the rapporteur, namely the support and securing of food supplies in crisis situations. So we must secure the supply of these products. And the last years have shown that the climate crisis, as well as other issues that have appeared, are very dynamic. These phenomena are so dynamic, and so should be our reaction.
We should be well prepared for all these undertakings. And I would like to tell you from my own experience: I worked as a teacher for about a dozen years. I was managing European funds, and I think that this should be the ambition of all political groups. Our ambition should be to make this regulation very successful, thinking about our children in all the regions of the EU. Thank you.
Speaker 25
You, Chair, and thank you, Valentina, for presenting the broad outlines of your opinion. In our group, we're obviously going to say how important regional policy is as a useful tool for social and territorial cohesion. I think this report is going in the right direction because it talks about food security and small-scale farms. But from our point of view, there are three things we can talk about. First of all, if there are changes in the market or new rules, it shouldn't be small-scale farmers who pay the price.
They should get the right technical assistance, financing, and the right training to make sure that all these changes are not to their detriment. Then, also, we need to make sure that this is based in the local territory. So, this does fall within our competence in Regi. We need to make sure that these changes have multilevel governance dealing with them, involving local and regional authorities, as well as cooperatives and social organizations, to ensure that implementation works well. Then, there's a social issue that we have to keep in mind.
We need to make sure there is sustainability and fair access to markets for these products. I'd like to finish by referring to the school scheme. At this time, in some member states, they are even talking about whether children should have access to certain foods. For instance, energy drinks, we all agree on the fact that school canteens are places where we can make sure that all children have high-quality meals. That's why this opinion is so important: to make sure that there are healthy, sustainable habits and that we apply the Mediterranean diet.
I would agree with the rapporteur on that. And from very early on, children get that nutritional input at school. That's why I welcome this report, and I would encourage the European Commission to be a bit more specific in terms of what it's going to do for small-scale farms, to listen to local authorities, and to make sure that children grow up with healthy, sustainable food, and that this happens on a daily basis. Thank you.
Speaker 42
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ms. Palmisano, for the draft report. You have rightly focused on the few REGI-relevant matters in this proposal with many elements. The EU school scheme has been successful in supporting the provision of healthy school meals and should continue to do so in the future as well. In Finland, for example, it has helped to achieve the targets for organic milk. There is, however, a lot of room for improvement in reducing the systems, administrative burden, and costs of administration, which are currently very high.
Speaker 40
If member states have in place a workable system for school meals, they should have the possibility to continue with it without a mandatory requirement through school schemes. Short supply chains can be encouraged, but the differences in products and patterns among the member states must be taken into account. Regions vary on what they produce, and the length of the supply chain is only one factor to be considered. On the sensitive issue of product names, I would suggest that instead of "plant-based milk," we use "plant drink." And about stock peeling, I would be careful not to specify an exact method.
Speaker 41
While preparation for emergencies and the avoidance of food waste are, of course, important. The strategies differ between the member states. For example, Finland doesn't store consumer-packaged food but rather has circulation systems where the specific amount of raw materials, such as seeds, feed ingredients, and fertilized raw materials, is always reserved as mandated by law. Moreover, the stock peeling and circulation of the stock are done by companies with whom the National Emergency Supply Agency has contracts. Any EU-level obligation should avoid overlapping and respect existing national differences.
Thank you.
Speaker 32
Thank you very much to the rapporteur for this excellent basis for our work. I fully share what she set out, and I am a shadow in Agri on this file as well. I think that in Raji, we need to try and strengthen the territorial or regional dimension of this. We're talking about rural development and strengthening the link between citizens and the countryside. And I think that Reggie and Agri can benefit from each other when it comes to ensuring regional development and agricultural development in our regions.
And I think the school schemes will be very useful in this. We're seeing an example of a policy that brings together agriculture, social cohesion, rural development, and education. A euro spent on children is also a euro spent for farmers. And this will help to support healthy products, things which will support our ecological transition: more fruit, more vegetables, more vegetable protein as well, and will include new products which will be available in our regions. So, I think it will help when it comes to a local production strategy.
The school scheme also focuses on education. It's about social policy. And one thing I think could be strengthened in order to get across to family, students, and teachers the importance of what's behind the food that we eat and the amount of work put in by farmers. So, I think it's important to mention bringing down food poverty in schools as well. And what we need to remember is that schools need access to funds.
We need to improve the absorption rate so that all regions have access to these. Now, on the issue of veg, vegetable proteins, or plant proteins, which is covered in the report, reducing our dependence on imports is not just an agricultural priority. It's about regional development. And I think there's a lot of potential here in terms of developing local industry processing, short supply chains, innovation in the food sector, and so on. And I think that all of this could provide a good economic boost.
The school scheme, I think, could be a useful instrument in trying to promote demand because plant-based protein pays more than animal-based foodstuffs. And I think it also helps to make sure that farmers' work is recognized. Now on hemp, we can see that it has a lot of potential and could help in different areas, which will be useful to our regions, textiles, and so on. But at the moment, we have an ideological tax on it since we have legal uncertainty about this. There are some member states that have stopped investing in hemp.
And I think that it could be useful because women and children could benefit from it. Italy is not an asymptomatic case, I think, unfortunately. But I think that, with GMOs, if we have a harmonized definition, we can ensure that we have a standard definition which will allow the sector to develop, and that will ensure that financing and investment will come through both in the short and midterm, and then on strategic stocks. These shouldn't just be a tool to respond to crises. These are the mechanisms that we need to anticipate crises so that we can handle them better.
They can also be used to stabilize markets by making sure that we have a sustainable matching of supply and demand. And they can also contribute to solidarity systems we have, like food banks, for example. I don't know if you know this, but more than 12 million European Union citizens seek aid from food banks. We'll be looking at a number of these issues in agriculture, but some of these issues are important for Reggie too. Prices paid to farmers, for example.
Without fair payment that covers the cost of production, we can't really talk about rural development. So, it's very important that in RGGI, a strong signal is sent to the Commission, as well as to the members of AGRE and the members of Parliament as a whole. It's quite clear that when we're talking about social justice for regional areas, the right to development and well-being strategies in our regions, you have to talk about people being fairly paid for what they do. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Thank you, Chair. Good morning, honorable members of Parliament. It's a pleasure being in your committee this morning. And I've very carefully listened to all those who have taken the floor, and I see that we have a lot in common between your suggestions and what is already provided in the commission proposal. Starting with the school scheme, indeed, the very aim of the school scheme is to reconnect children with agriculture to make sure that it is as local, as natural, and as close as possible to where children are at school.
There is also a part of the school scheme that is about educating children on healthy eating habits. So this is indeed also in the DNA of the EU school scheme. We have put in this new proposal by the commission new elements that address some of the concerns you have expressed. For instance, a possibility for member states to design their scheme in the future by paying special attention to socioeconomic conditions and circumstances. So, this is embedded in the commission's proposal.
We also have this focus on local, seasonal, etc. So, this is part of where member states can prioritize the distribution of products. With regard to the involvement of local and regional authorities, this is indeed foreseen, and that's the benefit of now having proposed that the scheme is no longer exclusively in the common market organization regulation, but is in the overall architecture of the rural, regional, and national partnership plan regulation. So, we have indeed the involvement of local and regional authorities at all steps of the design of the scheme. So, this is foreseen.
You have rightly spotted all the elements that we put in the proposal to take care of the health of children. So, this is also part of the criteria proposed, within which member states will design the products that will be distributed. So no added sugar, fat, or salt, as a general principle. And if there are exceptions, these must be discussed with the health authorities of the member states concerned. We also have special attention on ultra-processed foods.
You've seen that there is no possibility to distribute ultra-processed food in the scheme. Coming to the other aspects that you also find in the Commission proposal and that you have raised, either in the report or draft, or in MEPs taking the floor this morning. With regard to protein crops, we have a shared objective to make sure that the protein crop sector has framework conditions that allow it to grow, so that we have more domestic proteins and that we scale up our autonomy, our food autonomy in that particular sector. There is indeed an element of a short supply chain favoring on-farm use, etc. So yes, there is also that aspect in this drive to give more place to domestic EU-grown proteins.
On reserve, so just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding among us. So, the proposal of the Commission is not to replace what member states have already organized, and it is most of the time dependent on their civil protection approaches. Many member states have very good ways to organize how they respond and how they prepare a response to a crisis. And the idea is not to supersede what is already well organized on the ground. The idea is to make sure that we have an aggregate view and that when a crisis emerges or is threatening, we can, at the EU level and together with you, have a view of where we indeed have the necessary reserves ready to kick in.
And in this particular case, we are talking about food, of course. So, making sure that the population has access to the necessary food in case of a big emergency. So, this is separate from what we call the market safety net, which includes public intervention and stocks at certain moments of surplus situations in the EU. So, these are two separate aspects. And when it comes to the management of those reserves, yes, indeed, we are proposing that we fight also against waste, and we make sure that reserves that are built are not wasted in the end.
And there is a provision that allows them to be used for military, civil, or humanitarian purposes. So this is there as well. And to finish on hemp, you're absolutely right that the hemp sector has some growth prospects to consider. And it can support local and regional growth. There are many applications in the hemp sector, and some of you have mentioned them.
So you have them in construction, in textiles, in bioplastics, biochemicals, etc. And all those elements indeed contribute to regional development. So we are very much looking forward to working with you and to making sure that this committee makes a useful contribution to the debate. Many thanks.
Speaker 37
Thank you to all of the members for their contributions, and thank you to the commission as well. And thank you for the work that has been done upstream, but also for the comments made this morning. As you've seen, there are a lot of issues in this report, and I think this will be an interesting challenge. We talked about agriculture, food security, health, the future of our children, and fair pay. We've touched on topics which perhaps didn't seem directly linked to this proposal, but, in fact, if we take an ambitious approach, I think what we'll see is that we're touching on subjects which are very relevant and ones which we can all work on together.
So, thank you very much. And I'm sure that together we will be able to achieve an excellent result.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I would like to inform all the colleagues that the deadline for amendments is Thursday. It's Monday, September 5th, 5 PM. Repeat, September 5, 5 PM. Thank you very much for your participation and contributions.
The next Reggie meeting will take place on 16 and 17 March. Have a nice day.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.