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 1
Adopted. Next one, number five, pilot project EU digital civil services sandbox, testing the interoperability of civil status documents in a 100% digital format in local administrations. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions ?
Adopted. Next one, number six, the new European Bauhaus ocean and coastal and island communities lab. Who's in favor? Against. Abstentions?
Adopted. Number seven, pilot project European one stop shop for local access to EU funding. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions ?
Adapted. Number eight, European territorial demographic impact assessment tool. Who's in favor? Against? Abstentions are adopted.
Number nine, the last one on the list, Pathway four plus two, original skills ecosystem model linking technical education, smart specialization, and local industry. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions are adopted. Thank you very much.
So all nine proposals have passed. And by the Regi Secretariat, they will send to the badge committee, and then subsequently, they will be sent to the commission for pre-assessment. Now it's the end of the electronic vote, and we move to agenda item number five, which is about establishing the European Fund for Regional Development, including the European Territorial Cooperation, the Interreg, and the Cohesion Fund, all as part of the NRP regulation fund set out in the regulation on NRP for the next financial period. So we have now the first exchange of views. And this is a very important file in our committee because this is the only one where the Reggie Committee can act as the sole lead committee.
We have two core reporters, and I will now give the floor to them. First, to Mister Arimond from EPP, and then to Mister Ross Sampere from S and D. Five minutes each. You have five minutes each. Please try to respect the time limit so that we can proceed with the agenda items as well.
Mister Harimon, you have the floor, please.
Speaker 2
Well, yes. Thank you very much, madam chair. That's a lot of speaking time, 5 minutes. So I'll try to be briefer than that. Now here I am speaking about the commission proposal in public, and I'm gonna try and be diplomatic.
Speaker 3
I mean, if I were to really say what I thought when I received the text, I would perhaps be much more negative. I've been in this house for 12 years. I've always been able to work with these kinds of texts. They've always been legal texts that we've worked with, and there's always a bit of legal certainty. There's a budget line that you can work with, criteria that need to be fulfilled, and good projects that were supposed to be implemented.
And the Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund, and Interreg were always designed for long-term investments. It was a legal framework that was established so that you could make smart European investments in projects. But what we just saw in the commission's proposal is exactly the opposite. I mean, if I look at the fifth regional development fund proposal, basically, there's one page, nothing in it. And if someone who's motivated and willing wants to set up a project and wants to look at these long term investments, I mean, what am I supposed to tell them?
Well, in terms of the rules and what they're supposed to do. Where are the guidelines? I mean, basically, I can't explain to someone what they should do if they want to set up a project. So I think we're gonna have to do a lot of work here in the committee, in the commission's place. And the commission hasn't done the work for reasons that I can't explain.
So perhaps we should see this as an opportunity to craft this text. And there are a few elements that many people in this committee and in this House see as very important. Two weeks ago, we voted on an opinion, and we listed all those things that we find important. And so it'd be good to see them in the text. I mean, I know that this is all about this NRP story that we're not responsible for.
But we'll get in touch with the people who are responsible for it, and we'll try to get certain things into the framework text, things that are important for us. Now the first thing is that it's very important that the money that is envisaged for regional policy should be spent on regional policy. So ring-fencing. We need this funding ring-fence for our purposes. So because that would mean that there wouldn't later be the temptation to take money out of this fund and use it for other purposes.
So that's the first thing. But we really need to ensure we achieve that. That's extremely important. The second thing is that we need to boost the role of regions. Regional policy has always worked very well because those who really know what the issues are on the ground had a role in taking the decisions.
But in the current legislative text, they don't have this role, or it's very unclear. So we need to put that role back in the text so that regions, cities, and local authorities can be involved in taking decisions and can decide how they want to spend their money, basically. So you don't have it at the federal or national level. You can't have that level being the only one that can establish how regional policy looks in the member states. So that's the second point.
Then thirdly, we need to adapt the criteria that we had during the previous MFF period to the new MFF period. But currently, there are no criteria in the text. So we need to, together, establish those so that we know pursuant to which criteria we're going to be providing financing. I mean, that's crucial. They need to be known for long term investing.
And, obviously, we also need to monitor these criteria. I mean, if there are no criteria pursuant to which money needs to be spent, then obviously, you can't check whether money is being spent appropriately. So this is extremely important in terms of transparency, and also to make sure that the parliament can monitor funding. And then a further point is that long-term investment means that you have to plan for a long period of time. We're looking at N+10 at the moment.
So that means you have to have concluded the project ten months after the funding arrives. And I think that's the wrong way to go as well. I mean, I think here we're talking about long-term complicated projects. Many people are involved, and then you've got some kind of shared role between the EU and the region. So I think you need to ensure that these projects can continue to work over the long term.
So I would say n plus two or n plus three, so we have legal certainty. And let me conclude. I've spoken for too long, but let me conclude by saying that it's very important that we get all the elements that I've mentioned in the text. We need to define them ourselves. So, basically, we need to do the work that the commission hasn't done.
We'd be very happy to do that. And, hopefully, in the committee, we'll be able to find a wide majority for the text, so that then when we go into trialogue, we'll be able to defend our position vis-à-vis the member states. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Now we move to our other co-reporter, mister Ross Sampara. Please, you have the floor for 5 minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank.
thank you very much. And thank you for putting this discussion on the agenda. And I'd like to thank Pascal Arimond because I basically share everything he said. So that's an excellent starting point. It's great to have the first two co-rapporteurs working in lockstep.
And it's also great that we're clear on our goals. Our focus on this regulation is clearly going to be constructive, as we've heard. We're going to build what we haven't been given. And we firmly want to ensure that this proposal, which we've been given, and we really want to ensure that it is actually a regional development into Reg and Cohesion Fund regulation. And we want to boost cohesion policy and improve the effectiveness of regional investments right across the European Union.
My colleague said that he didn't want to say what he genuinely thought. I mean, sometimes I wonder whether we haven't just been given a title that was inherited from the previous cohesion policy. It talks about the regional development fund, Interreg, and cohesion fund, but the article has actually only mentioned Interreg. So perhaps someone in the commission forgot to properly design or talk about the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund. So our job is going to be to ensure that these things that aren't in the regulation are put back in the regulation.
We want to clearly establish the ways in which the work should be done and the investment mechanisms as well because we want to provide legal certainty to stakeholders on the ground, and so that they know that the long term investments they want to make have a legal basis and have the appropriate budget in place. That's the goal of this legislation, and that's the goal we're going to be working toward. The intermediary goals are clear. We want to ensure that there is budgetary budget available for ERDF Cohesion Fund and InterRAGE. And we need funding not only for the least developed regions, we've always had more developed, less developed and transition regions.
And we want funds for all of those, and we also want a specific part for the outermost regions. Now we also, secondly, need to guarantee multilevel governance. We can't talk about cohesion funding or regional funding if regional and local bodies are not involved. That's simply not how regional policy works. I mean, basically, if we don't do that, we'll just be handing out money to member states' governments so that they can fulfill whichever political goals they want to fulfill.
And then my third point is that we need to reinclude into the ERDF territorial development and urban development, this 8% figure that we were spending on sustainable urban development, so that we can ensure that the urban areas transition can take place. I mean, they need to take this transition needs to take place so that we can fulfill our climate goals and also so that we can fund European urban initiatives, etc. And then finally, we need a clear system of indicators rather than this system that's been proposed, which is establishing a priori prices. All regions have told us that they'll be unable to work that way. And it'll be even worse for Interreg because every member state and every region is very specific in nature.
So we want to go back to a system of political objectives. And obviously, I fully agree with regard to the three-year period for downstream a posteriori justification. So we're going to be working very closely with the rapporteurs of the national plans so that we can have effective coordination. And we're going to ensure that the ERDF has a very clear regulation in place. So that's the work we have to do.
The European Commission has sent us the text. We think it's insufficient, it's too brief. It doesn't regulate everything that it should regulate. But our work as co-legislators is to fill it out, to improve it. And hopefully, with the participation of all political groups in this house, we'll be able to do that.
Let me conclude by saying if we have the appropriate level of support, as we did two weeks ago on the Reggie, when it came to the Reggie opinion on the MFF, if we have appropriate support from all political groups for this new proposal that we're going to work on, we will have a clear voice to be able to negotiate appropriately in dialogues and achieve what we all want, which is for cohesion policy to continue to ensure the balanced territorial development of our regions. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Now we will have a round of shadow reporters. Each of you will have three minutes. Please try to limit your intervention to that one. First, the Patriots Group.
I do not see Madame Dostalova in the room. Maybe someone else on her behalf. If not, then we move to the ECR, Mr. Neshi. Not in the room either. Then it will be quickly to the Renu Group.
And I see Mrs. Garcia Hermida Vanderwale. Raquel, please, you have the floor.
Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will be very brief because I really have to run, but I'm happy that I can bring in the input from Renew. I'm very happy to hear the approach of both co-rapporteurs. I think it's going to be very important to have a broad platform here in Regi, with as much support as possible from different groups to have a strong negotiating position.
For Renew, I can say that we share a lot of the concerns and a lot of the proposed solutions of the co-rapporteurs. For us, the role of local and regional entities to secure it at every stage of the process, including the decision-making phase of where the money is going to go, is one of the crucial points to improve in this proposal. I think that we are open to looking at different possibilities, but making the code of conduct and attaching it to the national regional plans mandatory, and giving the commission under supervision of parliament strong supervisory powers is going to be key to achieve this. It cannot be voluntary. It has to be mandatory.
I also agree that we need a good balance between reliable long-term funding, but also allowing for some degree of flexibility to avoid the situations that we have seen in recent years with the cohesion policy being a sort of lucky pot for every other new priority and emergency that emerged in the period. So we need that flexibility. But at the same time, we also know that some of the funds will have to be reserved and earmarked. So that's a conversation that we will have to have the next few months. Also, the fact that European funds should be destined to supporting European goals, the goals that we have agreed upon among ourselves here as co-legislators, and not be something of a reserve fund for all sorts of national priorities which cannot be funded from national budgets.
It's something that I think we have seen in the RF experience. I think that there's some good elements in the logic of the RF experience, but one of them, which we should not take over, is to surpass local and regional authorities and use this money for the will of the national capitals, which, by the way, can also have a negative impact in the sense that when the process is politicized, then we also see that local and regional authorities are being punished by the decisions of national governments, not to mention any in particular. And last but not least, I would like to recall that closing every single loophole when it comes to rule of law provisions is going to be one of the main priorities for the Renew Group. We have the experience of the midterm review where we saw that it was impossible to close one of the remaining loopholes, which means that with reprogramming and prefinancing, we're still seeing money moving to places where it should not be going, again, not to mention any particular member states, but that's something that we definitely have to solve in this next cycle of cohesion policy.
I will leave it at that, and I look forward to working together with the other shadows. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for your intervention. Now the next group is the Greens, and I give the floor to Mr. Rasmus Andreessen, please.
Speaker 7
Yes. Thank you so much, and thanks to both of the repertoires for presenting their first and initial ideas. I'm really looking forward to a strong collaboration to end up with a broad majority here in the house, because I think there is a lot to fight for. And I would like to start by saying that having a dedicated EIDF and especially also INTRAQ, first of all, is a good thing because it means we can work on the regulation a different way than if the regulation wasn't in place. But on the other side, and this the reporters already pointed out, from my perspective very well, the regulation is quite limited.
And I also think that we still have a lot of work to do to strike the right balance, and also to coordinate, of course, with the colleagues working on the NR PPs. And from our perspective, additionally, to what was already mentioned by the colleagues from Renew, I would like to mention that we would also like to see a bit more of thematic priorities. We can see that in the MFF generally, there are some mainstreaming targets covered, which we also think should be part of all of the different regulations, meaning also this one when it's about the greening aspects, but also gender, and so on. This is up to our values, and this is what we will fight for. And secondly, I also think that the bottom-up approach in the programs looking at Interac, for example, also, especially for cross-border activities, is very, very important.
And for me, this also means that the role of regional and local entities is key, but it's not just about institutions at local and regional level. It's also about the people there where we especially would like to strengthen also small project funds as a very important part of Interreg where people or citizens in different regions have the possibility to be involved on a very concrete level, which is different than for all the other EU programs we know very well. So this is why I think I would like to add that aspect to what was already mentioned. And then again, I'm looking forward to the collaboration in the upcoming months.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We move to the left group. Mrs. Kathleen Funktion, you have the floor.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much, Cher. Can I start off by saying, everyone a happy St? Patrick's Day. So in relation to this report, I want to thank our co-rapporteurs, Mister Sempre and also Mister Armond. I think we're in very good hands from a reggae perspective, in relation to their work on this.
And just to reiterate, I suppose that this is, you know, our file in terms of we are the lead committee in relation to this, and I think it's really important that we maximize that power and to make sure that our regions are getting a very good deal here. I think that we need to really be strong on sticking to our position that a single plan per country simply doesn't make sense, and I don't think we should be afraid to say that to the commission, and that if they need to go back to the drawing board, which I know to a certain extent nobody wants to hear, and you think of the length of time these things take. But I do think, as a committee, we should not be afraid to say, if we're presented with a bad idea, that we say that to them and basically say they need to go back to the drawing board because we know the flaws of this approach will leave regions disempowered and worse off. So just in terms of specifics, I want to acknowledge the support for the inclusion of PEACE plus as a continuing program.
Speaker 9
Then it's no small matter given all the demands, particularly the way things are going in the world. And I would just want to, again, draw people's attention and the attention of the rapporteurs to our recently adopted budget opinion, which called for the commission part. So that's the Brussels element of the peace plus funding for that to be reinstated. That's really, really important because there's a fear that if that doesn't happen, then other parts of the funding will not materialize or will be less than what they should be, and that's been a really successful program, particularly for the North and for the border regions in Ireland. In broad terms then, I'm gonna be tabling amendments that would protect and foster the social side of the funding, the urban element, and other additions.
Speaker 8
For example, the peripheral nature of island member states should not be forgotten, and areas where national languages are spoken in one part of a country. We have this in our Gaeltacht areas in Ireland, but they're not, it can sometimes lead to economic disadvantage, and we need to remember that. For Ireland member states, we need to consider how Interreg talks about it, and it says, quote, cooperation between adjacent regions to promote integrated and harmonious regional development between neighboring land and maritime border regions. And I know every effort is always made to include every region, but island member states risk missing out, sorry, simply by being island as maritime borders are obviously harder to see as concrete lines on a map. I believe they require special attention.
And then within national chapters, if we are indeed stuck with that design, scope must be given then to allow investment plans in regions even below NUTS 2 level, at least NUTS 3 chapters addressing problems by regions must be one benefit of a national plan and chapter approach. So I consider my region, which is the region of the Southeast of Ireland, to require such an approach, because, statistically, the NOTS two region is very wealthy, but this is often lopsided towards one particular city. So it's not really given the real picture, and that's generally the problem that statisticians and policymakers need to get their heads around, that interregional differences can be as big as those between regions or countries. But I do think we are in good hands, in relation to the repertoires, and I look forward to working with them and also the other shadows, on this file. Thanks, Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now we move to the ESN Group. Mrs. Bosdorf, you have the floor, please.
Speaker 14
Well, I'd like to thank the rapporteurs. It was very interesting to hear from them. Well, we would nevertheless reject the ERDF reform. I mean, firstly, the transfer union is becoming ever more established. I mean, things aren't going the way we want in Germany.
Speaker 12
Germany is highly indebted. We have massive issues in terms of infrastructure. We are by far the biggest net payer, but we barely benefit from these reformed funds. What we want to ensure is that we reject all of this. We believe that we need to steer back on the European Green Deal in order to keep the European economy running.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much to all of you. May I also thank you for the work of the reporters? And we now have a round of cash D1. So two minutes, please, if it is possible. And first will be Mrs.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much. As far as I'm concerned, this new regulation is just the end of the Cohesion Fund and the Regional Development Fund, which is supposed to reduce the disparities between the levels of development in the regions and the fact that some regions are lagging behind. With this new regulation, the EFRD and the fusion funds are to be decided on what criteria exactly. And the appropriate performance, what's that? We don't understand that.
For what particular region? Will all regions be affected? Or will it only be the least-advanced regions? I'm not even talking about the overseas regions. We've had no answer to our questions on that.
And what about Interreg? What's the future of that? That is a very original program, and it's something that we're very keen on here in Europe. So, to put it in a nutshell, this regulation asks a lot of questions and doesn't meet the expectations of the regions as stated and repeated. And my fear is that the commission is going to be very happy with this regulation and will have absolutely no intention to shift anything, nor will they listen to our arguments, which go across party lines.
The very fact that everybody agrees that we need to revise the proposal completely, that should be enough to make the commission see sense. I hope nothing is carved in stone, and I'm sure that we'll be able to find consensus for amendments. And I hope that the commission and the council will listen to us. The regions are used to these programs. They're the face of Europe to the outside world.
Speaker 15
And if all of this is swept away, we're going to have some very nasty surprises out in the regions, and then forget all about the DNA of Europe. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Isabelle. The next three speakers will be Sabrina Repp, then Paolo Donas Cimento Cabral, and then Elena Nevado. Mrs. Repp, please, you have the floor.
Thank.
Speaker 16
you. I think we're now at a stage where what we've criticized for a long time has to be translated into fact. So we've got to make our demands very clear. So thank you to the operator for making that clear. And also, thank you for saying that we need to look at this regulation.
Speaker 18
And when you look at it closely enough, you can see that it's just empty. There's nothing in it. So we've got to make sure that we find possibilities in NLP to find something to use, leader and other initiatives. If we don't find some way to dock these things, as it were, we'll not be able to implement at all. So it's important that we have something clear, and that we have appropriate funding, and that we do the work that the commission ought to do, which is ridiculous.
Speaker 16
We've said we'd be constructive, and therefore, we've got to do our work. And I'd like to help you with this work. It's important and more important than ever for us to take the step forward to give a future to the people who get subsidies. It's not that we should just refuse the fund from the very beginning because then we're just saying, but that would be nonsense because we're just saying to people that they're not going to get anything at all. I think it's very important to define our relationship with the competitiveness fund, because when we talked about the Just Transition Fund, we looked at the synergy with the competitiveness fund.
There is synergy. We must use it, because the way the commission has proposed it, we're going to have a shortfall. So it's important to use synergy. I'm not saying that the competitors fund this new cohesion fund, but we really need to use it. And we also need to decide where we want to place a roll target.
If the role target is part of cohesion in this non ring-fenced area, then it's important that we find meshing, that we find where these things can mesh. It's also important to look at the performance-based initiative and see how we can implement it. If Interreg is looking at regional and cross-regional cooperation, it is very important to consider in what cases it actually makes sense to have a performance-based approach and what cases it doesn't make sense. And I think that this performance-based approach must be looked at critically. We need to look at it long and hard.
Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Chair. I'll speak in Portuguese.
I'd like to thank the rapporteurs, my good friend, mister Arimond, but also mister Rossempre for this view that we all agree with, I. Defending regional development and cohesion funding. I mean, clearly, this commission proposal is unacceptable, and it's impossible to continue to promote the cohesion of our territories, in particular the most vulnerable regions, using this proposal. Clearly, here in the parliament, as Mr. Arimont said, we're going to have to do what the commission hasn't done here in Parliament.
That's clear. This draft regulation is short, but is also less clear and leaves too much discretion to member states to do what they want in terms of cohesion and regional development policies, and also reduces the number of tools available. I'd also like to mention something else that's already been said. I mean, you've got Article 3, 4, 7, TFEU, and you've got regions which are all lumped together in spite of the fact that they're all very different. And so I think that shows a massive problem, because it doesn't respect a key article of the European treaty.
And now let me move on to interreg. This has been very successful for many regions, including the outermost regions. But now we have a limitation that is explicitly placed on it, which is the impossibility of developing projects with territories that we haven't previously worked with. So, for example, we have many outermost regions, excluding French Guiana. I mean, many of them are islands.
So they don't have borders with other regions. They're linked by seas. And so we need a derogation to ensure that these regions can choose their partners because sometimes we also need to learn from some of these regions or regions that are more developed. So you need to have the possibility to work with regions that are less developed than ours. That gives us an opportunity to learn and also to share best practices.
So I really think it's important to have this possibility to have more partnerships. I think that's a better way of us developing our potential and ensuring that we have genuine regional development that works for all European regions. Thank you.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Well, let me begin by saying that it was great to hear both rapporteurs, both Pascal and Marco have got a lot of hard work ahead of you, but you have all our support, because we need to continue to be aware that when we talk about the RDF, we're talking about hospitals, roads, basic mobility, urban mobility projects, which underpin regional development. And so that's why talking about ERDF essentially is talking about the key to the cohesion policy. And here, we're not just talking about a number of articles. We're talking, first and foremost, about the substance that feeds into the EU's cohesion regulation. In its proposal for the RDF, the commission has basically left the regulation empty of content by linking the former ERDF, Interregion, Cohesion Fund regulations in just 15 articles.
And basically, this regional policy is just being left to member states. So essentially, this has just taken out the content of the funds, particularly the RDF, and all the specific articles have basically disappeared. And they've now become part of this overarching fund, and has no real identity. So I think this is also a way of carrying out hidden budget cuts. I think that's what this proposal brings with it.
I think we really need to continue to be aware of the specific nature of different regions. So I think what we need to ensure is that there are funds specifically allocated to the ERDF and cohesion funds. I think we need to look at the work that's been done in the Committee of the Regions as well. There was a report by Mrs. Guardiola, which is a good starting point that has rigorous starting points, but it also includes enough flexibility so that contributions can be made to the various objectives of our plans.
There are funds that foster all sorts of things that are important to our regions. And there's also a focus on rural areas. We also need an ERDF that can extend this N plus two rule, but we also need to be very clear about border regions such as mine, Extremadura. And Mrs. Guardiola's report asks for the interreg chapters to contain participation from everyone, and also significant follow-up.
So we need a committee that essentially comes under the same responsibility. And then we also need to create a European group of territorial cooperation as a kind of management authority. So I think these are interesting proposals. I would urge us to have a look at them, because I think they will help us in improving what we've got so far. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Elena. Next speaker is Kiran Muloli from the Renew Group. Then we move to Missus Miranda Paz and then Daniel Bouda. Please, you have the floor, Mr. Nguyen.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the co-rapporteurs on this project and on this file. I have to say to Markus and to Pascal, we stand 100% behind you in the work you're doing on this. This directive is not satisfactory. We need, never was the need greater, to ensure that we keep our regional funds, EU regional funds, in the key areas in our regions. We cannot hand back responsibility to national governments in this regard under any circumstances.
We need the ERDF fund. We need the rural specialties that are there critically more than ever. I'm gonna give two examples. It is Saint Patrick's Day, our National Day in Ireland. I wish you all well.
But in Ireland, we've seen the work done by Peace Plus in the indirect context. Peace Plus bringing combining funds to bring projects together in key areas and community building, economic projects, transformation, youth empowerment, not just in the North of Ireland, but in Donegal, in Monaghan, in Cavan, in my constituency. I've seen it in Leetrum, a tremendous work being carried out. This is work we have invested in the past. We should not let go of this area.
And one other area we need to focus on, there have been changes. Every region is different, Chair. And the European Commission has decided to upgrade the border Northern region of Ireland and classified it now as a more developed region. It used to be a region in transition. The truth is part of that region is still in transition.
The rural areas along that border still require specialist support and attention. We just cannot move on and say one measure fits all. It does not. Parts of the cities in Galway are certainly doing very well on the West Coast, but other regions need the specific support of these funds. So I say, hands off in terms of the national governments.
This committee and our parliament should ensure that we protect our cohesion funds, and we continue to target them in the key areas as we go forward. Thank you.
Ana Miranda Paz
Thank you very much, Chair. Well, and particularly, thank you very much to the co-rapporteurs and to my colleague from The Greens who has been following this dossier. We have tabled a number of amendments, particularly because we're talking about territories in transition, but we also have a critical view on the basic principle that the Commission has set out here. The commission had this approach a few years ago with this regional policy, the plan which we stopped in its tracks back then because we needed a unanimity. And it's very important.
This is where the parliament can say, stop. This ERDF is empty of any content, and is the antithesis of decentralization. It's an ERDF for which it's like the national plans. It's just a mirror of that when they are centralized. So the essence of this is decentralization, and it also does away with the effective participation of nations, territories like Galicia, my country.
So if we allow this to go through in seven years, we'll have an idea if it's going to lead to greater territorial inequalities, more brain drains, it'll stop people from being able to stay, greater depopulation of areas, and basically, it'll be disaster. And finally, there's a need for multi-governance here and a strong cross-border element here. We've talked about the bridge for Europe, which aims to remove cross-border obstacles. What better way than to have a cross-border policy than to do away with that? There's no cross-border policy.
There's an ERDF, which is all about just keeping the budget people happy. And as my colleague has just said, there is a need for greater control not just on the programming, but also in the actual execution in time for all of the proposals set out. Working on ERDF proposals to change people's lives. Well, I really hope that we can strengthen parliament's role in this. Otherwise, we'll be having the same discussion in seven years' time while saying ERDF was a washout.
Speaker 1
Very much. We still have two speakers on the list. First, Mr. Buda, and then Mr. Novakov.
Mr. Buda, please.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much indeed, sir. Thank you to the reporters for what they've told us. We can see that everybody in this commission this morning has certain reservations about the commission's proposal. It beggars belief. Why have they done this?
Speaker 27
They've put this thing on the table. But parliament needs to give its example of what actually cohesion actually means, what a common agricultural policy, which is predictable, all of these things are principles of loyal cooperation between the institutions. That's what we're after. But that's not what we're seeing. And also, we were talking last weekend, all of us parliamentarians, about the funds.
Daniel Buda
And what are the problems? What are the needs? What are the challenges to be able to properly absorb this money? If we respend this money properly in infrastructures in every region, and I'm talking about regions, not countries, the cohesion policy is a regional policy, then we will be able to stem the growth of extremist parties. Look what happened in the UK.
We don't want more Brexits happening. Cohesion policy has to do with that. So, colleagues, there's a real risk here. The areas that voted most to leave the EU in the UK were the areas where they didn't get investments or they didn't know what the investments were and that they were taking place. And there's a real danger that people won't understand what we're doing with this money, and that will lead to growth and extremism.
So I have a few criticisms. First of all, the financial allocation. We cannot have smaller amounts of financial allocations than in the previous time. I have proposed that we should have this inflation proof. Then we need to look at financial predictability.
That's very important at the moment. What we're seeing is member states, divisions between farmers, the regions, and the counties. People need to know what money is going to be available to spend. They need to know what projects are going to be eligible for financing. Flexibility of just to have this 25 flexibility is not sufficient.
Beneficiaries need a predictable framework. They need to know that this is going to give them the possibility to really make adjustments, so that they can really meet their needs on the ground. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Thank you, chair. I think that ERDF could serve as a showroom of the Caucasian policy. Like, you can get the essence of what the founding fathers of this union have in their minds when they designed this kind of policy. So I can only encourage both corruptors to craft that legislation in a way that we are not going to be ashamed of ourselves once this legislation is in place. And I know it's difficult to deal with the current proposal with the council especially and some of the articles in this proposal, but I think that virtually the sky is the limit.
Speaker 29
If there is someone who is competent on that issue, this is the committee. We have administrative memory of how this legislation should be done. We know, and we've been on the ground where the project has been implemented, something that could not be said by some of the council ambassadors. So I think it's our historic role now to preserve a policy that helps overcome disparities across Europe and pull more people out of poverty than any other policy of this union. So I really trust Pascal Arimont and Marcos Rossemperit that they'll do their best now and later during the negotiations, not just to preserve, because it's strange to fight for surviving, but even strengthen this fund because, as I said, this is the showroom of cohesion policy.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Novakov. We still have 3 speakers on the list. It will be first a colleague from the Badge Committee, and then we move to the two opinion-giving committees, Employment and Envy. So, Mr. Matthias Eke from the Badge Committee, please.
Three minutes.
Matthias Ecke
Thank you, chair. Yes. I'm speaking on behalf of the Badge Committee because I'm the rapporteur for the budgetary assessment of the EDF fund and for the EDF regulation. And of course, the budgetary aspects of this regulation depend heavily on its architecture. And it's so it's really good to listen to colleagues here that they are very critical of the current design of the NRPP and the small level of discretion that it leads to in the actual fund regulations, which I, of course, agree with.
It is important for cohesion policy to remain a distinct policy with a dedicated and robust ring-fenced budget in the NRPP regulation, and especially the ERDF, I think, is, as colleague Novakov said, the showroom for cohesion policy. So with NRPP as a new umbrella regulation, this is maybe what it could be like, that is something like a new CPR, that it's a common framework for several funds. But the main work needs to be done in the fund regulation itself. With the budgetary assessment, of course, my role is also to align our debate with what the interim report of the Parliament would assign to it. And so I'll be in close contact, of course, with the two rapporteurs here and also with the MFF co-rapporteurs.
And the parliamentary position on the NRPPs also needs to be reflected in the budgetary assessment of the ERDF fund. And as there is no opinion of the Kant Committee, we will take particular care to ensure that we, as parliament, are able to fulfill our role as budgetary scrutiny, because this is something that the current proposal of the commission also lacks, that we can really fulfill our role as budgetary authority, both in creating and implementing and also in scrutinizing the cohesion funds. So I'm looking forward to the work, and this is kind of an encouraging exchange that we had today, that we redirect our cohesion policy in the right direction and that we commonly, all across parties, move away from this proposal that the commission put on the table. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Next one on behalf of the AMPL committee, Mr. Joao Oliveira. Yes, please. You have the floor for three minutes.
João Oliveira
Thank you very much indeed, Chair. Thank you. I'd like to start by thanking the co-rapporteurs for the presentation they made and for all the input they've made into this discussion of the RDF. The starting point that we have is very complex, and AMBL is particularly concerned that the proposal for the MFF that's been presented by the commission basically has the cohesion, its triple dimension, social, economic, and territorial, all kind of lumped together. We look at regional development that serves the commission's centralizing approach in terms of the multi-annual budget, in terms of regional development, but also it jeopardizes economic and social cohesion because it puts cohesion policy fighting for the same funds, for border management, for fishing, and all these other objectives.
They're all fighting over the same money in the pot. It's basically cutting the budget. The funds that were concentrated into national regional partnerships that are currently in force, that's 75% of the MFF and the proposal for the next MFF. The commission's just proposing 45% rather than 75%. So this is a cut in available funds.
And furthermore, they're putting other things into this. So they're putting in housing, for example, more things into the bag, less money is available. So what we're trying to do in terms of EOTF is to see if national and regional partnership plans are actually compatible with regional development, or as has been discussed, making cohesion, EOTF, NRPs separate? Is that the solution that really corresponds to developing or rather ensuring regional development and cohesion across the sector? I think that this is a discussion that we need to have.
We talked about it, when we talked about the ESF, but ERDF is just as important. It's very important for cohesion. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now on behalf of the envy committee, Missus Nadiaova, please, you have the floor.
Jana Nagyová
Okay. Thank you very much, chair, and thank you all for a very fruitful discussion, extremely beneficial for me as rapporteur for Envy opinion. But before coming to four messages key, which I'd like to share with you on behalf of Envy, I'd like to say a couple of words because I do follow a regional policy for more than twenty years. And I think this is what I will say, with also the words of our shadow reporter on behalf of Patriots, madam Dostalova. Because I think we fully agree with what was said here by the rapporteurs, or co rapporteurs.
And if you can redraft the proposal, you have our full support, because this ERDF, regional policy, was always in the heart of European integration. It should be for the future as well. And one currently, one has to read ERDF regulation together with NRPP and together with performance and together with everything. And even after that, there is no sufficient clarity, and apparently no respect towards very different types of projects. Like, for example, when it comes to envy, it's envy energy infrastructure.
It has completely different conditions, like soft projects, like education, and it's absolutely not reflected yet in none of those regulations. So from our perspective, with this commission proposal, solidarity in EU is debt, and the commission seems to try to keep its hand on all money in EU, at least due to all the system, how it looks like. Anyway, so coming to four key messages, which we have from the from the envy perspective. If you have any further remarks, I will be very happy to include them. First is that from envy point of view, flexibility, certain flexibility is welcome.
But currently, there are insufficient details on the envy priorities, which always were included in ERDF. Now it's not there. Then the NSH principles, they are vital for eligibility and exclusion, but they must be defined with binding rules directly in the basic regulation, either like ERDF or performance framework, and not deferred to nonbinding EC guidelines as it's now proposed. So this is difficult to understand. The same applies to noneligible activities from an envy point of view.
There always were some activities excluded also from due to envy issues. They are not now. Third issue is performance framework, which needs far more clarity in the basic regulation. And even a European Court of Auditors criticized the current status very heavily. And the fourth is INTEREC, which remains ERDF key for cross-border cooperation, and envy begs enhancing it for practical green projects like sharing resilience without ideological overreach.
But detailed rules, again, are clearly missing. So that's Major. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Now, in principle, I should give the floor to the representative of the commission. But, unfortunately, as I hear the information that mister Peter Berkovich, director from DG Regio, has been injured, I understand that no one is replacing him. I hope it's nothing serious, and we wish him a speedy recovery and all the best. So we can still have a short round if the two core reporters wish to react to what has been said so far.
Two minutes, if possible. Please, mister Arimon, you have the floor.
Speaker 3
So next, to Besson and then Henrik Berkowitz.
First of all, I hope Mr. Berkowitz recovers soon. And then I'd like to wish everybody a happy Saint Patrick's Day, particularly my Irish colleagues. And thirdly, I've heard some elements that I'd like to confirm. First of all, when it comes to the small projects funded in Interreg, I defined those, and it was something that was very close to my heart, and I will defend those. The same applies to the peace programme in Ireland.
It's extremely important for Ireland, and it's something that's got to find a niche. And then a comment for the EFT. If you say something like that, you've got to live up to it. You're actually saying that you don't want €20,000,000 that Germany gets. And if you continue to think along those lines as AFD does, then you're going to endanger a lot of German programs.
I may not be as clever as my colleagues from AFT, but it would mean that there would be significant economic damage to Germany. And when you say things like that, you should perhaps think about the consequences as well. Thank you.
Thank you, chair. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Very much. I'll be speaking Spanish again. I simply wanted to thank just about everybody who spoke, and I'm not going to go into the final word. My colleague has dealt with that very smartly, about Germany. Let me say that, overall, the text, well, thanks to all because after what we've heard from everybody across the political spectrum, I think we are in a stronger position to really kick off this work that we set out at the start, which is to put some meat on the bones of this regulation, make sure it really does meet all of the objectives that it set.
And I think all the members share that. E, developing cohesion policy and for local bodies and regions to have a governing and governance role. I'd like to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs who sent me the committees from Budge and Empel. So now we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work so that we can come up with a proposal, which I hope will be enriching, and will then serve as a foundation so that you, after all your input, will be able to send in your written comments so that we can end up with a solid, cohesive regulation that really does meet the challenges and the objectives of a cohesion policy. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Now I think we can agree that this has been a very interesting debate, and I'm quite sure that it will be even more interesting in the coming weeks as time is flying quickly. Now agenda item number five on this topic is closed, and we move to the next one, which is on the union civil protection mechanism and union support for health emergency preparedness and response. Here, we have an opinion to produce on the legislative proposal. The main responsible committees are Envi and SANT, jointly.
The reporter is mister Vladimir Previlich, but he is absent today. So it will be Missus Christina Guarda speaking on his behalf. You have the floor for roughly 10 minutes. Thank you.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you very much, dear chair, dear colleagues. As rapporteur, Vladimir Prebilic is absent today due to the electoral campaign in Slovenia, which has a national election this Sunday. So I would like to read the speech on his behalf regarding the work on this file. Dear colleagues, Europe is no longer facing isolated disasters. It is facing a structural climate emergency.
From mega fires to catastrophic floods, crises are becoming more frequent, more intense, and increasingly simultaneous across borders. The union's civil protection mechanism has proven its value time and again, but voluntary coordination between member states is no longer sufficient for the scale of risks we confront. The treaties already give us the legal basis to act more decisively. Article 196 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes protection as a shared competence that supports coordination between the member states. And where ambition exists, article 20 TEU and 326 to 334 TFEU allow groups of member states to move forward through enhanced cooperation.
In other words, the tool exists. What is needed now is political will. That is why this report calls for a shift toward what I describe as Rescue 2.0, a permanent interoperable and generally European civil protection preparedness framework. Solidarity must evolve from ad hoc assistance into a structured European capacity. That means permanent cross-border units, harmonized operational standards, and stronger obligation for prevention and preparedness.
Enhanced cooperation in civil protection is not about dividing the Union. It is about allowing those member states ready to move forward to build a European backbone of preparedness that others can join over time. In an era of accelerating climate risk, preparedness cannot remain optional. At the same time, we must recognize that the scope of civil protection is expanding. The growing integration between disaster response and health emergency preparedness significantly increased the union's operational responsibilities.
This convergence raises both the complexity of coordination and the financial demand placed on the mechanism. Without additional and predictable funding, this broader mandate risks overstretching the system and undermining its credibility. A stronger European role must therefore be matched by a reinforced budget that prioritizes prevention, readiness, and rapid deployment capacities. And this brings us and Vladimir to a point that is particularly relevant for this committee. As we approach negotiation on the next MFF, we must ensure the civil protection and preparedness are properly reflected in the Union's financial architectures.
These disasters have a distinct territorial and regional dimension. Floods, fires, and droughts hit specific regions, local economies, and community first. Cohesion policy protection is therefore not separate debates. They are increasingly interconnected. If we want resilient regions, we must invest in preparedness before disaster strikes.
The political choice before us is clear. Either we continue reacting after each catastrophe, rebuilding again and again at enormous economic and social cost, or we build a permanent European preparedness architecture capable of protecting our citizens, their lives in an age of climate urgency. The treaties allow us to act. The risk compels us to act. That is why Rescue U 2.0 is not simply an institutional adjustment. It is a necessary step to safeguard lives, strengthen regional resilience, and protect Europe's social cohesion in the decades ahead.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mrs. Guarda. We have a round of shadow reporters, but actually, I see that a couple of them are missing. First, it should be Maria Walsh from the EPP. We have nobody replacing her.
Then from SND Group, we have Mr. Sakis Arnottoglu. No? Sorry. I'm sorry. You have the floor, please.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Thank you. I'd like to thank Karl Rapporteur. I think he's certainly heading in the right direction on this. He's found an appropriate solution to the new challenges in Europe. These crises are no longer one-offs.
They're becoming more violent, more regular. They keep happening, and they sort of reinforce each other. Civil protection needs to be a big priority competence for member states going forward. European citizens are expecting more from the EU on this. They're expecting more solidarity, faster action in the face of disaster.
This has been set up. RiskAU has been set up and strengthened. But ten years too late, we realized that we need to strengthen this framework, Risk EU. It's basically designed for one-off disasters, but this is a systemic challenge facing us. One more thing.
Europe can no longer just say, okay, well, we'll react if there is a problem. It needs to be preventive. It cannot just repair the damage. It needs to take into account the new global climate risks. And therefore, we also must strengthen the role of local and regional authorities there, on the front line when disaster strikes.
They know the risks, and they know the needs of the local populations. And of course, disasters don't respect borders. The different services need to coordinate and work together across borders if they really want to be able to face these challenges. Greece has suffered enormous fires, flooding, and terrible disasters over the last few years, which have devastated local communities. We have decades of experience in terms of civil protection, and we are very well versed in the local conditions.
The conditions on the ground and the regional and local governments are on the ground. They know the information. They can really kick into action when required. We will table a number of amendments in terms of the prevention of risks. In particular, we must also concern ourselves with peripheral and outermost island regions.
Can't just react when disaster has already struck. We must actively help protect our populations. There are no national disasters. They affect our entire continent. Therefore, we have to move together to speed up the decision making process and showing solidarity after the disaster has happened is all very nice, but it's not enough.
Have the floor on behalf of the EPP.
Speaker 38
Thank you, chair, and apologies, colleague, for arriving late. I'd like to thank the rapporteur for his draft opinion and initially for our first meeting that was very productive and informal, Schaller's meeting in Strasbourg some time ago, and for highlighting key aspects related to the preparedness and prevention piece. First, I really wanna welcome the strong emphasis on strengthening the role of regional and local authorities. I think this committee knows it too well. When you spend EU taxpayers' money closest to the ground, it's a benefit to the community that they are serving.
They're often the first responders when disasters strike, and their involvement is absolutely essential. It's key for an effective emergency response. Second, I would like to briefly highlight the strong public support for this program. Since taking up shadow repertoire for the EPP group, the amount of representatives at various levels, particularly in the Midlands Northwest constituency where I represent, has been very, very strong. As many know, nine out of 10 EU citizens believe it's important for the European Union to coordinate disaster response both within and beyond its borders.
This is a clear signal that this program is essential, and the regulation must deliver on its core objectives: prevention, preparedness, and response. And over the last few weeks, we've also seen in real time the concrete impact of this cooperation. And as we speak, the program has supported the repatriation of more than 11,000 EU citizens from the Middle East through over 90 EU-supported flights. And this brings me to my final point. In the current proposal, public awareness of the EU disaster response, including efforts to counter disinformation, is not eligible for funding under this program.
Speaker 39
But during natural disasters, health crises, or other emergencies, communication is not just about visibility. It's essential. It's also about public safety. It's trust, and it's the effectiveness of our institutions in delivering help to people when they need it most. Citizens need to know where that help is coming from, and they need to know factual information, regardless.
Speaker 38
For this reason, I believe we should do more to strengthen public awareness of this program, and I intend to table amendments to that end. Thank you very much. Thank you, Maria.
Speaker 1
From the Patriots Group, the shadow reporter is Mrs. Marie Louise Brassier Clan. Not in the room. No one else on behalf of the Patriot. So we move to the ECR. Missus Berna, please, you have the floor.
Speaker 40
Morning, chair and colleagues. Thank you very much for the work you've set out today. I believe that the European civil protection policy, of course, must always be a priority, as all the previous speakers said. And therefore, I thank the Rapporteur and the commission for the work they've done in this meeting we had before the presentation of the report. Now clearly, extreme events that we've seen, all these climate problems, fires, floods, earthquakes, are just to show on a daily basis how important it is to strengthen cooperation between member states.
Speaker 41
And this will be done under this regulation because we're talking about the safety of our citizens in emergency situations. And therefore, this revision must lead to an effective, clear and efficient European system in full respect, of course, of the internal competencies of Member States. Here, I just want to point to a couple of elements that I think should be in the regulation. Our approach is to have broader cooperation across the aisle, but there are certain points that we think are very important because we're revising the system. First of all, protection.
Speaker 40
We heard that just now civil protection cannot just be about mopping up the problems after they happen. You have to have a clear pillar of prevention to insist on that, which means that you have to protect human lives and protect the areas. Secondly, local bodies. Of course, they must be considered because emergencies happen in a particular place, and it's the local municipalities, the local bodies and councils who are the first responders, so to speak. This is a multilevel approach, but the level that's closest to the people being affected is vital in terms of gathering data also, and in terms of this response.
So that must be strengthened. Thirdly, the operative EU measures with pooling knowledge and the digital platform for the EU with updated risk data, emergency effects. And of course, that would help to improve the coordination upstream for planning, and so on. And fourthly, competencies, powers, this new regulation could help to foster the development of more technical training programs, capacity building, and upskilling for people working in national systems. Obviously, and allow me just to say this, in Italy, we have experience which can be considered the best practice across the EU.
Civil protection is based on an institutional, regional, and local approach. It involves volunteers and full-time professionals. It's very important, therefore, to have so many people involved when emergencies occur. So I think that Europe really can benefit from these national experiences. Of course, I'm not just talking about Italy.
Other countries can offer best practices in terms of how this can work better in operative terms. We have a common goal here. And let me round off by saying that we can build a more resilient euro, which is able to prevent risks and to be ready for when disaster strikes, and basically help and protect our citizens, which is the fundamental question here. So thanks to all that have prepared these reports. Our amendments will be forthcoming, but we are certainly very pleased with this.
Speaker 1
On behalf of the Renew Group, Mr. Joachim Streit, please, you have the floor.
Speaker 43
Thank you, Chair. There's a clear need to update the European Union civil protection mechanism. So I find the proposal very timely, and I think the rapid term is a privilege for the very good draft. Disasters will continue to happen. This is part of the human condition on this planet.
Speaker 45
And with the climate deregulation, the crisis becomes more devastating. EU must be ready for what it can be ready for. Every possible scenario needs to be thought through. In addition to that, we live in the world of increased military threats, cybersecurity threats, and attacks on infrastructure, such as electricity, recently in the blackout in Berlin. In the last couple of years, we have realized that the EU has many vulnerabilities.
Speaker 44
If not addressed right now, vulnerabilities might become disasters. For that, we need the highest possible level of preparedness. This means EU CPM needs to systematically involve local and regional authorities. They are close to the field. Ensure enough resources are allocated to the infrastructure maintenance, digitalization, and use of artificial intelligence.
Speaker 46
Transparency of funding. We need to make sure that not a single euro dedicated to crisis preparedness gets lost. Pooling of tools. We need interoperability and common stockpiling of resources. Easy cross-border deployment of rescue staff and materials.
Speaker 43
It is impossible that in the twenty-first century in the EU, there are still administrative obstacles to that, for example, ambulance services. My state, Randolph Fales, has three international borders. So for us, it's very important. Build the culture of preparedness among civilians and volunteers. For example, ordinary people need to be able to bring first aid.
Emergency exercises, including cross-border field exercises. Responsible use of AI, satellites, and drones in order to predict emergencies and react quicker. Anticipation is key. We need to use European observation systems such as Copernicus and Galileo, as well as early warning systems. My amendments to the report will include these and other points.
I believe that we can all agree on a common guiding principle: to prevent is cheaper than to heal. This file intends to save human lives, natural heritage, money, time, and energy, which makes clearly much more sense than repairing the losses. And we can probably agree on another fact, the fact that our children will be exposed to many more risks than we had to endure. We must take action today to make sure our children have all the necessary tools. The cost of non-Europe is very high in this field.
And in this field, the EU has the potential to gain EU citizens' hearts. This is a key field where the EU can deliver for them. In crisis situations, people don't look at political parties. They just expect responsible persons to take control of the situation. I experienced it personally in 2021 with the floods in Germany, and I stand ready to serve my region again.
This is why I look forward to our work on this opinion, and I thank in advance the rapporteur and the other shadow rapporteurs for this cooperation.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. On behalf of the left group, I do not see Mrs. Palmisano, who is the Shadora porter. If no one else, then the ESN group, it should be Mrs. Bosdorf, who is not here either.
Is there anyone from the ESN group adviser or maybe the APA? Because I would just have a short message to pass on to her. No. Then we can maybe it is about the declaration of absence of conflict of interest. So thank you so much for all the interventions.
And for the KHDI, I see Mr. Muloli raising his name. So please, you have the floor.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair. To fail to plan is to plan to fail, colleagues. That's an old adage, which I think is now truer than ever when it comes to how we handle emergencies and crisis in our lands. And as our colleagues have said already, crises are becoming more frequent all the time, whether it's the battering of the Atlantic Ocean on Ireland in Stormy Owen or whether it's the voluntary coordination among member states of the UCPM is no longer good enough, because we have seen examples in recent times where we have been slow to move in these situations. Tardiness, not at ground level, not where the crisis is taking place, but at the government level, where decisions are needed.
And we need to take people out of danger, and do it quickly. I saw it myself with Stormy Owen when we moved, eventually after a number of days, to bring generators from Poland to Ireland. And then last week, I couldn't believe when it happened again, when we had a number of people stranded in Dubai. And on Friday afternoon, I was very grateful to Commissioner Labib who confirmed that the support was there, but our member said Ireland had failed to trigger it. I picked up the phone and rang our department of foreign affairs, and one hour later, they had triggered the mechanism.
But it should not be an MEP to remind government of this. It should be an automatic process, and somebody within the system needs to be ready. At the end of the day, I agree with colleagues, we must protect the funding. We must build a strong support mechanism ourselves. But at the end of the day, people are in distress.
We need to respond. A person must pick up the phone. And if they will not do it, Commissioner Labib and the commission should take that decision in the interest of helping people and saving lives. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. If nobody else is asking for the floor, then we can move to the intervention by the representatives of the commission. We have two speakers, missus Joanna Serdinska, team leader from DG ECHO, and mister Clement Williamson, who is assistant to the director general from the HERA, which is the health emergency preparedness and response authority of the commission. So please, Missus Szczerninska, you have the floor for five minutes.
Speaker 47
Thank you very much, Chair, honorable members. I think I can be brief in my intervention. First and foremost, we would like to thank very much the rapporteur for preparing and presenting the draft opinion. We are very pleased with the elements that this opinion highlights. We very much would like also to agree with the intervention we have referred to today, in this debate, on the draft opinion.
Speaker 48
There were very many valid points that the commission clearly shares with all the speakers who spoke, who took the floor earlier today. There are a few points that I would like, specifically to highlight, that are also at the core of our interest, of the commission interest, and actually underpin why we have proposed a year ago an amendment to the current legal framework that establishes the union civil protection mechanism. Now some of you have mentioned that first and foremost, we share the goal of protecting people and of protecting the citizens. And, hence, you have mentioned today that we should invest in public awareness, communication, and any type of activities that in first place target our citizens and help them to prepare for any type of disaster may come. What is important for us, and I would like to ensure everyone that we are really working on broadening the scenarios we are assessing, not only, of course, to deal with the climate change that is at the very heart of the discussion today, but also take into account any type of risks that may come.
Speaker 49
We just learned in the last five years that as much as the health issues can come up anytime, we should not lose from our radar any challenges coming also with the broader security concerns that we all have these days. Therefore, the commission will fully support the negotiations, discussions that we currently have and will have in the upcoming weeks and months to really strengthen the elements that really can help our population to better prepare, which is, cannot be enough, highlight that we fully agree that we should not plan to fail, as it was just said. And not plan to fail means also that we need to further strengthen the cooperation with the national administrations so that when a situation emerges, there is an effective use of the mechanism. That also means that we are with or that those who are potentially affected or have already been affected can rely on the help and assistance that this mechanism can provide. That being said, I would like just to also agree that the transparency of the funding is an important element of this mechanism, as there are several actions that are eligible under this mechanism.
Speaker 47
We will be working, of course, with the member states also to remove all the administrative obstacles. When the time comes, and we are all working towards actually or against the clock in any emergency situations, it is of utmost importance that we can, the time, that we don't face any type of administrative, you know, obstacles or any other. Hence, a streamlining element is very visible in this regulation. We learned from the past, and we will try to really provide an instrument that can be very agile. That's one of the key objectives of this regulation, again, looking at the experience only of the last couple of years, but also on the intensity of the disasters that we have faced in the past months and years. There are several provisions, not least the establishment of a dedicated entity that can also address in a multisectoral manner any adverse consequences of any type of crisis that we might yet again, as the European community, face.
Also, a strengthened cooperation with all stakeholders, of course, with the citizens, with the regional and local authorities, but also civil and military cooperation has been made a part of the discussions that we have today. And, therefore, again, I would like to thank you for taking a very horizontal approach to the subject matter. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And now I give the floor to Mister Clement Williamson for five minutes, please.
Speaker 50
Thank you very much, Sharon, and good morning to all. The health emergency part of the is a very specific part of this preparedness and response instrument, maybe less visible, but I believe an important part of important one. But we share, of course, the overall approach to civil protection. The risk landscape is very high, and it continue growing. And it's the threat that we face are very visible, and, I mean, we have demonstrated the importance to prevent these threats to grow and to prepare for them.
We have also demonstrated the high added value of EU action to support national and local authorities to prepare and prevent. I mean, for the health emergency part, the experience of COVID is still guiding us in this work, but even if COVID is behind us, we know that other viruses or other health diseases are threatening us, so the importance to prepare together. We do agree on the importance of investing with local actors. It's something we do in the implementation. Of course, our main and our recruiter are the first national authorities.
But when it comes to implementation, it's very clear that we need to involve local and regional actors. It can be local public authorities, but as well medical forces, the public as well. I mean, we all have to be prepared together. We're looking forward to your further amendment. And I mean, we'll be happy to explain again any specific point or to reply to questions you may have when drafting this amendment.
Speaker 51
So thank you very much for your support, and thank you for this opportunity to speak again. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Now we move to the end of this agenda item. I would like to thank again the rapporteur. Please send our regards to mister Plavilich, missus Guarda, and we wish them all the very best for the campaign. Just for your information, please take note of that Elena.
Sorry. Sorry. Missus Navado de Campo, you wanted to take the floor. Please go ahead.
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you, President. Only one question for the commission. I will speak in Spanish.
Well, in this context, which role does HERA play? So the authority for preparing for health emergencies in the civil protection mechanism. So, is there a link there or is there no link? Thank you.
Speaker 50
Thank you very much for this question. So ERA, well, we have a common proposal, our colleagues from DGACO taking care of the UCPM and ERA for the health emergency. But there is no intention to mix the responsibilities. Colleagues in ECO, they will remain in charge of all the civil protection aspects. ERA will remain in charge of all the health emergency aspects. Of course, when there are disasters that have health consequences, we will work together as we do already today, but there is no intention to change the responsibility or to give any mandate of ERA on civil protection and vice versa.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. If no one else, then we can close this item now. Just for your information, please take note that the deadline for tabling amendments is Tuesday next week, March 24 at 2 PM, and we will vote on the opinion at our meeting of 7 May. Thank you. Now the morning part of the Regi meeting is closed.
At 11:15, we will have the coordinators' meeting. And then, in the afternoon, we continue with the committee. At 02:30 PM, we will still have two agenda items. Thank you so much for your participation, and we have a break now.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.