Committee on Regional Development Extraordinary 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
That's sorry, compromise six in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise seven in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 241 in favor, against, abstentions, let's check that. The vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Compromise eight in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise nine in favor, against, abstentions. Let's check that one. So this is the vote on compromise nine, open. Closed.
Adopted. Compromise 10, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 11, in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 12 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 13 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise 14 in favor, against abstentions, adopted. Amendment 39 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Compromise 15 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 16 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 17 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise 18 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 19 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 20 in favor, against, abstentions, check. Compromise 20, the vote is open. The vote is closed.
Adopted. Compromise 21 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 22 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 23 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 24 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Compromise 25 in favor, against, abstentions. Let's check that one. Compromise 25, the vote is open. The vote is closed. It's rejected. Right.
Well, let's continue then. 100. Amendment 100 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendment 100. Check.
The vote is open. This is 100. The vote is closed. So amendment seven. Sorry.
Number 106. In favor? In favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendment 107, against abstentions, adopted. 108 in favor, against abstentions adopted.
109 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. 110 in favor, against abstentions. I think that's rejected. 111 in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Amendment 112 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted.
Amendment 113 in favor, against, abstentions, check. So we're checking 113. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Rejected.
So not adopted. 114 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Compromise 26 in favor, against, abstentions? Let's check that one. So we're checking compromise 26.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Amendment 124 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment 123 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
125 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 126 in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. Compromise 27 in favor, against, abstentions. Let's check that one. So compromise 27, the vote is open.
The vote is closed. So, okay. That brings us to 28 in favor, against abstentions. Let's check that one. So compromise 28, the vote is open.
Vote closed. Adopted. Compromise 29. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 148. In favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 149 in favor, against, abstentions, adopted. Amendment 150 in favor, against, abstentions. Adopted. So final vote.
The vote is open. The vote is closed. Adopted. Congratulations to Mr. Stutzer. Okay.
Speaker 4
Please wait a few minutes while Mister Vice President Fito is arriving. Right. So let's get back to work. Okay. So let's get back to work.
Speaker 1
We'd like to wish a warm welcome to Executive Vice President, Future. We welcome you for structured dialogue on the communication on the EU's eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, and on the midterm review of cohesion policy. Dear executive vice president Futur, I'd like to welcome you to Reggie Committee for an exchange of views on the commission's priorities and cohesion policy, including on a strategy for the EU's eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, as well as on the midterm review of cohesion policy. I'd like to invite you, Executive Vice President, to provide us with a presentation for the next 15 minutes or so, which will be followed by an exchange of views, firstly, with the coordinators of the political groups. Afterwards, the debate will be open to the whole committee under the catch-the-eye procedure.
Mister Vice President, you have the floor.
Speaker 5
Chair, honorable members, I'm delighted to be with you today. As you know, I greatly value the collaboration with this committee. At the beginning of my mandate, I promised to consult with you and keep you informed every step of the way. Today is part of my continued commitment to that promise. I'm here today to update you on some key developments: the communication for the Eastern border regions, the results of the midterm review of the equation policy, upcoming work on key strategies.
First, the communication on the eastern border regions. As you know, in February, the commission presented the communication on the support to the regions bordering Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. Many thanks to all of you who helped shape the communication. This is the result of the work we have done together. It started with the midterm review of equation policy, where we introduced for the first time the concept of eastern border regions.
And we continued with the approval of the communication, and we will keep building on this for the future of these regions. Because as I have always said, the eastern border regions are not only national borders, they are European borders. They are the EU's eastern frontier, and what happens there concerns all Europeans. These regions are central and strategic. For this reason, I have made it a priority to visit all these regions, not only their capitals but also the border areas.
I met not only with ministers, but also with local representatives, and those directly affected by the new security and economic situation. For this reason, more than anywhere else in Europe, there is a clear before and after 24th February 2022. I saw the challenges firsthand, and the communication was born from these experiences, built with the territories. The communication is structured around five pillars. First, security and resilience to protect, deter, and reassure.
Second, growth and regional prosperity to foster access to financing, drive innovation and technology, and support small and medium enterprises' development. Third, building on local strengths to unlock the potential of the bioeconomy, energy, environment, agriculture, and skills. Fourth, connectivity to connect people and support growth. Fifth, people and skills to support and empower local communities. Across all five areas, the guiding principle is a place-based approach and multilevel governance.
Challenges differ between regions bordering Russia and Belarus, and those bordering Ukraine. Solutions must therefore be tailored. This is already being translated into actions. We have worked with the European Investment Bank at the East Invest platform, a financial initiative that brings together major financial institutions and will boost investment in these regions. We have taken important steps forward, and we have to continue.
The second point on the agenda is the result of the midterm review of the collision policy. Just this morning, I presented these results to the College of Commissioners, and I'm pleased to share them with you today. Where did we start? To understand what we have achieved, we need to take a step back. As you remember, last year we started an important process.
Why? Because the current collision policy programs were designed several years ago. They were discussed between the member states, regions, and the Commission between 2019 and 2021. The partnership agreement was then signed in 2022. These programs represent one-third of the European budget.
However, for several reasons, their implementation only really started between 2024 and 2025, in a world that had become very different from the one in which they had been designed. Continuing to invest according to priorities set in 2019 and 02/2020 was no longer possible. The world had changed, and it continues to change. New investment needs had emerged. Member states and the regions were asking for a more responsive cohesion policy.
This was, therefore, the first step in the modernization of economic policy. What did we achieve? Through the midterm review, we amended the regulation to give member states and regions the flexibility to redirect part of their cohesion allocation towards today's priorities. The results are substantial. 186 programs have been amended.
137 of them are regional programs. The rest, national programs. €34,600,000,000 is the total amount reallocated. Let me explain where these investments are going. In our proposal, we identified five priorities.
The first priority in terms of allocated resources is competitiveness. From six G technologies to biotech, member states and regions are investing €15,200,000,000. Second, defense, €11,900,000,000, which supports dual use investments, drones, space assets, and military mobility. As you know, the potential use of EU funds for defense purposes is a sensitive issue. With the midterm review, we made it possible, but it is a choice made by governments and the regions accountable to their own citizens.
Third, affordable housing. €3,300,000,000 will support projects such as the acquisition and renovation of existing housing. Fourth, water management. €3,100,000,000 will go to infrastructure to improve the drinking water supply and water systems. And the fifth, energy infrastructure.
1,200,000,000 will support interconnectors and industrial decarbonization. These are not projections. These are not commitments on paper. This is real money that member states and regions can already use. They reflect concrete decisions taken by governments and the regions that looked at their territories and chose where to invest for the future.
The €34,000,000,000 they allocate is distributed among the member states reflecting their cohesion policy envelopes. Several countries, particularly in Northeastern Europe, dedicate significant amounts to defense and security. Let me mention the countries that made the largest reallocation. Poland leads with €8,000,000,000 reallocated in total, with a strong focus on defense. This reflects both a strategic choice and the geographic reality of being an eastern border region.
Italy allocates more than €7,000,000,000. Spain, 3.2. Portugal, 2.5. Germany and Greece, almost €2,000,000,000. As a general remark, member states allocated an average of 10% of their allocation to benefit from the incentives we created.
These examples show how coalition policy can adapt quickly to new priorities while remaining firmly anchored in territorial development. I also wanted to underline how quickly this was done. Timing is very important. In April 2024, the commission proposed the midterm review. By September 2025, the council and the parliament, that I would like to thank once again for the cooperation, had adopted the legislation through an urgent procedure.
By December 2025, member states had submitted their program admin amendments. And in the following months, the commission worked with great dedication to process hundreds of amendments allowing projects to start now. Let me underline the method. This is perhaps the most important message today from my side, dialogue. Before launching this initiative, I met ministers, regional presidents, mayors, the European Parliament, and the Committee of the Regions.
Together, we identified the five priorities, and the results speak for themselves. Three elements in the regulation made the difference. Volunteerness, member states, and regions decide how to reallocate resources reflecting their specific needs. Flexibility, additional prefinancing, higher co-financing rates, and longer eligibility periods with special attention to eastern border regions. Simplification, including Israel rules for investment in large enterprises across more regions, to boost development.
This is the first step in what we call the modernization of collision policy, a step worth 34,000,000,000 in real investment, and it is not the end. These experiences taught us something important. This is the right path for cohesion policy. The method works. The flexibility works.
Member states and regions should continue to make full use of these flexibilities to increase the impact and absorption of Croatian funds until the end of the current budget cycle. Today, I'm presenting these results to you, and we should continue to work and engage in dialogue together over the coming months. Equation policy has been delivered. It has shown that it can adapt, respond to new realities, and do so with the trust and ownership of our partners in the member states and the regions. And this brings me to my final point, progress on the new strategies.
As you know, in December, we adopted the EU agenda for cities. In the last month, as I said, we presented the communication on the eastern border regions. We are now working on three additional key strategies, one for islands, one for the outermost regions, and the strategy on the right to stay. First, the first ever EU strategy for islands will cover all EU islands, including islands of member states. This strategy recognizes the specific needs of islands and aims to create a more coordinated policy approach supporting both member states and island communities.
We are currently running a public call for evidence open until first of April. This is an important opportunity for stakeholders and citizens to share their views and experiences. Second, the new package for the outermost region is another significant first in terms of scale and scope, as it includes both the strategy and the regularity simplification package. Third, the strategy on the right is to stay. For me, this is a key element of economic policy.
I would also like to inform you that we are planning a launch event on this topic in May. I will share more details as soon as the program is confirmed. This strategy aims to make regions more attractive for investment and jobs, of course, but above all for our people, especially young people. It focuses on core elements of coalition policy, economic development, competence, infrastructure, and essential services while taking into account the specific needs of each territory and working in close partnership with all stakeholders. In conclusion, I would like to highlight again how we work.
For every stat, strategy, and initiative, decisions are not taken alone. As you have seen with the midterm review, our approach is to engage directly with you, with member states, regions, to understand the real challenges and discuss them together. Only in this way can we fully understand the needs of each region and deliver real value for our citizens and our economy. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Vice President. So let's now hear from the coordinators of the political groups. They have 3 minutes each. The first to speak will be Andrei Novakov.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Chair, dear Executive Vice President. It's always a pleasure having you here, and it's good that you have to report so many things that you started and some of them achieved. I'd like to focus my intervention today on the eastern border regions that you mentioned. I feel that the union I work for, it's full of meaning. It's meaningful when you propose the leftovers from the cohesion policy or those funds who are in danger of being decommitted to be used for something that people understand the need. The evening news on most of the European televisions is starting and ending with the wars.
Speaker 9
They're starting with the war in Iran, and they end with the war in Ukraine, and people are following this. So we need to be adequate to the situation and provide member states with solution and funds to protect themselves. This is not yet another speech to fight for more funding for a given region, especially the region that I've been elected in. But we see that yesterday, the drones have been found in the aerospace of Lithuania, Estonia, before that Poland. It happens in Zagreb.
Speaker 7
Quite often, our Romanian air fighter jets are airborne because of threats in the Romanian airspace. So it's obvious that regions who are close to Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia are quite vulnerable. Those regions are facing the consequences of the war first, so the consequences are way harder in those regions because the truck drivers are suffering from competitiveness coming from those countries who are not paying the toll taxes. The farmers are suffering from the low prices coming from those countries as well. And why is that?
They have to pay a price of a war that they didn't start. So I believe here the role of the union is to be on time, in place where needed. I believe that if you delay the help, it is not a help. So I'm glad that you're thinking in that direction, and you're proposing a solution. So I'm sure that the parliament will be a good partner in that exercise, and we will try to further develop and improve the proposal, especially the eastern border regions because I've seen with my own eyes those regions who are neighboring, in Poland with Belarus, they are suffering.
Even the cell phones are not working properly. So, the union has to be there and support those people. This is how they will believe more and more in Europe, and that Euroscepticism is not the way. Thank you so much.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Vice President. Vice president, welcome to this committee, and thank you for coming to the structured dialogue and presenting two topics that are very important to us, the border regions in Europe and also the results of the MTR for cohesion policy. I'm going to begin by addressing a positive element of this review that you just presented. The results of this medium-term review show that European regions are showing an ability for adaptation. We have new priorities, and the regions are evolving, adapting, and are reprogramming their funds.
Speaker 17
They're getting closer to the citizens, and they're adjusting their priorities responsibly. They've only had 3 months since this reprogramming was done. And we see the profound housing crisis there is, and we've had to reallocate more than €3,000,000,000 for housing. But we need more and more time because this can't be done in two months, rather two years. This is a very long-term aspect.
Speaker 11
This reallocation shows that the cohesion policy only works if the regions have a predominant role. What we're working on for the MFF has a huge risk of decentralization of these national plans that we have on the table. There haven't been huge progress, but the European Parliament is working on different fronts of multilevel governance that we want to reincorporate into a cohesion policy. The real implication for regional and local authorities. And we're doing this in a very strong way so that the ERTF continues to have an important role, not just for the most, the worst off areas, but for everyone.
And we want to have a policy that responds to all of the needs that,
that
Speaker 11
has in the way that has been doing for four decades. We need these national plans and other funds such as the competitive fund or the social fund, the European social fund rather. So allow me to finish with a very short reflection. There is a lot of discontent in Europe because of many of the things that are happening at the moment. Among them, we have the possible decentralization of funds.
The citizens can see that one of the identifiers of the European project, the cohesion policy, which brings policies closer to the people, is affecting them. They're seeing how this affects the road that brings people to visit their parents or the crash that's inside their apartment building. They're seeing these things disappear. And what the European Parliament is working on here, we have worked. We've worked on making amendments.
Speaker 10
We've tried to make the best proposal possible, but we haven't been able to achieve what other people want in the European project. So we hope with this long year of negotiation that lies ahead, we're able to create an ambitious project that puts a cohesion policy where it is meant to be.
Speaker 13
You, chairman. Honorable members, I would like to welcome our vice president of the commission.
Speaker 13
I would like to welcome the fact that the vice president has honored the pledges he made in his hearing and has attended regular hearings and dialogue with the parliament. We welcome this structured dialogue. However, we could not cover all aspects of cohesion policy, nor all the mistakes that the European Union has made in this regard. Now turning to the war. Well, I don't really want to say very much about this.
I would like to comment on rule of law conditionality and the way it is enforced in Poland and Hungary. We are not pleased with how things are being handled, but I won't go into further details or talk about more funding or various other grievances. For example, our companies are hard hit by the recent events. What I would like to focus on is the following. This is an impression that we in the Patriots have, is that there is a gap between goal set and what is implemented in practice.
Speaker 14
In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Refugees came from Ukraine, some 1,000,000 traveled via Hungary to the European Union. That year, Poland spent or Hungary spent some 200,000,000,000. And in the same period, the commission only offered some 20,000,000,000 in support to Hungary to house and accommodate these refugees. I don't believe that is proportional or fair.
Speaker 19
When it comes to the midterm review, the commission has formulated the right targets and allowed for reallocation. However, we have not seen that implemented, as promised. Now you have designed a strategy. But this strategy has not been implemented in one of Ukraine's neighboring countries. You are not taking care of us.
Speaker 16
We are a border country and should have been entitled to more security backing from Europe, and we should have had more access to funding, and that did not happen.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much. Dennis Ness. She's next. Thank you very much, chairman, and welcome, executive vice president Fittor. Well, today's debate is particularly important, particularly in light of the midterm review figures that you've explained to us.
Now I hope this will satisfy many colleagues in the room, because we've been working very hard in our committee on this proposed midterm review. We've now seen the €34,000,000,000 redirected, and it shows how important cohesion policy is as a factor for stability, as a response that the EU has to give to the major transitions and transformations that are underway. So I just wanted to express appreciation for all of the work that you're doing. The challenge before us is a very clear one. We have to use cohesion policy to reinforce our competitiveness.
But at the same time, we should not be forgetting what is the key mission of cohesion policy, and that is to reduce inequalities between territories in social and economic terms. So that's why the right to stay strategy that you mentioned is so important. You flagged that up as a crucial element for the commission as well. Ensuring that citizens have a genuine possibility to live and build their future within the territories they come from is a principle that simply does not affect social cohesion, but it's also the capacity of the EU to be competitive as a whole. You cannot have a strong Europe if territories continue to lose young people, competencies, and human capital.
Now it's very important as well that we give a concrete response to those regions affected by the talent trap. So we need to make sure that these measures aren't just an emergency correction, but rather redirecting funds should be a means to increase the resilience of territories and improve their possibility of growing in a more balanced manner. I wanted to close with two questions. First of all, on the housing crisis, how do you plan to guarantee a fair distribution of resources, ensuring that the beneficiaries are not going to simply be in the urban areas, but also in the less-developed regions? And there needs to be local services and sufficient, appropriate housing available.
What instruments do you plan to use to support the regions in transition, to ensure that these can keep their talents and competencies, and that there can also be a structural approach to reducing inequality between territories? Thank you very much. The next speaker is Elsie Katainen.
Thank.
Speaker 18
You, sir. And thank you. How the situation, the war has lasted for five years. The hybrid threats still exist. We see demolitions of sea infrastructure, and we don't see any improvements.
Many Eastern regions are suffering under problems. There are few there is migration. There are fewer educational opportunities, and there is a tendency that we can't work against. And now I'm asking you, vice president, how can we integrate the East West facility? How can we make, how can we use loans in a better way?
What better opportunities are there to access loans in comparison to the current opportunities? The world is changing rapidly, and investments in security are obviously very important, but that shouldn't mean that long term corrosion cohesion policy should be used as a wallet every time a new crisis emerges. Regions have been planning years ahead what they need, how much they need, and we can't react very quickly to it. We need flexibility. And I hope in the coming years that we can find a better approach.
You have also addressed the regional checks. Could you be a bit more clear about this? What would these be exactly? Would the regions be continuously or only sometimes checked?
Cristina Guarda
Thank you very much. Cristina Guarta is next. Thank you very much, Chairman. And it's a pleasure to see you once again, Commissioner Fito. Well, here in the committee, it's no secret that our group has some major problems with these reforms and the new flexibility measures, the introduction of new objectives, which although we share to some extent, yes, housing and water resilience are good, but I think that there's a fundamental vagueness to the whole approach.
And you can find that also in the data that's been presented today, that you shared with us. Well, the aggregate numbers say how much has been reallocated, but it doesn't say precisely where, to who, and with what actual implementation capacity. Because these are still open questions. Who has really benefited from this new flexibility? What types of projects benefited from this movement of funds?
For example, the objective on competitiveness and decarbonization, is it for large companies? Is it SMEs? Who is benefiting in that heading? What other priorities have seen funds reallocated? Are these being focused on metropolitan areas with more administrative capacity?
It's quite important for me to know this. How homogeneous or unhomogeneous is the distribution within the individual member states? These are the kind of questions that I would like to put to you. And without any political polemics or anything like that, could we have some more granular data so that we can have a better idea of the impact of this reform? Has it really got through to the people who really need it?
Speaker 21
Thank you very much. Mrs. Palmisano next. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Vice-President Vito, for your presentation. I can confirm that we welcome your efforts to enter into dialogue with us.
But I can't hide some critical viewpoints on what you've said to us in your communication today. First of all, in the Eastern regions, we need to transform cohesion, it seems, into some kind of fund for military logistics. That's the impression we're getting. Cohesion policy, instead of reducing inequality between citizens and regions, now seems to be moving in a preponderant manner to building our defense industry. This does worry us somewhat.
We're also worried about the application of the no significant harm principle with regard to the extractive aspects of defense policy. It's as if the environment is going to be just a luxury that they can't afford anymore for these regions on the eastern borders, that's to say protecting biodiversity and the water tables, the soil is going to be optional because these regions are going to be focused only on defense and strategic autonomy. So are we creating a precedent here by which cohesion policy money can fund projects that can be damaging to the environment of the Eastern border countries? And what will stop this from happening again in the future, let's just say, in the South of Italy, these funds might be used on projects that are damaging to human health or the environment? It's as if the commission is disinhibiting this move towards making these regions into sacrifice zones.
So we've seen the first concrete results. So maybe it's time for a question. Is it true that occasion policy is becoming more effective? Is that true? Is it becoming more efficient?
Okay. Maybe that is true. But what direction is this efficiency going? Let's say, where is this money being channeled to? And as we see it, the money is being channeled in the wrong direction in many cases.
The question is not flexibility in itself, but how the flexibility is used. If there are priorities that we agree about, yes, there are some. Investing in affordable housing, water resilience, and energy transition. But yes, there are also some priorities that are more troubling and even surprising. Investments in the defense industry, for example.
I mean these really raise some major question marks, because these are funds destined for cohesion. So this reprogrammed money in the review, 11,000,000,000 went into defense, but a much smaller amount for housing. So I'd like to ask you to pay special attention to ensuring that flexibility doesn't end up becoming a watering down of the key objective of cohesion, and that is supporting the weak regions. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Missus Bosdorf.
Speaker 24
Thank you for your comments. Thank you, Mister Fito, for attending our committee meeting and holding yourself to account. Many points have been made, but a number of standing points, support for rural regions, for example. I have another question about support for the border regions in the East. There is a European observatory for digital media and a new fact-finding conspiracy center.
I believe that a number of organizations such as Corrective in Germany should be flagged. They have been flagged by the AFD for false reporting, and perhaps you could briefly comment on that. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Now, vice president, you have the floor for fifteen minutes for your responses. Thank.
Speaker 5
you. I would like to start from the first point that, Andre Novakov said, but, I listen also from the different speeches about the eastern border regions. This is a very crucial point from my side. I visited these territories. I think it is very important to start from this approach because my first mission was in Finland to Lappeenranta, and I saw directly on the ground the real situation.
And I suggest to all members of this committee in general, all people that speak against the opportunity or the possibility to use the resources for defense for these territories to go, to visit these territories. Because we have in this territory an incredible situation for now, but in particular for the future.
And.
Speaker 5
I was very happy when during the organization of the event to present in the Belmont, the strategies for the eastern border regions, where present four prime ministers, the president of the European Commission, nine ministers, but were presented for me was a great pleasure, hundreds representatives of the territories. Because this strategy was a very positive exercise to involve all interlocutors and all stakeholders of the territories and the local authorities. And I believe that is a very crucial point because, as I said also during my introduction speech, and I would like also to underline this, this is not the border of one member state. It's not the Finnish, Lithuanian, Estonian, or Polish border. This is the border of Europe, and the message has to be very clear from my side.
And these strategies, I think that now it is very important for the political message. It is very important for the instrument. The investment platform is the first step. We created the condition also to involve all financial institutions of each member state, of the nine member states, the EIB. And now we have to improve to involve this instrument because it's the first instrument in this direction.
We have also for the next pro for the proposal of the next MFF, for example, for the Internet programs, 1,000,000,000 more. This is another important message for these territories. But I share with you that it's very important to give the message, also to invest the resources in these territories, because it is fundamental also for the future of these areas. And, I believe that it is crucial also to support these strategies together in the European Parliament, in the committee of regions, with the member states, and we have to continue to understand how it's possible to create the right condition to invest in these areas. And it is important also from my side for the method that we used also in this case because we involved, as I said, stakeholders, the territories, but I visited all other territories because I went to other regions that are to the border with Belarus, with Ukraine.
And we organized also a very important conference in Poland during the Polish presidency to decide some issues involving the members of the European Parliament, but also the members of the Committee of Regions, the nine ministers. It was a very intensive, positive, constructive work. Now it is important to implement this. Yes. It I know, and I fully agree with you, but this is the first step. If you come back, we can say that several months ago, we didn't have any possibilities and any vision about these territories, but this is a good first message.
Second point, the role of the regions and the priorities of the mid-term review. I fully agree with you. In my mission, I'm concluding in the next months the visit to all 27 member states. I met always the president of regions, representative of the local authorities, the mayors, together with the representative of the national government. For me, it is fundamental, this approach.
And I believe that we have in the regulation several articles that design very clearly the role of the regions. For example, we keep in the regulation the three categories of regions. This is one important point. The other point is the principle of cohesion, because in the regulation, we have this. We have the preallocation for less-developed regions.
Some of you said also that it is necessary also for the other regions, the other categories. It will see also during the dialogue, the discussion in the parliament and the council about this. And I believe that housing is one of the most important priorities. Probably, it's an emergency, not a priority. But this first message, I believe that is important because we have more than 3 billion euros, and it is the first message now for housing, but not only for housing.
In general, for the approach for the programs, I think that it would be fundamental to continue in the process and also to continue in the opportunity to adapt the progress to the new priorities. I think that this process, this midterm review was a success because, yes, we incentivize this midterm review with prefinancing, with incentives. It was an important action in this direction. But we can continue to work also without incentives, but to redirect the funds inside the programs as the member states, the regions decided. And this is the other very important point about the possibilities to redirect the funds on a voluntary basis.
This is another important concept. We discussed in the in this committee and also in general and the debate in the parliament that the risk was to move the resources from cohesion to defend with an imposition. But the proposal of the midterm review was clear because we gave the possibilities voluntarily on a voluntary basis, the member states and the regions to decide directly if they want or not to move the resources in one, two, or all priorities. This is the free decision, and I think that is a very positive, a good method for our work. The other points that I would like to underline is the point that some colleagues mentioned about their right to stay.
And I speak in Italian to answer to Nessi, Guarda, and Palmisano.
I think it's very important to take a number of different aspects in mind. The aspects of the right to stay are very important. That's the way I see it. In May, in parliament, we'll be organizing an important event to launch the public consultation. Well, why is that?
This strategy is fundamental. When it comes to involving all of the necessary stakeholders, it's important for us to be present in the territories so that we can look at how we can get people on board, particularly regional politicians, so that we can put together a strategy that is correct and functional. The right to state strategy, along with the other strategies we're working on, is a strategy which has a very clear objective. These should be operative instruments for the future national and regional partnership plans. That's very important to me. The second question I wanted to respond to for Missus Guardi is about the subjects linked to direct knowledge of the projects being financed.
Well, if you look at the site of DG Regio, you can see exactly how many resources have been reprogrammed within each programme. That's public national plans and regional plans. You see which priorities they've been moved to, and how. Now I can check if it's possible to provide more detailed information than that, but that brings us back to another important subject. This is not things that we have decided upon, to take resources from one place and to put them elsewhere.
This was a decision by the regions and the national governments, and it's a very important decision because it responds to new needs that people in the regions feel. Also, when we're talking about defense, I used to be a member.
of this.
Speaker 5
committee. I know that the commission organizes, sorry. The committee organizes missions. I don't want to launch any kind of polemics here, but in a very constructive way, just want to say, wouldn't it be important to have a mission to visit the eastern border regions? I have done this myself, and I suggest to you that you should do it too.
We're not talking about defense in the traditional sense. When you visit these places, you can understand how important it is to use the cohesion policy in these regions. Now we do also have a defense and security problem, but the main problem is cohesion and keeping these regions vigorous and dynamic. Loss of population is a big issue. This is where we come back to the right to stay.
Cohesion policy has to play a role that is significant in these territories. And, yes, some of those resources can go towards defense, but this could be dual use resources with both civil and military purposes. We're talking about infrastructure, industries. And if we want to support these regions, if we want to give them a sense of autonomy and a capacity to take decisions about their own future, then I think this really is the right instrument. They are the ones who are deciding to move these resources.
It's not us who decided to take resources from Poland or Estonia or Lithuania or Finland and move them to some projects with an impact on defense. No. It's national and regional governments who have asked us to be able to move these resources so that they can intervene in this manner. And I hope that this will be a message for future investments from the European Commission. The midterm review of cohesion policy sends out a clear signal.
We have taken this opportunity, which is on a voluntary basis. We have set some key priorities, and I think this improves the way resources are used. Nine member states are in this position. We're not just talking about some kind of marginal zone. We're talking about a major set of countries.
And I am absolutely convinced that we want to support these countries and regions in order to assert the values that we represent. And to do that, we need to be serious. We need to create the necessary conditions so that defense is not some kind of taboo or a negative term or immediately linked to warfare, but defense is a key subject, because if we are to set up a defense system that guarantees our security, then we're in a position to create a stronger Europe that has its own strategic autonomy and is in a position to respond to the world situation. So these resources are being used correctly in terms of the method, but also in terms of the effectiveness of the investment that I hope will be made in these different directions. Thank you very much, executive vice president.
Speaker 1
We'll continue our work. We'll now ask the other members to be very pithy and brief. They'll have 2 minutes for each comment. Mister Chiswell will be next.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much. I will be speaking Polish. To start with, I would like to thank you, Commissioner. Thank you for your words. You know what you're talking about.
Before starting to construct the strategy, you have done an enormous job, an enormous amount of work. You were there where it matters. You have visited Poland, Finland, and the border regions. So to all of you who want to define our life in the Eastern part of Europe, in Poland, for instance, I would like to encourage all of you to come and see it with your own eyes. See how we're living.
Drones, balloons, airports that are being closed. The GPS signal is scrambled quite recently in Lublin, where I hailed from the airport, got closed. It happens frequently. And now if we are to defend a strong Europe in those regions and territories, we need to be strong. We must not be weak.
Speaker 26
If investment has been halted and investors are flowing away, are fleeing this part, and the unemployment rates are soaring high above the national average. If we are facing hybrid threats and attacks day in, day out, including the danger of electricity being cut off in those border regions, how are we to compete? How are we to live? We not only want to defend Europe, we also want to develop. We want to live.
And more than ever before, we do need this solidarity. Commissioner, here's my first question. What exactly is the level of grants, not loans, but grants, for the Eastern Flank regions in the next long-term, multi-annual financial frameworks? Second, do member states that border Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, will they receive an increase of their national envelopes dedicated to those regions, taking into account the constant threat and constant burden that they have to shoulder every day? Thank you very much, and I would like to invite all of you, dear colleagues, to visit us there.
Thank.
Speaker 29
you. Thank you to the previous speaker. I had the pleasure to go on mission to her region, to be there on the ground and to be able to speak to people. It was very valuable. I was able to see what affects the people on the ground.
Speaker 28
So I really recommend traveling to places, speak to the people. It allows us to do our politics even better. I'm very happy about the concentration in the Eastern regions. They have a lot of challenges. This has to do with the developments, but also with the economic infrastructure, fewer tours, less tourism.
And this is what we've always called for in cohesion policy. We want a proactive cohesion policy reacting when we shouldn't react, when these people have this challenge. We should do it when they're coming into these problems. And that's why I'm really happy with the proposal to focus on investing, especially investing in infrastructure. We often have the debate about defense.
We talk about weapons, but we don't talk about using coercion, cohesion policy to create a feeling of staying together in these regions. And I find this very important, and that's why I think we should place the focus on this. I have a lot of, I know I'm well known for criticizing the midterm review a lot. After we've noticed that some things could have run better, this has to do with looking forward to the future. These reviews shouldn't be a quick procedure.
We should try to include the parliament in the discussions better. This brings the topic back to the long-term goals of Cohesion policy. They're playing out with short term roles, short term goals rather. With the debates for the next MFF are very intense, but we need to make sure that we have clear priorities. This shouldn't be brought into question in the MTR, and this is why we need a balance. Regions have been reprioritized.
Speaker 30
We need to make sure that we don't lose their long-term goals. We talk about regional checks. How possible is it for them to continue with their long-term goals when they've been reprioritized? What does the commission think? Is this?
Elena Nevado del Campo
Thank you. First and foremost, I would like to address the commissioner. You said at the start that it is a pleasure to join you this evening. Will allow me to reciprocate it. It's a pleasure to see you speak to us, share information with us, and sound out our views.
That is a real pleasure. Thank you for the update provided on the eastern border. It is very important to note that this is a European border affecting not just those member states that border Russia, Ukraine, and other countries. So your explanations are very important. I went on a mission to these countries affected by the conflict, and I would like to put a couple of questions to you.
The midterm review has been positive. I think it demonstrates that we can reprioritize the various programs. Now, what about the future? What about those areas? Well, there will not be any operative programs.
What role will the regions play when it comes to future reviews and reallocations under the new MFF? Looking at the current regulation and the common positions, we see references to the ESF or the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition. All these programs help to achieve the goal of investment in jobs and growth in the member states in various regions. That goal may disappear under the new proposal, the new MFF. So my question to you is, what is the commission thinking on that target when it comes to NRPPs?
We've heard a lot about new strategies. I hope that you will visit Spain to familiarize yourself with the various islands and less-developed regions such as Bayonne and Extremadura. What role will rural communities play in this new strategy? Thank you, commissioner.
Missus Bardema. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 33
Very much, chair. Commissioner, welcome back. One year ago, we were here presenting the proposals for the midterm review. Well, there are concerns, perplexity, as well as some enthusiasm. When we look towards a seven-year budget that was planned before the pandemic, before COVID, before economic crisis, before major conflicts broke out, you came before us, and you presented this idea and a vision for a midterm review.
Speaker 35
Now I think that the issues you raised have become even more pressing. About €25,000,000,000 is being reprogrammed. Pretty much all member states have the right to do that. And Italy is reprogramming more than €7,000,000,000. So we'd like to thank you for this farsighted approach, but also for the method that you've chosen. It gives us more flexibility.
Speaker 34
It takes on board involvement from the regions. You've visited a lot of the regions concerned. So I think that experience of having been on the ground and seen this firsthand has given you a real idea of how this reworking of cohesion policy can function. In some of the statements that we've heard from colleagues, they've brought up the slowness, but this is a huge bureaucratic machine. And in the medium-term review, we've gone from a proposal to actuation within a year.
So that should put the member states in a position to do their bit of the job. So actually, I think we should be quite pleased with the speed of this whole process. So that brings me to my question. This is an experience that has shown that it's possible to act rapidly, that we don't have to be slow like elephants. This could be actually a basis for the way we approach things after 2027.
Speaker 36
Of course, in our various committees, we're keeping a close eye on the need to bring European policies closer to our citizens. Malorie. Thank you. Next speaker is Miss Malorie.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, Executive Vice President Fischer. Welcome, this publication of the findings of the midterm review from the commission, particularly in relation to Ireland. As vice chairman of the housing committee, I am encouraged to see that Ireland has indeed reallocated over three quarters of its available flexibility, 47,000,000 out of the 61,000,000, towards housing. That reflects the scale and urgency of the housing challenge on the ground. But you know, commissioner, this really is a huge crisis.
Let me put it in plain figures for you. 61,000,000 in Ireland at the moment will buy you 120 houses at the current price. It's a crisis. And with events in the Middle East, commissioner, the costs are becoming even more significant, and we need to give further focus to that, so reallocate more. I suppose it is a clear example, nevertheless, of cohesion policy responding to real societal needs.
So I do welcome it. However, I'd appreciate further clarity on how you went about the reallocation. It's not clear from the breakdown you haven't given today what proportion was allocated actually from ERDF, from ESF Plus, or indeed from just transition. We need to know from our perspective and how we need to understand the balance in this committee, just for transparency, not just for transparency, but to assess the trade-offs being made across priorities in our countries. Regrettably, the flexibility stopped in our member state because EU just transitioned was funded by EU next generation funding, which could not be reallocated under the rules of the program.
So I was regret, I certainly regret that. But I turn to my colleague in asking you what's what will happen next to EU Just Transition and the next MFF? Where is it to go? It is the policy of this committee that there should be a new one, yet we hear from council and it's not in the MFF. Is it in the EDF?
Where do you see it, commissioner? Where are we going to look after people in transition? Because they have lost their jobs in the Polish coal mines and in the peatlands of the Irish Midlands, and they want to know where is the best going forward. To conclude, I'd like to compliment you on the consultation on the islands and the coastal regions. I think it is an excellent initiative, and I will be part of the consultation process.
And indeed, you are good for your word. I look forward to seeing you in Ireland next month as your last visit to the member states. We look forward to that. And even better news for you, in May, I will go as part of a mission from this committee to Slovakia. We are going to the region.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, mister Buddha.
Chair,
Daniel Buda
Vice president, we are happy to see you here. Your communication is paramount to us. Indeed, countries in Eastern Europe are facing realities that are hard to describe in words. With my colleague, I went to Poland on a mission because we were invited by Miss Martha. And the president of the region had to leave the meeting because one drone entered the airspace of Poland.
In Romania, every few hours, our jets are flying over the areas to protect them. Yesterday, one inter electricity interconnector was disrupted. So realities are harsh, to say the least. I'm watching what is happening on the online platforms. And, of course, we want proper management of these issues across these regions.
The main problem, vice president, refers to the absorption rate of the European funds. I talked yesterday with some businessmen in Romania, and they looked at me directly. And they said, we voted for you because we know you send European money to member states and to Romania, but the red tape for this European fund is huge. The steps are very complicated. So please make sure, vice president, that these red tape obstacles are scrapped because many times the commission's communications are a bit vague, and this is a huge obstacle in terms of absorption rates.
And one more thing, commissioner, it is very important to create jobs, to develop companies that create well-paid jobs. We are talking about the right to stay, Vice President. Yes. People will stay if they have a well-paying job. If not, they will be forced to leave to the other areas.
Yes. We are developing road infrastructures. We are developing all sorts of facilities using a collision money. But if the jobs are not well paid, people will leave, and investments will simply go down the drain.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you, and thank you commissioner for presenting results of the midterm review, and thanks to all the people working in Reggie who prepared this first analysis of the results. The graphic is online, and it's really interesting to see only the first view what I've checked how actually the Western states invested more in competitive competitiveness, and the Eastern States invested more into the defense with some exemptions. Romania invested in, so Ireland in housing, but still we see divided Europe. So it's really interesting to look at it, but we will study more deep. But I will go further on the question of my colleague, Christina.
And you said there's deeper data available. I still don't see them. So if you dive deep in defense spending, I still don't see the projects there. I know for my country, Croatia, the projects which have been financed are those dual use projects mostly in the transport area. And when I look at those projects, they are dual-use projects, but actually, they are classical cohesion projects.
Like, the money could be taken from the good old cohesion fund, and now we are saying it's a defense project. So my question is, are we cheating each other? I mean, I'm not against it. I think there are good projects, but they are mostly transferred into transport. So my question to do, maybe in other countries, what was the priority?
Were also the double use, dual use was also connected to the transport or something else? And since you are here, my second question is what I'm listening to lately, there is a growing—I will not say anger, but disappointment—is happening in the 27 EU capitals, but not in the offices of the prime ministers, but in the offices of the mayors of 27 capitals who are still unsatisfied with the way how they are treated in the consultations around a new MFF because they are still scared that, you know, partnership principle is not strong enough. As you also now mentioned, it is they want to see stronger, stronger involvement in cities and regions. So can you comment, are you going to be open to re-release in 27 capitals, but also the other towns and cities in Europe? Thank you.
Thank.
Thank you very much, mister Catero.
Speaker 46
Thank you, chair. Executive vice president Fito, it's always a pleasure having you here, especially for your consistence of your policies and the vision you are presenting. I'm not surprised by the results and the data you presented to us from the midterm review, and it's thanks to the flexibility. Of course, this is the first analysis you are making. I'm sure there will be a second and third, especially member states who analyze that as well.
Speaker 45
But in this fast changing world, commissioner, vice president, the world was different when we were hearing you. The world was different when you were presenting the midterm review last year, and it's different now. It's a fast changing world. So I don't have a particular question, to be honest. I just wanted to compliment you on the work you are doing and the initiative for the Eastern European countries that the commission is presenting, that you are presenting to us.
Speaker 46
It's really good. I really like the right to stay initiative. I think it gives a really good and excellent idea and opportunity for rural areas, for less developed areas, especially mountainous areas. And, of course, as our colleague said, the different types of investment for the Western European and Eastern European countries will be different, but this is logical because we have different kind of challenges. Right?
Speaker 45
So I'd like to recommend the commissioner to keep a close eye on the Eastern European countries and the opportunities that we will have from now on, especially with this fast-changing world. So thank you very much.
Speaker 47
Thank you very much, chair, commissioner. Thank you very much for you being here and listening to what we are telling you. And I'm happy to hear that you have noticed that the situation in the regions bordering on Belarus and Russia and Ukraine is really special, and this has also found its expression in the regulation on the midterm review. And we are seeing tangible results because the regions are really launching their new investment projects following that. I would also like to thank you for this communication concerning the eastern border regions.
Speaker 51
This communication is a diagnosis, and it contains also elements of strategy, strategic thinking about the next few years. And I also hope that we will jointly work on taking the next step, as the strategic assumptions are being expressed in specific solutions that would be included in legislative texts. Because, certainly, strategy alone will not yield specific results per se. We are expecting specific solutions. We are also expecting additional funding.
Speaker 47
And that is we would like to see a modified allocation system, which would ensure that we do get these funds. When you need new mechanisms, one of the mechanisms that you have touched upon is East Invest. But let me tell you that businesses that are going bankrupt on the eastern flank of the European Union need grants rather than loans, because at the moment, they could not really use these loans and credits. That would not be available to them anyway, given their situation right now. So it might be a good solution for other companies and bigger companies that might think about investing in this region, but it will not help SMEs that are already located there and that are facing difficulty.
We also need to have the possibility of investing into these areas, which at the moment are not eligible. Some of such changes have already been included in this strategy, and we are hoping for more specific and more detailed ventures as we go ahead. To put it briefly, these regions in Europe's eastern flank are expecting to see some preferential treatment, in fact. And we need to really work hard on making this come true. I would like to thank you very much for your involvement, and I'm counting on you for the future.
Thank you very much, Mr. Hepman.
Thank.
Speaker 50
thank you very much, chair. Thank you, commissioner. Let me also join all those who have expressed their gratitude for you being our guest tonight. And as you can hear, you should be our guest more frequently. You are needed here.
We need you to explain to my colleagues and friends, to tell them that the cohesion policy is not financing tanks and amphibia and other vehicles and armor, but it is about strengthening resilience, environmental, water-related, energy-related resilience. I would like to congratulate you on this very good midterm review, and on the definition of priorities. These priorities are very important, and they can be used to reprogram our activities. In Poland, we do not have such an issue, and we are not going to reprogram much because a large majority of funds from the Cohesion Fund have already been allocated. And this underscores the fact that we are very efficient in using these funds in Poland, contrary to what you might hear.
But as regards the Eastern regions, then both of us, you and me, we know that what's at stake is a new budgetary perspective. And if we were to have the outcome whereby the envelopes allocated to the countries located along the Eastern flank, if these member states were allowed to reallocate the funds to those objectives or those regions which have problems, well, this solution, in my view, would not really be a just one. It would not be equitable because this would not generate value added for these regions, first of all, but also for all the member states. So if we really want to treat these regions seriously, and I would like to thank you for that because it is indeed your personal success because I believe that you are the only person in the European Commission who has really noticed the problem faced by Eastern regions. So if we want to have specific help to those regions, we need you to put these regions into other instruments proposed by the European Commission.
European Competitiveness Fund, the Horizon Program, Connecting Europe. These are funds that go into hundreds of billions euro, and they lay they are outside of the national envelopes. And if indeed we want to give priority treatment to the eastern regions, well, I would like to invite you, commissioner, to help us because this is what we're doing here. But we want you, we would like you to help us to put this package into those packages of special treatment for these regions, into those other instruments proposed by the European Commission. And once again, let me tell you that the map of the intensity of Regional Aid, if we change it, if we modify it, will reduce to a large extent the risk related to all investment in eastern regions.
Certainly, it must can only be done on the initiative of the member states. But I believe that you have already given the signal to member states and to Poland that you would be favorable to such an approach, and that we can change this map. I believe that we can do this even before the new financial framework. Thank you.
Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza
Distinguished master Fito, I would also like to welcome the fact that you are a man of your word, and that you stand by us. You're always available to us. This is very important for us. I would also like to underline that I truly appreciate the fact that you are very much concerned with the situation in countries in Central and Eastern Europe. This is very important to me.
Now this midterm review of the cohesion policy tells us one thing for sure, that Europe needs to be ready, and we should consider security pressure on the eastern border. It is welcome, the fact that we can reallocate cohesion funds to security, resilience, and military mobility. But a question arises. What is the cost? How will the commission make sure that this reallocation will not deepen discrepancies between regions?
How will we protect countries like Romania, which have to deal simultaneously with security and reducing the gaps between its regions, so that we can continue to invest in people's well-being and welfare? How can we make sure that long-term investments in infrastructure, in education, in public services will not be sacrificed in order to meet every emergency? We are still faced with a continuous issue, red tape. This is an issue especially for countries with a lower administrative capacity, and it's jeopardizing EU funding absorption as such. So I'd like to ask you, how do you intend to simplify access to cohesion funds and to cut red tape, because this leads to delays in real investments?
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. Thank.
Thank you very much, executive vice president, for being with us. It's very important to have you with us. And you have done this on a number of occasions. So I'd like to thank you for being with us, being so committed, and for everything that you've done to defend cohesion policy in the regions. I'm maybe one of the members who comes from the furthest away from the eastern borders.
But nevertheless, I do think it is very important that we should be investing in these regions. These are the borders of the EU. They are essential to European defense. Security and defense in Europe requires investments. We should not leave these regions as a kind of vacuum, where external forces can exert influence.
I think we all know who’s been spoken about. So defending Europe means defending cohesion. And we also need to work on the Western side of Europe as much as we do on the Eastern side. I think it was a good idea to have a midterm review of the cohesion policy. We support that here in the European Parliament because we know that European cohesion policies have to react to new demands, new events, and there needs to be flexibility in the implementation.
I know this was a challenge for the administrations. It was a challenge for the member states that already had a high execution rate, but may have had problems in reassigning the money. But nevertheless, this is the right approach. Security and defense, housing, water resilience, energy, these are key priorities for the European project. Now executive vice presidents, I wanted to flag one important aspect, which is the strategy for the outermost regions.
We have high expectations of this. I know that you're a good friend of all regions, including the outermost regions, but the right to stay is important here, too. This is the fundamental essence of cohesion policy. People need to be able to stay in the regions where they live. So that's why it's key.
In Portugal, unfortunately, we've had a terrible series of storms that have hit the country. And it meant that a lot of the new generation projects were delayed by this. We need to make sure that we do not lose these funds.
Gregor Walsh.
Speaker 53
Thank you very much, executive vice president, and I'm gonna try to thank you for your time. I'm gonna try and keep this short, given you've been sitting here and staff have been sitting here for quite a while. I say what I'm about to say with not cynicism, but realism. And in terms of trade, global economy, human behavior, money makes the world go round. And we've seen somewhat of this in the redistribution and the redirection of funding, particularly by the six EU member states.
And given the reduction and restructure of the funding scheme you are responsible for, my question is what comes next. How do you foresee regions delivering with less money? In particular, how do we, as policymakers, reassure the EU taxpayer despite the new financial architecture to deliver in preparedness? As my colleague previously shared, I come from Ireland, deemed in many rooms now the weakest flank in our EU when.
It looks.
Speaker 53
to defense and security. And as a former reserve member, I certainly want to see that change when we look at preparedness and security. But even in energy and climate protection and social enterprise, in rural and regional development, in female entrepreneurship, which I've spoken at length to females on the ground who are trying to scale and grow in the outermost regions of our EU. And I fear what will happen in 2030 or 2031 in the next midterm review of the next MFF, we will see a growth in volunteer led organizations to deliver on this quality of care when we as policymakers, in my view, should be delivering this in a sustainable way. And I share all of that and these questions in an eagerness to work with you and your team and not against you, but I would love to be able to deliver these answers to our citizens.
Thank you.
Speaker 56
Thank you, commissioner. I'd like to thank you for being here today. And not just for that, when we talk about the eastern borders, then we also should also think about Greece and Cyprus. For many years, we've suffered breaches of our airspace with drones, but there's also been an instrumentalization with flows of migration. We also are very close to the Middle East, which is the eastern flank of the EU.
Speaker 55
But we need to ensure that the law is kept upright in these countries. And that's why we should not just look at the countries that border Ukraine, but other border countries such as Portugal and Greece. Well,
Speaker 54
Thank you very much. Well, after this round of speakers, I'll give the floor to Executive Vice President Vito for conclusions. Yes. Thank you very much. I'll be speaking Italian.
Speaker 5
I wanted to make a few brief comments. A lot of the comments in the second round spoke about the eastern border regions. On that subject, I wanted to repeat some key factors. For the first time, in the midterm review, we have created the concept of Eastern border regions. That is not to be taken for granted.
Secondly, as part of the strategy, we made a number of important choices. First of all, we've got a revision for the border regions. And I also wanted to stress that the East Invest platform is just the start. We know that we are going to need grants and not just financing instruments, but it is a starting point. Just turning back the clock, if you a month or a couple of months ago, we had absolutely nothing on all of these subjects.
There was no strategy, no financial instruments, no idea as to how to intervene. Everything that you've said, I agree with. Now we need to implement this work. We need to improve it. We need to try and put together some solutions that can provide the necessary answers.
From a lot of comments I've heard, I've noted that using the other funds on the EU balance sheet is important as well. We need to look at the balance sheet and its various facets. The competitiveness fund is an important one. We need to take an interest in it, so we can seize the opportunities it provides. That's the logic behind quite a number of different choices we've made.
Hopefully, this can push the regions towards growth. Yes. Defense, well, I'm happy to talk about it. I think defense is decisive for the future of Europe in all the member states. I have no problems stressing that.
With the midterm review, we're not creating a problem for cohesion. Investment in defense, even planned investment for defense, increases security in our regions. It puts the regions in a better position for growth and cohesion. If we want to build Europe that is strategically autonomous, defense is key to allow us to have strategic autonomy and to adapt cohesion policy to the priorities that we're setting at the central level. Now, Botanac, mister Botanac, he's asked for the numbers for the requests that we've received and approved.
Let's say, member states and regions use the incentives that are provided on the basis of the priorities have presented their initiatives, redirecting resources to those five priorities. Some member states have gone more for defense. Others have gone for other issues such as housing or water, or others again. So this is the first exercise. We can give you the general numbers.
We can give you the numbers for each member state. We can give you the numbers for each member state and regional program by priority. And I'm very much prepared to go into the details of the project. That's what you're asking for, I think. Where would the resources move from and to?
That's the idea of the review, to take resources from some old project or some general financing lines that were suspended or frozen, and move them onto projects that are more up to date, more needed. So this work is very important. The role of municipal authorities is important. I mean, it's the first time that the commission has adopted an agenda for cities. Cities have major challenges to face, and now we need to work on implementing this agenda.
I'm not only meeting mayors from major national capitals on every mission that I go on. I talk to the associations that represent the cities in the member states. That's very important work. So, yes, we've adopted an agenda for the cities. We've adopted a strategy for the border regions.
In May, we'll be adopting a strategy for the outermost regions. In June, at the end of the Cyprus presidency, we'll be adopting an Irish strategy. Mister Mululi rightly reminded me about Ireland. I'm visiting the governments of three states which are Ireland, Cyprus, Malta, so that I can get an idea of their issues and how to better target these measures. There are large islands, smaller islands.
Missus Nevada del Campo also raised this. In Spain, there are different needs out there, but the strategy for islands and the strategy for the right to stay, I mean, there's five instruments that we're putting on the table, first of all. We're saying to member states and regions, have a look at these. The commission adopts them, and then shares them. But then they need to define how that's going to work with the national and regional partnership plans.
If you look at the work that's been done on the strategy that's currently being implemented, I mean, a lot of you talked about the right to stay for the first time. We'll be launching a public consultation with an event, and we want to open the debate on that strategy. We want to have broad participation. We want to have involvement from all territories. All of you represent a country, and inside that country, there are diverse territories with very different needs.
We need to put together solutions which are valid for all, but which go into the specifics of each individual project, each individual territorial situation. Another important factor is linked to the subject of defense and dual use. I mentioned that earlier. When it comes to civil protection and preparedness, there's a need for infrastructure investments, which are between civil use and military use. For example, if you've got a road in a border region or in a country that's important for connections to borders, well, that infrastructure has potential value for defense.
But at the same time, it also provides other benefits as well. So I think it's positive, and it's worth bearing in mind. Missus Rep. Ah, there you are at the back. You moved.
Missus Rep, I wanted to say the following to you. I was very pleased to hear your request and criticisms. I'm convinced there's always something positive that you can take on board from any criticism. You can learn and build upon it. It's important that we have this debate.
But what I wanted to say to you is that the midterm review for the first time has been an important exercise. The time frame for implementing it has been a really excellent example. And I'd really like to thank the parliament for this, even the people who voted against the fast track. I mean, otherwise, we wouldn't be here talking about the review. Now there is more that we will have to decide together.
Having been sat on that side with you for many years, I know that it's not just a question of formal dialogue, where the commissioner comes along and tells you a few things and then goes away again. So I think it's important that we hear the diversity of opinions, but still manage to build something together. These are measures that we've decided on together. We decided on the priorities for the midterm review. I think it was a very positive methodology.
On housing, missus Mull Mister Mululli and other colleagues raised the issue. And, yeah, it's actually an emergency. I've been in contact with Mrs. Ternali and the special committee on housing. We've been working on the numbers.
Is that enough? Well, of course it isn't. If we add up the cohesion resources that were already planned for housing plus some of the measures from the recovery and resilience plans plus cohesion, well, I mean, it's not enough. However, these have been implemented, and we are putting ourselves in a situation to send out the message that this is a key issue. It's a central issue, and it will feed into the next MFF.
So a lot of you brought up different aspects of this issue. I'm not going to go back to the figures. We still need to get a bit more data. We haven't got definitive figures for the first step. But when we do get those figures, then we can go into the substance.
The governance of the future, the national and regional partnership programmes, is going to be key, and it's going to be very different in each case. We've got member states where regions have a different role compared to other member states. There are member states where regions only have an administrative level. Others where regions are responsible for cohesion policy programs that are worth billions of euros. So there are totally different situations out there.
We need to work together to make sure that we can adapt governance to this situation. Second factor, I think that was Mrs. Banner on how this experience can be used in the future. Well, this really is just a first step. I don't know if you can remember the kind of things that were said in my commissioner's hearing. I wanted to remind you of something very important.
I've always said that cohesion policy is not something that just has to be defended for its own sake. It needs to be defended intelligently, building up a capacity to modernize cohesion policy, to adapt it to the new needs that we find ourselves faced with. That is the challenge for anyone who works with cohesion policy. Well, if these strategies and the midterm review and the work that we're doing are going to be successful, then we're putting ourselves in a position to find positive, constructive answers. I think all of the work that we're doing on the islands, the outermost regions, I think that these are all important in terms of cohesion, but also politically.
We need to ensure that there is participation only in the final stage or after adoption. No, we need participation before. This is also what we did with the midterm review. That's my attitude and approach. That's always the way I like to work.
I would be really happy if at the commission we adopt strategies that already contain your contributions. Because if inside the strategy, your contribution is already present, then we have already taken on board different sensibilities from the Parliament, the Committee of the Region, the European Commission, from the member states, and from the stakeholders. That's the method that I like to pursue, and I'll conclude by saying that the most important thing in the midterm review is actually the method. And I wanted to conclude on that. The method can reinforce our work.
The method can be the decisive element in giving strength to our strategies, helping us to resolve the problems and debates that we have ahead of us. Some of you mentioned the word simplification. Yes. Great. I mentioned this earlier, but now we've got 14 funds and more than 500 programs.
So, I mean, the word simplification is worth mentioning. We can't continue with this situation. What we need to do is try and understand how governance of future plans could be an opportunity to build solutions that can provide the necessary guarantees for the regions, for the cities, to ensure that the funds are consistent with the needs of each territory. And we also need to do this in the spirit of debate on the future budget and the future priorities. Because there is a position that's strongly against engaging in public debt, but also against own resources.
There's a request for increasing resources for agriculture and for cohesion of other funds. Now these are all fair positions individually, but if you take them all together, it's very different to put together a future budget. So we need to understand what our ambitions are and what our needs are. We are moving towards this kind of modernization of the cohesion policy. It's been a real pleasure for me to hear your contributions to the debate.
Now we've got debates planned at least twice a year, but I've said again and again, I'm very open to requests from parliament. Whenever the committee thinks it's a timely moment, I am available to be present here to discuss the issues with you. I'm happy to do it informally with the coordinators. I'm happy to do it directly to the whole committee. It really is a pleasure to come back to this committee.
It's a pleasure, but it's also very useful. It's useful for me to listen to your criticisms, to your suggestions, and to the things that you appreciate. So I think that working in that spirit, we can move in the right direction. Thank you very much for your contributions. Thank you very much, Executive Vice President, for all of the very useful information that you've provided.
Speaker 1
We've taken good note of your availability to continue our intense debate among ourselves. And I'd like to thank all of the colleagues who have spoken. I can tell you the next meeting of the committee is on 04/14/2026. And I'd just like to thank all of you for having taken part, and the chairman kindly thanks the interpreters. Have a nice evening, everyone.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.